DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 4, 7-11, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivetz (US 3,964,175).
Regarding claim 1, Sivetz teaches a method of roasting coffee beans comprising a roasting step of heating said coffee beans such that the temperature of said beans rises linearly from about 100oF to about 400oF (about 37.8-204oC) in 12 minutes, which corresponds to a rate of about 13.85oC/minute (figure 9; column 10 lines 22-28). The heating step would have necessarily passed through the claimed range of 80-170oC. The coffee beans fed to the roaster are green coffee beans (column 7 lines 61-63), and the roasted beans can be ground (column 10 lines 20-21). One of ordinary skill in the art would have thus understood that the coffee beans being roasted are whole coffee beans as is well-known and commonly practiced in the art.
Sivetz does not teach a rate of between 8-13.5oC/minute.
However, the reference further teaches the roasting time and final bean temperature can be varied based on the desired roast level (column 7 lines 13-14; column 8 lines 12-17), where the roasting parameters are controlled to obtain desired flavor characteristics of the final product (column 10 lines 47-62). Further, the operation conditions and optimum roasting period can be determined based on the type of coffee beans (column 4 lines 5-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sivetz to raise the temperature at the claimed rate values since the reference recognizes roasting parameters such as time and temperature can be varied, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed ranges, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as type of final product and desired flavor, aroma, mouthfeel, and color as is known in the art.
Sivetz does not teach the moisture content of the coffee beans is reduced to no more than 5 wt% during heating from 80-170oC,
However, the reference teaches the moisture content in the unroasted bean is reduced to about 1 wt% during heating (column 9 lines 47-51), and generally from about 12% to about 1% in the dryer stage (column 4 lines 60-61). The drying and roasting cycle can be performed for 15-20 minutes depending on the type of beans and desired roast level (column 4 lines 34-36). During the initial stage of heating, the coffee beans are dried, not roasted, where roasting itself does not start until about 400oF (column 10 lines 28-32). Further, it is well-known that heating parameters such as temperature and duration, as well as other factors such as convection and agitation, affect the rate of moisture removal from a substance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sivetz to reduce the moisture content to the claimed amount when heating from 80-170oC since the reference teaches moisture reduction throughout the first stage of heating prior to actual roasting, since a reduction of moisture to 1 wt% would have necessarily passed through 5 wt%, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as type of coffee bean, desired roast level, temperature and duration of heating, flavor, aroma, mouthfeel, and color as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Sivetz teaches a rate of 13.85oC/minute as stated for claim 1, but does not teach the claimed range up to 12oC/minute.
However, the rate would have been obvious for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, the process comprises reducing the moisture content in the unroasted bean to about 1 wt% (column 9 lines 47-51).
The particular temperature range in which the bean obtains the claimed moisture content would have been obvious for the same reasons and based on the same factors stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the process comprises raising the temperature of the beans linearly through the range of 170-200oC at a rate of about 13.85oC/minute as stated above.
Regarding claim 9, Sivetz does not teach the bean temperature rising from about 200oC to the end of roast temperature at a rate of around 5-23oC/minute.
However, the reference teaches the heat cut off point (final temperature) is selected to control the flavor characteristics of the final product (column 10 lines 57-62), the rising bean temperature rate increases beyond about 200oC (column 10 lines 30-33), the duration of heating beyond about 200oC affects the flavor and aroma of the final product (column 10 lines 47-56), and the temperature profile varies based on the type and quality of the bean (column 10 lines 40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sivetz to raise the temperature from about 200oC to the end of roast temperature at the claimed rate since the prior art already recognizes the rate increases at the final stage of roasting, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed ranges, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as type of bean and desired flavor, aroma, mouthfeel, and color of the final product as is known in the art.
Regarding claim 10, the roasted beans are then subjected to a cooling step in which the temperature of the beans is reduced to a temperature of about 100oF (37.8oC), considered to be the “final temperature” since said temperature is achieved during the end of the cooling cycle (column 10 lines 9-14). Alternatively, the roasted beans can be cooled using an ambient air blower to lower the temperature of the beans to room temperature (column 8 lines 17-20), generally understood in the art to be between 20-25oC.
Regarding claim 11, the cooling step comprises contacting the roasted beans with a cooling agent such as water (column 10 lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 15, the roasted beans are packed (column 10 lines 18-21).
Regarding claim 20, the process comprises reducing the moisture content in the bean to about 1 wt% (column 9 lines 47-51).
The particular temperature range in which the bean obtains the claimed moisture content would have been obvious for the same reasons and based on the same factors stated for claim 1.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivetz as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-11, 15 and 20 above, in view of MacAllister (US 3,122,439).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Sivetz does not specify the process is carried out at a pressure in the range of 1 to 20 atm or 1-5 atm.
MacAllister teaches a method of roasting coffee beans (column 1 lines 10-11), where the beans are roasted with heated air and the pressure can vary but “is usually atmospheric” (column 1 lines 60 and 64-65; claims 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sivetz to roast the coffee beans at atmospheric pressure since the reference does not particularly limit the pressure used (see whole document), since the process of roasting coffee beans is known to be performed at or near atmospheric pressure, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed values, and therefore to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and to obtain a roasted coffee bean having desired characteristics such as color, flavor, aroma, density, etc.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivetz as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-11, 15 and 20 above, in view of Scarsella et al. (US 3,725,076).
Regarding claim 12, Sivetz does not teach the cooling agent is liquid nitrogen.
Scarsella et al. teaches a method comprising cooling roasted whole coffee beans to a bean temperature below 32oF and grinding the frozen beans to obtain enhanced aroma retention and freshness after prolonged storage (column 2 lines 18-24 and 51- 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sivetz to cool the beans using liquid nitrogen since the prior art teaches using the substance to freeze roasted coffee beans prior to grinding, in order to obtain a ground coffee product with enhanced aroma retention and freshness after prolonged storage, and since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivetz as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-11, 15 and 20 above, in view of Sperti (US 2,343,228).
Regarding claim 13, Sivetz does not teach contacting with cooling agent comprises flushing the beans with the cooling agent.
Sperti teaches a method of processing coffee comprising cooling roasted coffee without exposing the coffee to oxidizing influences, where the cooling can be performed and facilitated by flushing the roasting container with inert gas such cooling agent (page 2 right column lines 63-65, 67-68 and 71-75).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sivetz to cool the roasted beans by flushing with cooling agent in order to similarly facilitate rapid cooling while minimizing oxidation as taught by Sperti, thereby ensuring optimal quality of the final product.
Regarding claim 14, Sivetz does not teach the incubating or cooling step lasts for between 30 and 300 minutes.
Sperti further teaches cooling the beans to room temperature can be performed by “permitting a natural cooling in the roasting chamber” (page 2 right column lines 63-66). While the reference does not specify the claimed range of duration, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the cooling rate and duration would have been affected by parameters such as ambient temperature, container material and heat transfer characteristics, amount/volume of beans, and type of beans.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sivetz such that the incubating or cooling step lasts for 30-300 minutes since the reference the prior art recognizes permitting the beans to cool to room temperature without external cooling means, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the heat transfer features stated above, type of bean and desired flavor, aroma, mouthfeel, and color of the final product as is known in the art.
Claims 16-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivetz as applied to claims 1, 4, 7-11, 15 and 20 above, in view of Salomon (US 474,531) and Wasserman et al. (US 6,207,211 B1). Zeller et al. (US 2008/0160151 A1) is relied on as evidence for claim 17.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Sivetz does not teach the roasted beans comprise a “gas tight void volume” (GTVV) of at least 30% by volume and further comprising less than 5 wt% moisture.
Regarding the GTVV, the limitation is interpreted in view of the specification to mean “the volume of the sealed, gas-tight voids provided within the internal structure of roasted coffee beans – a closed porosity – enabling retention of gases within these voids” (page 2 lines 14-17).
Salomon teaches a process of roasting coffee (page 1 lines 13-15), where the roasting causes development of aroma gases (page 1 lines 76-84), and as soon as the gases appear the roasting process is stopped at once and cooled to a temperature as low as possible “for the purpose of closing the pores of the beans which have been opened by the heat and by the developed gases and of preventing by such closing the escape by evaporation of the aromatic oils developed in the beans (page 1 lines 84-93). Therefore, the reference suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is desirable to increase the percentage/volume of sealed pores in the final product, where the feature can be obtained by rapid cooling. The teaching of Salomon is therefore construed to be synonymous with increasing the “GTVV”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sivetz to process the whole coffee beans in a manner that increases the GTVV to at least 30% by volume since the reference already teaches rapid cooling via water spray (column 10 lines 7-12), since the prior art recognizes that it is desirable to provide more closed pores to retain desirable aromatic compounds within the roasted bean, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as type of bean, type/rate of cooling, and desired flavor and/or aroma retained by the final product.
Sivetz does not teach the moisture content of the roasted coffee beans.
Wasserman et al. teaches a roasting process for coffee beans (abstract), where the roasted beans are quenched with water to achieve a moisture content of about 3-7 wt% (column 4 lines 44-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sivetz such that the roasted beans comprise less than 5 wt% moisture since the reference already teaches rapid cooling via water spray (column 10 lines 7-12), since the prior art recognizes a range of moisture contents overlapping that of the claimed range, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as type of bean, type/rate of cooling, and desired flavor and/or aroma retained by the final product.
Further, Sivetz teaches the process as recited for claim 1. Absent persuasive evidence to the contrary one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar characteristics of the roasted coffee beans obtained by the process taught by Sivetz.
Regarding claim 17, Sivetz does not teach the roasted coffee beans comprise a pycnometry-measured density in the range of 620-650 kg/m3.
Zeller et al. is relied on evidence to show that gas pycnometry is recognized by the prior art to be used in determining the volume of a given with of granules comprising a particular solid, the volume including any interior voids or pores closed to the surrounding atmosphere but excluding the exterior space between discrete particles (paragraph 44).
The combination of Sivetz and Salomon as applied to claim 16 teaches the roasting process can be adjusted to control the GTVV i.e., interior voids or pores closed to the surrounding atmosphere. While the prior art does not explicitly teach the claimed range of density values, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected varying degrees of GTVV to result in similarly varying densities due to the adjusted value of the measured volume. Further, Applicant’s specification discloses that the density varies with the rate at which the bean temperature rises from 80oC to 170oC.
Since Sivetz teaches a roasting process that increases the bean temperature through the claimed range at the claimed rate as stated for claim 1, absent persuasive evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected similar density values.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sivetz to obtain the claimed range of pycnometry-measured density since the prior art recognizes such methods to calculate density adjusted for closed voids/pores, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the type of bean being roasted, the temperature and duration of the roasting process, and the rate/type of cooling as taught by Salomon.
Regarding claim 21, Sivetz teaches the process comprises reducing the moisture content in the bean to about 1 wt% (column 9 lines 47-51).
The particular temperature range in which the bean obtains the claimed moisture content would have been obvious for the same reasons and based on the same factors stated for claim 1.
Response to Arguments
The rejections of claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to said claim, and the claim is now rejected under 35 USC 103 to Sivetz. Orsini is no longer relied upon.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that none of the cited references teach, suggest, or render obvious the features recited by claim 1, where said combination of features obtain unexpected results of high “GTVV” values to delay aroma release, ultimately providing a higher pack aroma at a lager stage in product shelf life.
This is not persuasive since the prior art teaches a rate close to that of the claimed rate (13.85oC/minute), and the operating temperature and optimal duration for the process can be varied based on the type of bean and desired final roast level. Further, Salomon teaches a method for increasing GTVV by stopping the roasting process and cooling to a low temperature in order to close the pores of the beans which have been opened by the heating process, thereby preventing escape by evaporation of aromatic oils developed in the beans as stated for claim 16. Since the prior art teaches optimizing roasting parameters and a desire for increasing GTVV, modification of the process of Sivetz to obtain the claimed rate of temperature and GTVV increase would have been obvious based on the factors stated for claim 16. Further, the specification does not provide enough data for one of ordinary skill to determine if the results are commensurate in scope with the claimed ranges. Table 1 (page 11) shows a single value for the “slow rate” of the invention i.e., 10oC/min (90oC / 9 minutes). It is not clear if the same results are also observed across the entirety of the claimed range (8-13.5oC/minute), see MPEP 716.02(d).
Regarding the moisture content, the reference teaches the moisture content in the unroasted bean is reduced to about 1 wt% during heating (column 9 lines 47-51), and generally from about 12% to about 1% in the dryer stage (column 4 lines 60-61). Since the operating parameters for the process can be varied, and since the moisture reduction occurs before actual roasting, the claimed moisture content would have been obvious based on said operating parameters as stated for claim 1.
Additionally, Mangigian (US 2017/0231245 A1) teaches roasting coffee beans where the beans are heated at a rate of 10oC/minute from e.g., 99.4oC to 208oC (paragraph 19) and from 135oC to 225oC at a rate of 12oC/minute (paragraph 20).
Applicant argues on pages 12-13 that Salomon’s statement of “closing pores” does not provide any teaching or moviation to achieve the claimed threshold of at least 30% GTVV.
This is not persuasive since the reference discloses the features by which Applicant obtains the claimed GTVV. The specification states the GTVV refers to “the volume of the sealed, gas-tight voids provided within the internal structure of roasted coffee beans – a closed porosity – enabling retention of gases within these voids” (page 2 lines 14-17). Salomon explicitly teaches a method to close the pores of roasted coffee in order to prevent evaporation of the aromatic oils developed in the beans. While the claimed range of at least 30% is not taught, the reference still suggests a process for retaining aromatic oils in the pores of the roasted coffee. The teachings of Salmon suggest to one of ordinary skill that volatiles in roasted coffee can be retained for a longer period of time by performing the disclosed process, where the claimed range of GTVV would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization as stated for claim 16. Further, it is not clear from Applicant’s specification if the argued result is observed over the entirety of the claimed range.
Applicant’s argument against the dependent claims is not persuasive for the same reasons above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792