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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-25 are pending in this application. Claims 20-22 are under examination. Claims 1-19 and 23-25 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 20-22 in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Group IV is a product and Group III is a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product, thereby satisfying the relationship defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.475(b). Additionally, applicant states that a thorough search and examination of one group of claims would necessarily encompass the search and examination of the other groups of claims. Applicant contends the examination of all claims can be made without undue burden and the restriction requirement should be withdrawn.
This is not found persuasive. The inventions are still considered to lack unity of invention and contain a group of inventions which are not linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical feature for the reasons outlined in the unity of invention restriction dated 10/27/2025. As stated in the restriction, Groups I-IV lack unity of invention because, even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of infusion of a citrus fruit, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art. Therefore, groups I-IV lack unity of invention because the technical feature linking the inventions does not contribute over the prior art of King. Additionally, applicant’s argument regarding a serious search burden is considered moot, as this was not the basis for the restriction and was not discussed in the restriction dated 10/27/2025. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-19 and 23-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/23/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because there is no label/scale on the x axis. The figure is a vertical bar graph showing several variables for three different samples (LIN2, Peel Extract A, and Peel Extract B) but it is unclear how these vertical lines for each sample differ from each other in scale. Appropriate correction to Figure 1 is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 line 3 recites, “wherein said equipment is preferably a mesh." The use of the word “preferably” renders the limitation indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation of the equipment being a mesh is required and part of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination “preferably” will be viewed as “optionally.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wild et al. US 20150264952 (cited on IDS dated 01/26/2024) and in view of Yoshihiro US 20160326472.
Regarding claim 20, Wild teaches a method for preparing an infusion of a citrus fruit (the process of obtaining carbohydrate from orange pulp; [0026]). Wild teaches grinding citrus fruit (milling orange pulps; [0027) into a size of preferably 2-3 mm [0027] to obtain a ground citrus fruit (milled orange pulp). This is within the claimed size range of 0.5-30 mm.
Wild is silent as to what part of the citrus fruit is being ground (milled) and only specifies the type of citrus, lemon or orange [0026].
Yoshihiro teaches a method for preparing an infusion of a citrus fruit (Abstract) where the whole citrus fruit is used and ground (cut) into pieces of a suitable size [0028]. Yoshihiro discloses that using the whole fruit is preferred from the viewpoints of flavor balance and ease of handling [0028].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Wild by incorporating the teachings of Yoshihiro to grind the whole citrus fruit because using the whole fruit is preferred from the viewpoints of flavor balance and ease of handling, as recognized by Yoshihiro [0028].
Wild teaches immersing the ground citrus fruit in water to obtain an infusion (water is added to the milled orange pulp to obtain a water extraction; [0027]).
While Wild is silent as to the temperature of the water used for the infusion process (extraction process; [0027]), the reference would have necessarily taught an ambient temperature for the water. Since the water temperature of Wild is not specified and a person of ordinary skill in the art would infer it to be ambient or natural temperature of water in its immediate surroundings, specifically around 20°C. See MPEP 2144.01. Otherwise, an elevated or reduced water temperature would be identified. This is within the claimed range of a temperature of 55 °C or less.
Regarding claim 21, Wild teaches wherein the grinding of the whole fruit of the citrus fruit is conducted with equipment comprising a plurality of openings wherein said equipment is preferably a mesh (the milling of the orange pulps is preferably performed by a hammer mill [0027]). It is noted that a hammer mill uses a mesh screen, also known as a perforated screen or sieve to control the particle size of the output. Wild teaches after milling the orange pulp has a particle size of preferably 2-3 mm, which is construed as the diameter of the plurality of openings on the mesh screen in the hammer mill [0027]. This is within the claimed range of 0.5-30 mm.
Regarding claim 22, Wild teaches optionally adding further beverage ingredients (other food ingredients for a beverage application; [0110]). Wild discloses diluting the infusion with water to produce a beverage (beverages prepared from the composition of the invention are preferably diluted with water; [0116]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siriano, 100% Whole Lemon Lemonade (The Peel Too!), The Cookful (cited on IDS dated 01/26/2024). Hereinafter Siriano.
Please note the rejection below is based off of paragraph numbers added to Siriano reference and supplied with the rejection.
Regarding claim 20, Siriano teaches a method for preparing an infusion of a citrus fruit (whole lemon lemonade; [0003]). Siriano discloses grinding a whole fruit of the citrus fruit to obtain a ground citrus fruit (blend up a whole lemon in a blender until smooth; [0003], [0006], [0007]).
Siriano does not teach particle size of the ground citrus fruit but does teach to blend until smooth and also teaches varying the blending time [0007]. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a particle size between 0.5 mm to 30 mm for the ground citrus fruit, as particle size is a matter of application for the product and can be easily changed based on the milling or blending step to produce the composition. Additionally, it also would have been obvious to utilize a particle size between 0.5-30 mm because there are only a finite number of particle sizes that are achievable when blending in a blender and varying the blending speed to achieve a smooth product. See MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Siriano teaches immersing the ground citrus fruit in water to obtain an infusion, by adding water and ice cubes into the blender with the lemon and blending [0006-0007]. Thus, producing a ground citrus fruit that is in water and obtaining an infusion.
While Siriano is silent on the water temperature, the reference would have necessarily taught a cooler water temperature that is at least below 55°C or less. This is because Siriano is also adding ice cubes to be blended with the water, resulting in water that is closer to 0°C because of the addition of ice, and that is considered below 55 °C after being blended with ice and the ice melting. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would infer the water temperature to be less than 55 °C, which is within the claimed range for water temperature. See PMEP 2144.01.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE GERLA whose telephone number is (571)270-0904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Wed. and Fri. 7-12 pm; Th. 7-2pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/S.R.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791