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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/18/25 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/18/25 was filed after the mailing date of the last Office Action on 12/26/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-30 are pending, with claims 1-23 being examined on their merits. Claims 1-23 have been amended.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 12, 17, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
On claim 10, “a protein, AND a peptide” should read “a protein OR a peptide” as recited throughout the Specification.
On claims 12, 17, and 21, the acronym “GABA” should recite the full name of the compound “gamma-aminobutyric acid” as disclosed on page 194, lines 3-4 of the instant Specification, and as recited on claim 20 for the compound “2-isobutyl-3-methoxypyrazine (IBMP)”.
On claims 17, and 21, the acronyms “AMP” and “CMP” should recite the full name of the nucleotide compound(s) “adenosine monophosphate” and “cytidine monophosphate” as similarly done in claim 9 for the compound “2-isobutyl-3-methoxypyrazine (IBMP)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pages 6, 9, 66, 72, 75, 135, 138, 139, 181, 184, 185, and 207, of the instant Specification, the nucleotide monophosphate compound AMP is disclosed. The acronym should be defined at least once on the first mention (i.e., adenosine monophosphate (AMP)).
On pages 6, 9, 66, 72, 76, 135, 138, 140, 181, 184, 186, and 208, of the instant Specification, the nucleotide monophosphate compound CMP is disclosed. The acronym should be defined at least once on the first mention (i.e., cytidine monophosphate (CMP)).
On page 193, line 27, “a proteins” should read “a protein”.
On page 202, line 9, “a proteins” should read “a protein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 10-11, 13-14, 16, 18-20, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franklin et al. [US 6090431 A1], hereinafter Franklin, evidenced by Rowles [What is gelatin good for?, 2017].
Regarding claim 1, Franklin teach a pelletized food product in the form of coffee beans or having a bean-like shape [col.2, l.15-16], made from plant materials that are not coffee (equivalent to coffee replica) [col.2, l.9-11], and said coffee bean-like pelletized body (equivalent to coffee bean replica) may be subjected to a grinding process and ground into granules (equivalent to coffee ground replica) [col.2, l.38-40, and col.3, l.3-15]. The coffee bean replica and/or coffee ground replica comprises a solid substrate comprising individual pieces of edible plant materials [Abstract] processed or ground into small individual particles [col.3, l.22-26], wherein the solid substrate may comprise grains, seeds and the like [col.3, l.19-21], and an additive selected from a group that includes alcohol [col.3, l.40].
Regarding claims 10-11, Franklin teach the coffee replica discussed above in claim 1 further comprising one sugar such as glucose [col.3, l.32], a sugar alcohol such as sorbitol [col.3, l.33], an amino acid [col.2, l.30], and a protein or peptide such as gelatin [col.3, l.32], (see Rowles, p.1, gelatin is a protein).
Regarding claims 13-14, Franklin teach wherein the coffee replica further comprises a coating surrounding the solid substrate, and wherein the coating comprises the additive (scents or aromas), wherein the additive comprises a liquid additive spray-applied to the solid substrate to form the coating [col.6, l.17-20].
Regarding claim 16, Franklin teach wherein the coffee replica is a coffee bean replica, and wherein the solid substrate has a shape of a coffee bean [col.2, l.16-17].
Regarding claims 18-19, Franklin teach wherein the coffee bean replica of claim 16 above further comprises a tableting aid comprising one or more of a starch, a sugar, and a gum [col.3, lines 26-40 and col.2, lines 9-15], and wherein the coffee bean replica further comprises a wax [col.2, lines 9-15, and col.3, lines 38-40].
Regarding claim 20, Franklin teach the coffee replica is a coffee ground replica [col.2, l.38-40, and col.3, l.3-15], and wherein the solid substrate comprises a plurality of particles [col.3, l.22-26] having a particle size of about 20 mesh (about 841 µm particle size, which is between about 250 µm to about 1500 µm as claimed) [col.4, lines 61-64].
Regarding claims 22-23, Franklin teach wherein the coffee ground replica of claim 20 above further comprises a tableting aid comprising one or more of a starch, a sugar, and a gum [col.3, lines 26-40 and col.2, lines 9-15], and wherein the coffee bean replica further comprises a wax [col.2, lines 9-15, and col.3, lines 38-40].
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.
Claim(s) 2-4, 12, 15, 17, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin as applied to claims 1, 10, 16 and 20 above, and further in view of Zhao [US 6171635 B1].
Regarding claims 2-4, Franklin teach the coffee replica comprising a solid substrate from various plant materials including grains, seeds and the like as discussed above in claim 1 rejection, but does not explicitly recites the solid substrate comprise legumes or legume seeds, wherein the legumes or legume seeds comprise one or more of a chickpea, a bean, a lentil, a pea seed, and a pea protein concentrate, wherein the grain or grain products comprise barley and/or brown rice, and/or a fruit, wherein the fruit comprises dates.
Zhao teach a coffee replica (coffee substitute) comprising a solid substrate such as roasted grains/legumes/seeds [Zhao, col.2, l.39-40], wherein the legumes or legume seeds comprise a bean (mung bean) [Zhao, col.3, l.49-51], and wherein the grain or grain products comprise barley and/or rice [Zhao, col.10, l.23-25, or claim 2 of Zhao]. The coffee replica of Zhao may also include a fruit, wherein said fruit may be date (red date) [Zhao, col.4, l.43-44]. While Zhao does not explicitly recites the rice used in the invention is specifically brown rice, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use or substitution of various types of rice with reasonable expectation of success. That is, a skilled artisan would recognize that the combination and/or substitution of rice types is a matter of choice as different kinds of rice are appealing to different people, as some people would prefer the taste of white rice and others would prefer the taste of brown rice or both combined. Finally, one would have a reasonable
expectation of success by combining or substituting the rice for brown rice, as a person
having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are various rice choices that are preferred to be used with specific types of foods, thus increasing flexibility in which the rice raw material can be used based on consumer preference and/or availability of the type of rice raw material ingredient.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed grain product from barley, and/or brown rice, and/or date, into the invention of Franklin in view of Zhao since both are directed to coffee replicas. Doing so would provide a coffee replica made from grains, and/or legumes, and/or fruits, that is characterized by having a pleasant aroma, and can be used as a carrier of nutritional supplement or herb therapy, as an additive and as a drink that is suitable for individuals who suffer from conditions making them coffee intolerant, e.g., pregnancy, or those who suffer from hypoglycemia, hypertension, arrhythmia, insomnia, or gastric irritation [Zhao, Abstract].
Regarding claims 12, 17 and 21, Franklin teach the coffee replica comprising amino acids as discussed in claim 10 above, wherein the solid substrate has a shape of a coffee bean as discussed in claim 16 rejection above, wherein the coffee replica is a coffee ground replica, and wherein the solid substrate comprises a plurality of particles having a particle size between about 250 µm to about 1500 µm as discussed in claim 20 rejection above, but does not explicitly teach the specific amino acid(s) required by claim 12, or that the coffee bean replica or coffee ground replica further comprises at least one non-volatile compound selected from the group of compounds required by claims 17 (bean form) and 21 (ground form).
Zhao teach the coffee replica made from grains and/or legumes as explained above in claims 2-4, further comprise amino acids [col.5, l.39-42], wherein at least one amino acid is a non-volatile compound such as arginine [col.3, l.2-3].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed amino acid/non-volatile compound, into the invention of Franklin in view of Zhao since both are directed to coffee replicas. Doing so would provide a coffee replica made from grains, and/or legumes, that not only has delicious taste, but importantly contains a naturally high content of amino acid(s) such as arginine, which have the highest inverse rate of hypercholesterolemia, optimal mineral and vitamins, complex carbohydrates and fiber which flatten the postprandial glycemia response and improve the glucose intolerance [Zhao, col.3, l.1-8].
Regarding claim 15, Franklin teach the coffee replica of claim 1 rejection above, but is silent regarding a starch, a protein, a sugar, a fat-soluble component, and a flavor have been removed or partially removed from one or more of the processed grain or grain product, legume or legume seed, oil plant or seed, grape seed, fruit, and fruit seed.
Zhao teach the coffee replica made from grains and/or legumes discussed in claim 2 rejection, wherein a flavor have been removed or partially removed from one or more of the processed grain or grain product, legume or legume seed [col.3, l.57-65].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed wherein one or more of: a starch, a protein, a sugar, a fat-soluble component, and a flavor have been removed or partially removed from one or more of the processed grain or grain product, legume or legume seed, oil plant or seed, grape seed, fruit, and fruit seed, into the invention of Franklin in view of Zhao. Doing so would aid in removing undesirable flavors and antinutritional components [Zhao, col.3, l.59-60, l.63-64]. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that presoaking legumes and/or grains in water and applying pressure and boiling the legumes and/or grains would remove starches, proteins, sugars, and fat-soluble components naturally present in said legumes and/or grains along with the undesired flavor that is being removed during the soaking, washing, pressurizing and boiling processes disclosed by Zhao.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kindel et al. [US 20040202767 A1], hereinafter Kindel.
Regarding claims 5-8, Franklin teach the coffee replica comprising an additive such as alcohol as discussed above in claim 1 rejection, but is silent regarding the additive comprising a ketone, a phenol, a pyrazine (claim 5), a sulfur compound (claim 6), at least five or more additives selected from the group recited in claim 7, at least seven or more additives selected from the group recited in claim 8.
Kindel teach coffee aroma compositions made from individually selected aromatic substances as additives [Kindel, Abstract, 0011-0036], for imparting an aroma of fresh ground coffee to foods, beverages and other substances [Kindel, 0037, 0070], wherein said aroma substances may be combined to prepare coffee flavored formulations [Kindel, 0037, 0067, 0070]. Suitable individually selected aromatic substances include, ketones [Kindel, 0044], phenols [Kindel, 0042, 0044], pyrazines [Kindel, 0044] (claim 5), sulfur compounds [Kindel, 0042] (claim 6), at least five of the four additives already mentioned and an aldehyde [Kindel, 0044] (claim 7), at least seven of the six additives already mentioned (including the alcohol taught by Franklin), and wherein each include various types of these compounds such as ketones (i.e., beta-damascenone [Kindel, 0035], (instant Spec., p.20, l.23), 2,3-pentadione [Kindel, 0036], (instant Spec., p.20, l.19)) and/or aldehydes (i.e., acetaldehyde [Kindel, 0033], and propionaldehyde [Kindel, 0034], (instant Spec., p.19, l.29)), which would comprise at least seven or more additives (claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed additives to produce a coffee replica into the invention of Franklin, in view of Kindel, since both are directed to methods of making coffee replica flavor compositions using individual aromatic compounds. Doing so would provide multi-component aroma formulations, wherein the aromatic substances necessary for the aroma impression of fresh brewed or fresh ground coffee are produced in physically separate formulations and are combined or recombined for employment in food stuffs or perfumed products [Kindel, 0037], and simple aromatic compositions that are capable of imparting fresh ground coffee aroma and flavors to foods/beverages such that the resulting product exhibits a taste or an aroma of fresh ground and fresh brewed coffee, coffee macchiato, cappuccino or espresso [Kindel, 0010], and are characterized by having storage stability [Kindel, 0009].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawasaki [JP 2006020526 A].
Regarding claim 9, Franklin teach the coffee replica comprising an additive such as alcohol as discussed above in claim 1 rejection, but is silent regarding the additive comprising the specific claimed ketones, phenols, pyrazines, and sulfur compounds.
Kawasaki teach a coffee flavor composition comprising individual components or additives selected from a group that includes ketones, phenols, pyrazines, and sulfur compounds [Kawasaki, claims 1, 12 and 0001], wherein at least one ketone is 2,3-butanedione [Kawasaki, 0020], wherein at least one phenol is 4-ethylguaiacol [Kawasaki, 0022], wherein at least one pyrazine is 2,5-dimethylpyrazine [Kawasaki, 0027], and wherein at least one sulfur compound is diethyl disulfide [Kawasaki, 0069].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed additives to produce a coffee replica into the invention of Franklin, in view of Kawasaki, since both are directed to methods of making coffee replica flavor compositions using selected individual ingredients including non-volatile and volatile aromatic compounds. Doing so would provide a coffee flavored product having an excellent aroma, flavor, and fragrant coffee feel, as well as a coffee flavored product with suppressed deterioration of aroma components [Kawasaki, 0080, 0129, and 0131].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mayer et al. [Sensory study of the character impact aroma compounds of a coffee beverage, Eur. Food Res Technol. 2000, 211, 272-276], hereinafter Mayer.
Mayer disclose that by mixing at least 24 individual compounds that have been identified within the typical aroma of coffee, it is possible to produce compositions that can simulate coffee aroma (coffee replica), using these odorant compounds as pure samples available commercially or synthetized according to available literature [Kindel, 0008], and [Mayer, p.273, Chemicals, Table 1].
George et al. [US 20110318459 A1], hereinafter George.
George teach methods of making flavoring compositions [0002], comprising three or more compounds [0020-0063], wherein each compound is independently selected from alcohols [0028, 0068, 0071], aldehydes [0043, 0068] and ketones [0052, 0058-0059, 0061], wherein the compounds use to produce the composition may be in solid form and soluble in water [0067]. The flavor compositions of the invention may be modified to provide for ANY improved flavor profiles that closely replicates the food products [0012], and one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with George’s disclosure can produce any number of suitable formulations with flavor and aromatic profiles similar to a formulation that is traditionally produced (equivalent to replicas) [0063].
Barahona [US 20010026830 A1].
Barahona teach a coffee replica or substitute made from non-coffee derived products such as corn allspice pepper or cloves or mixture thereof and cinnamon or vanilla or mixture thereof [Abstract, 0011-0012].
Weisberg [US 2380092 A].
Weisberg teach a water soluble coffee bean like or replica product [col.1, l.1-8, col.2, l.10-16, l.21-25, and l.29-32], which can be made with any appropriate substitute or synthetic substance [col.2, l.10-16] in place of natural or traditional coffee material, extract or powder [col.3, l.35-43]. The invention disclose that the solid may comprise barley [col.3, l.51, Example II. B.].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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.
/LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792