DETAILED ACTION
Amendments filed June 8, 2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-10 are pending;
Claims 1-4 and 8-9 have been withdrawn.
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 .
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.
Drawings
The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments made July 1, 2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The rejection of claims 5-7 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joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments made May 12, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
The rejection of claims 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Montoya et al (“Enhanced pink-red hues in processed powders from unfermented cacao beans” Food Science and Technology pages 1-7) has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments made May 12, 2026; specifically, Montoya does not teach the cocoa fruit contains both part or all of the pump and beans.
Claims 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Huhn (US 2018/0206517).
Regarding claims 5 and 7, Huhn teaches a method of producing a cocoa fruit ground product comprising:
Providing cocoa fruit which contains part or all of cocoa pulp and beans (paragraph 22);
Wet grinding the cocoa fruit, i.e. grinding under moisture (abstract and paragraph 27); and
Heating the wet solid phase, i.e. the material which would comprise solids from the cocoa fruit, in a heater at 55-150C, wherein the product is between 70-100C or does not exceed 90C and heating is for less than 15 minutes (paragraphs 29, 36-38, 47-49, and 56).
Huhn is not specific to an enzyme inactivation treatment which inactivates polyphenol oxidase from the cocoa fruit as recited in claims 5 and 7, however the instant specification states in paragraph 56 that enzyme inactivation of polyphenol oxidase occurs at high temperatures, for example, 80C and higher and although the time depends on the temperature it is for example, 5 seconds to 10 minutes. Thus, as Huhn teaches heating the cocoa fruit material in a heater at 55-150C, wherein the product is between 70-100C for up to about, i.e. less than, 15 minutes (paragraphs 29, 36-38, 47-49, and 56), the process of Huhn encompasses or alternatively make obvious an enzyme inactivation treatment as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, Huhn teaches that the water containing liquids for wet grinding can be coffee or fruit juice which were acidic (paragraph 25), and thus encompass the wet grinding as performed under acidic conditions.
Regarding claim 10, Huhn teaches that the ratio of water to cocoa materials in the suspension for grinding is preferably 1-6:1 (paragraph 24), and thus encompass a moisture content during grinding of preferably 50-85.7%.
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 KELLY BEKKER whose telephone number is (571)272-2739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-3:30pm.
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.
KELLY BEKKER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1792
/KELLY J BEKKER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights