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 § 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.
Claims 1-8 are 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 1 recites mixing the passion fruit juice, slurry and sweetener “in a certain ratio”. The claim does not specify what this ratio is and therefore it is unclear what proportions of these components are required. For the purpose of examination, any ratio of components will be interpreted to read on the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 recites adding citric acid “as needed”. It is not clear from the claim how to determine whether citric acid is needed or the proportion of citric acid to add when it is needed. For the purpose of examination, any added proportion of citric acid will be interpreted to read on the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1 and therefore necessarily incorporate the indefiniteness therein.
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madusanka et al. “Development of Mixed Fruit Leather Using Five Tropical Fruits”, Proc. Med., Allied Health, Basic and Applied Sciences, 9th International Research Conference – KDU, Sri Lanka, 2016 and Bandaru et al. “Fruit Leather: Preparation, packaging and its effect on sensorial and physico-chemical properties: A review” Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2020; 9(6): 1699-1709.
Regarding claim 1, Madusanka teaches a method of making passion fruit leather comprising (Sec II):
Selecting passion fruit
Cleaning the passion fruit and digging out the fruit pulp and removing the peel to obtain fruit pulp and flesh
Pressing the passion fruit pulp through a muslin cloth to remove the seeds
Forming passion fruit puree (i.e. slurry)
Mixing the juice, puree and sugar (a powder) and adding citric acid to adjust the mixture to pH=3.8
Pouring the slurry onto a stainless steel tray mold
While Madusanka does not explicitly teach “fresh, no-rot, no-pest, no-disease spot fruit”, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have selected the highest quality fruit possible to make the highest quality product.
While Madusanka is silent regarding sprinkling powder sugar on the dried fruit leather, the examiner takes official notice that dusting confectionary with powdered sugar is universally known in the food arts to prevention of sticking and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have done so.
Madusanka is silent regarding packaging the fruit leather.
Bandaru teaches that laminated aluminum foil maintains the highest desired textural characteristics of fruit leather. (pg. 1706)
Madusanka and Bandaru are both directed to fruit leather processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have packaged the fruit leather of Madusanka in laminated aluminum foil since this packaging material was known in the art to be suitable for fruit leather. Therefore, the modification of Madusanka with Bandaru renders obvious the limitations of claims 1-3 and 8.
Regarding claim 4, Madusanka is silent regarding the stainless steel tray comprising cartoon shapes. However, the claimed cartoon shapes are merely aesthetic rather than functional. As stated in MPEP 2144.04 I “matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.” Therefore, claim 4 does not provide a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, this claim requires the mold to made of TFE when the mold is made of plastic. However, none of claim 5, 3 or 1 require the plastic plate embodiment. As such, the steel mold of Madusanka reads on the scope of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Madusanka teaches a drying temperature of 60°C and that fruit leather typically has a moisture content of 15-25%. (Sec. II and III, A) III) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have dried the fruit leather of Madusanka to the typical moisture content range.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have added a quantity of powdered sugar suitable for preventing stickiness while not rendering the final product overly sweet. As such, the proportion of fine powdered sugar recited in claim 7 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele L Jacobson whose telephone number is (571)272-8905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10-6.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/Michele L Jacobson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793