DETAILED ACTION
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 the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 06/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by cancellation of the claims: (1) the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claim 3 has been withdrawn; and (2) the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 3 over Kimmel, Hoon, and Kamata has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-2, 4-8
Withdrawn claims: 6-8
Previously cancelled claims: None
Newly cancelled claims: 3
Amended claims: 1, 5
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-2, 4-5
Currently rejected claims: 1-2, 4-5
Allowed claims: None
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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, line 6, recites “unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid”. It is unclear as to what “unprocessed” means in the phrase “unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, “unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid” will be interpreted as being concentrated coffee liquid produced by roasting coffee beans, extracting components from the coffee beans with water, and concentrating the water used for extraction by evaporating water from the water used from extraction, wherein the produced concentrated coffee liquid has not undergone the claimed homogenization, primary sterilization, filling, and/or secondary sterilization steps.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected by reason of dependency from claim 1.
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.
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimmel (US 2016/0066592; previously cited) in view of Ghiam (US 2018/0118437), PMG (“Modified Atmospheric Packaging (MAP): Enhancing Shelf Life in Food Processing”, June 2021, PMG Engineering, https://pmg.engineering/Article/92/modified-atmospheric-packaging-map-enhancing-shelf-life-infood-processing/), and Kamata (JPH06335348A; English translation relied on for citations; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Kimmel teaches a method for manufacturing a concentrated coffee (corresponding to beverage concentrates containing blended coffee and dairy fluid concentrates) [0002], [0012], wherein the method comprises: a blending step of mixing an unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid and a stabilizer to prepare a concentrated coffee liquid (corresponding to second intermediate dairy liquid); and a sterilization step of sterilizing the concentrated coffee liquid [0035], [0038]. Kimmel teaches that an unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid may be obtained by roasting coffee beans and extracting the soluble components from the beans [0039].
Kimmel does not specifically disclose whether the beans are extracted with water; or whether the water is evaporated from the water used for the extraction. However, Kimmel discloses that powdered mixes comprising coffee components may have poor solubility in water [0004], thereby suggesting a desire for the components extracted from the coffee beans to be water soluble. As such, it would have been obvious to use water to extract water-soluble components from the beans, thereby rendering the claimed water extraction obvious, especially since water extraction of roasted coffee beans is well-known in the art of instant coffee. Kimmel also discloses that instant coffee is commonly provided in the form of a concentrated liquid; and that evaporated milk dairy products are simply a concentrated form of dairy product [0003], [0007]. This disclosure at least suggests that a coffee liquid produced by extraction of components from roasted coffee beans may also be concentrated by evaporation, thereby rendering the claimed evaporation obvious.
Kimmel teaches that the product is shelf-stable with acceptable taste and mouthfeel [0012]. Kimmel also does not disclose that the concentrated coffee is in a single-serving container. Kimmel does not disclose that the method comprises the claimed homogenization step, filling step, or secondary sterilization step. Kimmel does not disclose that the filling step includes the claimed molding, filling, injecting, covering, heat-sealing, and punching out steps.
However, Ghiam teaches a method of packaging liquid products such as foodstuff in a cup-shaped single-serving container wherein the opening of an accommodation part of the container (corresponding to cavity of a base substrate) is sealed with a peelable lid material (Fig.7, [0010]-[0014], [0067], [0081]). Ghiam teaches that packaging of the product comprises: a step of pulling the container molding material out from a container molding supply mechanism (corresponding to unwind base film); and heating the container molding material using a heating mechanism to soften the container molding material, so as to form the single-serving container from the softened container molding material in the container molding mechanism (corresponding to thermoforming step) (Fig. 7, [0074]). Ghiam teaches that the method then comprises: a step of filling a predetermined amount of the product into the accommodation part of the container using a filling mechanism (Fig. 7, [0074]); a step of covering the opening of the accommodation part of the container with a lid material by unwinding lid material from a roll shape and applying the lid material so as to cover the opening of the accommodation part of the container; and a step of heat-sealing the lid material to a flange portion provided on the periphery of the opening of the accommodation part of the container by using a sealing mechanism (Fig. 7, [0074]). Ghiam teaches that the method then comprises punching out the individual containers by cutting container molding material and lid material between each lidded container with a punching mechanism, thereby separating the single-serving containers into their final form (Fig. 7, [0074]). Ghiam teaches that the container molding material and the lid material have a gas barrier property [0078]-[0079].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the method of Kimmel by performing a filling step as taught by Ghiam. Since Kimmel teaches a concentrated coffee liquid [0002], [0012], it would have been obvious for the liquid product of Kimmel to be in a container since holding liquids in containers is well-known in the art. Since Kimmel teaches that the liquid is shelf stable and has an acceptable taste and mouthfeel [0002], [0012], a skilled practitioner would consult an additional reference such as Ghiam to determine a suitable container for a liquid that would support shelf stability and preservation of taste and mouthfeel of the product of Kimmel. In consulting Ghiam, the practitioner would find that the concentrated coffee of Kimmel may be filled in a single-serving container comprising a peelable lid wherein the container and lid comprised gas barrier properties as presently claimed. The exchange of gases between a food product and the environment is known in the art to interfere with the taste and stability of the food product. Therefore, the container of Ghiam provides features which may provide shelf stability and preservation of taste in the product of Kimmel. Therefore, the claimed single- serving container and the claimed molding, filling, covering, heat-sealing, and punching out steps of present claim 1 are rendered obvious.
The combination of Kimmel and Ghiam does not teach that the filing step further comprises an injecting step.
However, PMG teaches that modified atmospheric packaging (MAP) plays a crucial role in improving shelf life and preserving food quality (page 1, 1st paragraph). PMG teaches that MAP comprises injecting inert gas into a container prior to sealing the container with a gas barrier film (page 3, 1st-2nd paragraphs under heading beginning “Map Techniques”).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of the combination of Kimmel and Ghiam to further comprise injecting inert gas into the single-serving container of Ghiam as taught by PMG. Since Kimmel teaches that the concentrated coffee liquid is shelf stable and has an acceptable taste and mouthfeel [0002], [0012]; Ghiam teaches a lidded container wherein both the container and lid have a gas barrier property [0078]-[0079]; and PMG teaches the injection of inert gas into a container prior to sealing the container with a lid having a gas barrier property to improve shelf life and preserve food quality (page 3, 1st-2nd paragraphs under heading beginning “Map Techniques”), a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that injection of inert gas into the container comprising the concentrate coffee liquid of the cited prior art would support shelf stability and preservation of taste and mouthfeel of the concentrated coffee product of Kimmel. Therefore, the claimed injection step recited in present claim 1 is rendered obvious.
The combination of Kimmel and Ghiam also does not teach the claimed homogenization step and secondary sterilization step.
However, Kamata teaches a method for preparing a coffee and milk beverage [0001], wherein the ingredients are homogenized after blending the ingredients [0012]. Kamata teaches that homogenization prevents separation of oil and fat globules; and aids in stabilization of the beverage [0010]. Kamata teaches that the method may further comprise filling the beverage into a container and sterilizing the beverage [0014].
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of Kimmel to include homogenizing the coffee liquid after blending the ingredients and sterilizing the coffee liquid after filling the coffee liquid into a container as taught by Kamata. Since Kimmel teaches that its method comprises blending unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid, a dairy component, and a stabilizer [0038] and teaches that its method produces a stable product without agglomeration [0002], [0009], but does not disclose a method of mixing the ingredients together, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Kamata in order to determine a suitable method of mixing the unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid, a dairy component, and a stabilizer together after the blending step to help form a stable product, thereby rendering the claimed homogenization step obvious. In consulting Kamata, the practitioner would also find that the container holding the concentrated coffee liquid may be subjected to sterilization after the filling step, thereby rendering the claimed secondary sterilization step obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Kimmel teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the concentrated coffee comprises stabilizers and/or mouthfeel enhancers [0035]. Kamata teaches that the coffee may comprise a cellulose component in the form of microcrystalline cellulose (corresponding to micronized cellulose) [0005], [0007]. Microcrystalline cellulose is a well-known stabilizer and mouthfeel enhancer. Therefore, the combination of prior art teaches that the stabilizer in the concentrated coffee may be microcrystalline cellulose as presently claimed.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimmel (US 2016/0066592; previously cited) in view of Ghiam (US 2018/0118437), PMG (“Modified Atmospheric Packaging (MAP): Enhancing Shelf Life in Food Processing”, June 2021, PMG Engineering, https://pmg.engineering/Article/92/modified-atmospheric-packaging-map-enhancing-shelf-life-infood-processing/), and Kamata (JPH06335348A; English translation relied on for citations; previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mitten (Mitten Jr., H.L., “Sterilization and Aseptic Packaging of Milk Products: Industrial Applications”, 1968, Journal of Dairy Science, vol. 51, No. 8, pages 1334-1336; previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kimmel teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the method comprises a primary sterilization step comprising heat treatment; and then a filling step (Kimmel [0035], [0038]; Ghiam (Fig. 7, [0074])). Kimmel also teaches that its concentrated coffee liquid contains a dairy component [0012].
Modified Kimmel does not teach a secondary homogenization step comprising homogenizing the concentrated coffee liquid sterilized in the primary sterilization step and then filling the concentrated coffee liquid homogenized in the secondary homogenization step in the filling step.
However, Mitten teaches that homogenization may be done after heat treatment of a dairy product as homogenization after heat treatment prevents destabilization and agglomeration in the dairy product (page 1334, 2nd column, paragraph under “Homogenization”).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of modified Kimmel by homogenizing the concentrated coffee liquid after heat treatment as taught by Mitten. Since Kimmel teaches that its method comprises sterilizing a blend of unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid, a dairy component, and a stabilizer using heat treatment [0035] and teaches that its method produces a stable product without agglomeration [0002], [0009]; and Mitten teaches that homogenization prevents destabilization from occurring in a dairy product after heat treatment of the dairy product, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to include a homogenization step after the primary sterilization step before the filling step as present claimed, thereby rendering the claimed secondary homogenization step obvious.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimmel (US 2016/0066592; previously cited) in view of Ghiam (US 2018/0118437), PMG (“Modified Atmospheric Packaging (MAP): Enhancing Shelf Life in Food Processing”, June 2021, PMG Engineering, https://pmg.engineering/Article/92/modified-atmospheric-packaging-map-enhancing-shelf-life-infood-processing/), and Kamata (JPH06335348A; English translation relied on for citations; previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burke (Burke, J., “Vapor Barrier Films”, 1992, WAAC Newsletter, vol. 14, No. 2, page 13-17; previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kimmel teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including: that the concentrated coffee product is shelf-stable with acceptable taste and mouthfeel (Kimmel [0012]); that both the container and lid have a gas barrier property (Ghiam [0078]-[0079]); and the injection of inert gas into a container prior to sealing the container with a lid having a gas barrier property to improve shelf life and preserve food quality (PMG, page 3, 1st-2nd paragraphs under heading beginning “Map Techniques”).
Modified Kimmel does not teach that the method further comprises a packaging step after the secondary sterilization step.
However, Burke teaches vapor film barrier films revolutionized the packaging of materials such as perishable foodstuffs since the introduction of the films as the films prevent oxygen from degrading the flavor of the foodstuff (page 1, 1st paragraph). Burke teaches that the films may form opaque shipping or storage bags (page 1, 1st paragraph under “Typical Structures and Compositions”). Since the bags are opaque, they are considered to have a light-shielding film.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the method of modified Kimmel by packaging a plurality of concentrated coffee in a sing-serving container in a bag having a light-shielding film as taught by Burke. Since Burke teaches vapor film barrier films revolutionized the packaging of materials such as perishable foodstuffs since the introduction of the films as the films prevent oxygen from degrading the flavor of the foodstuff (page 1, 1st paragraph), a skilled practitioner would have readily recognized that a bag made of vapor barrier film would be beneficial in the shipping and storage of a plurality of concentrated coffee in single-serving container, wherein the concentrated coffee is meant to be shelf stable while retaining its taste, mouthfeel, and quality. Therefore, the claim is rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant amended claim 1 to fully address the objection. Therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 1-5: Applicant canceled claim 3 and amended claim 5 to remove the term “outer” from the phrase “outer bag”. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is withdrawn. However, claims 1-2 and 4-5 remain rejected due to the amendment “which is obtained by roasting coffee beans, extracting with water, and concentrating by evaporating the water” describing how to make a concentrated coffee liquid, but not defining the term “unprocessed” in the phrase “unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid”.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1 and 3-4 over Kimmel, Hoon, and Kamata; claim 2 over Kimmel, Hoon, Kamata, and Mitten; claim 5 over Kimmel, Hoon, Kamata, and Burke: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and the amendments are considered to overcome the rejections as stated in the previous Office Action. Applicant’s arguments are considered moot as the arguments are directed toward Hoon and motivation to combine the teachings of Kimmel with Hoon. However, Hoon is no longer cited in the current grounds of rejection. Therefore, the rejections of amended claims 1-2 and 4-5 stand as written herein. The rejection of claim 3 is withdrawn due to the cancelation of the claim.
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 Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/K.P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights