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 .
This office action is in response to argument filed 2/20/26. The claims are not amended. Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ( CN 111772071) in view of Oestengaard ( WO 2014/128083).
For claim 1, Wang discloses a method of producing plant milk. The method comprises the steps of mixing oat powder, water and enzyme preparation to form a slurry, filtering the slurry to obtain oat material liquid( this is step is equivalent to the claimed transferring to a separation unit because filtering is separating the components in the slurry), forming a stabilizer solution containing vegetable oil, mixing the stabilizer comprising vegetable oil with the material liquid and homogenizing the combined liquid and stabilizer solution to obtain pure plant oat milk beverage ( this is the same as the claimed step of mixing the vegetable oil and liquid component to form plant milk). ( see page 8, embodiment 1)
For claim 2, Wang discloses mixing the oat material liquid with stabilizer liquid containing vegetable oil by adjusting the pH value to 7.2-7.4. This is the same as transferring to buffer tank. ( see page 8, embodiment 1)
For claim 4, Wang discloses adding water to the processed oat material liquid and stabilizer liquid during the processing step to obtain pure plant oat milk beverage. This is the same as the claimed diluting step.
For claim 6, Wang discloses performing enzymolysis for 2 hours at 63 degrees. This is the same as the claimed step of heating the water, plant material and enzyme. For claim 7, Wang discloses inactivating the enzyme after enzymolysis. For claim 8, Wang does not specifically discloses cooling. However, the oat liquid material is formed and is awaited to be mixed with the stabilizer liquid. Thus, cooling of the slurry obviously occurs. ( see page 8, embodiment 1)
For claim 9, Wang discloses sterilizing the plant oat milk at 139 degrees C. This is the same as the claimed step of heat treatment to reduce microorganisms. ( see page 8, embodiment 1)
For claim 10, Wang discloses grinding and thinning the oat liquid material. Grinding and thinning obviously cut the plant material into smaller pieces. ( see page 3)
For claim 11, Wang discloses homogenizing the oat liquid material and liquid stabilizer containing vegetable oil. Homogenizing entails mixing to disperse the components. ( see page 8 embodiment 1)
Wang does not disclose the use of mixing unit comprising a mixing chamber as in claim 1, storing the liquid material in buffer tank until all the slurry is transferred from the mixing unit as in claim 2, cleaning the mixing chamber as in claim 3, pumping in batches as in claim 5, introducing into a mixing chamber as in claim 10, adding oil in mixing chamber as in claim 12 and high shear mixer as in claim 13.
Oestengaard discloses a process and an assembly for recombining a liquid food product. The assembly comprises a mixing unit with mixing chamber for mixing water with food powder. The mixer is a high shear mixer. The assembly further comprises a buffer tank to store the liquid product and pipe and pump to transfer the liquid from one unit to another. ( see page 4 lines 15-15, figure 3)
Wang discloses mixing water, plant material and enzyme. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use known mixing unit such as the one disclosed in Oestengaard to carry out the mixing step. The mixer in Oestengaard is a high shear mixer which is capable of generating heat for the enzymatic reaction in Wang. It would also have been obvious to return the mixture of oat plant material and stabilizer liquid to the mixer to further carry out the mixing and homogenizing step because Wang discloses mixing the components to obtain the pure plant oat milk. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to sue a buffer tank such as the one disclosed in Oestengaard for clear, sufficient storing of liquid before use. It would have been obvious to clean the mixing after each step when desiring to enhance the cleanliness and purity of the product. Such step would have been readily apparent to one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to add in batches as an obvious matter of choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues that nowhere is any alleged transferring and Wang merely teaches filtering the slurry which can be done in any number of ways other than transferring to a distinct unit. This argument is not persuasive. Even if the filtering can be done in any number of ways as asserted by applicant, the slurry still needs to be convey to the filtering unit to filter to separate the components in the slurry. There is no disclosure in Wang that the mixing has separating means such as that the slurry can be filtered in the same device carrying out the mixing. A lack or use of a different terminology does not mean the step is different. In an embodiment 1, Wang discloses mixing the oat powder with enzyme; this indicates that the step is carried out in some type of mixer
Prosecution Insights