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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/24/26.
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 12 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 12 recites “the desired dairy product characteristic includes one or more input parameter includes an end-use product type.” It is not clear what this phrase requires. There appear to be missing or incorrect words here.
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.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Balassanian [US 2014/0072679A1].
Balassanian teaches system for automated beverage production (title) comprising a user identifying and inputting a desired product characteristic into a controller (Figure 2, #200; Figure 5, #410), the product being a dairy product such as milk (paragraph 0022, 0035-0036), the desired characteristic being an aesthetic characteristic such as a product color (paragraph 0030-0031, 0039-0040), the user also specifying a desired shelf-life duration (paragraph 0040), the controller providing a treatment parameters based upon the characteristic by choosing ingredients which provide the desired color (Figure 5, #420-450), the controller also choosing appropriate ingredients based upon their respective parameters such as pH, sugar content, pathogen count, water content, and/or color (paragraph 0025-0031), the controller also selecting nitrogen flushing and/or an appropriate chiller temperature in order to provide the desired shelf-life duration (paragraph 0045), and outputting the desired dairy product protein (Figure 5, #460).
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.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balassanian [US 2014/0072679A1] in view of Mathys et al [US 2014/0154371A1].
Balassanian teach the above mentioned concepts. Balassanian does not explicitly recite a milk protein concentrate or micellar casein concentrate (claim 15), or a pulsed electric field process (claim 16). Mathys et al teach pulsed electric field treatment process of dairy products (title) comprising the treatment of dairy products such as milk, casein powder, and milk protein powder (paragraph 0014), the PEF treatment providing increased shelf-life at chilled conditions (paragraph 0023), the PEF treatment including a selected duration and temperature (paragraph 0156, 0170, 0172), a chilling step using a selected temperature (paragraph 0174), and subsequently freeze- or spray-drying the PEF product into a concentrate (paragraph 0175). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed milk protein concentrate and PEF treatment into the invention of Balassanian, in view of Mathys et al, since both are directed to methods of processing dairy products, since Balassanian already included a selected shelf-life duration with processing steps such as nitrogen flushing and chilled storage, since dairy processing systems commonly included the treatment of dairy products such as milk, casein powder, and milk protein powder (paragraph 0014) and a PEF treatment providing increased shelf-life at chilled conditions (paragraph 0023) as shown by Mathys et al, since the PEF treatment would have enabled a longer shelf-life duration in the process of Balassanian, since a longer shelf-life would have enabled greater flexibility in choosing the desired time of consumption, since many consumers desired food and beverage products with increased protein levels, since milk protein concentrate was a commonly used food supplement, since many consumers purchased concentrated beverage products which they later diluted prior to consumption, since a concentrated product would possess lower levels of water and thus be capable of being placed in a smaller volume container, since smaller containers would be less expensive to manufacture, store, and transport; and since many consumers desired concentrated and high protein products for their personal fitness and nutrition needs.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balassanian as applied above, and further in view of Keener et al [US 2019/0290792A1].
Balassanian teaches the above mentioned concepts. Balassanian does not explicitly recite cold plasma treatment (claim 17). Keener et al teach inactivating pathogenic microorganisms using cold plasma (title) wherein the liquid is milk (page 10, claim 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed cold plasma treatment into the invention of Balassanian, in view of Keener et al, since both are directed to methods of processing dairy products, since Balassanian already included a selected shelf-life duration with processing steps such as nitrogen flushing and chilled storage, since dairy processing systems commonly included inactivating pathogenic microorganisms using cold plasma (title) wherein the liquid is milk (page 10, claim 19) as shown by Keener et al, since longer shelf-life duration would enable greater flexibility to the consumer in choosing when to use the product of Balassanian, and since the cold plasma treatment would have enabled a longer shelf-life duration in the process of Balassanian, in view of Keener et al.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Filliol teaches a beverage system with user input, Verdi teaches a system for analyzing and processing human milk, Hartmann teaches a system for analyzing and processing human milk, Ameye teaches a system for formulating and creating baby formula, Bindrich teaches a system for PEF treatment of casein micelles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights