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 .
The status of the claims stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-8
Withdrawn claims: 6-8
Claims currently under consideration: 1-5
Currently rejected claims: 1-5
Allowed claims: None
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 02/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/24/2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “filing” should be read as “filling”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5 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.
Claims 1 and 3 recites “unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid”. It is unclear as to what constitutes an “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 that has not undergone the claimed homogenization, primary sterilization, filling, and/or secondary sterilization steps.
Claim 3 recites that the stabilizer and the unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid are mixed in a ratio of 0.54-0.83%. However, there is no unit of measurement associated with the ratio (e.g., weight ratio, volume ratio). Also, it is unclear as to what is meant by a ratio of 0.54-0.83% (e.g., the blend of stabilizer and unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid contains 0.54-83% stabilizer based on the total weight of the blend; the blend of stabilizer and unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid contains 0.54-83% stabilizer based on the weight of the unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid). For these reasons, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the ratio will be interpreted as being a weight ratio; and the ratio of 0.54-0.83% will be interpreted as meaning that the blend of stabilizer and unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid contains 0.54-83% stabilizer based on the total weight of the blend.
Claim 5 recites that a plurality of concentrated the concentrated coffee in single-serving container are packaged in an outer bag. The term “outer” in the phrase “outer bag” implies that there is an inner bag. However, neither claim 5 nor claim 1 from which claim 5 depends, recites an inner bag. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the phrase “outer bag” will be interpreted as being a bag holding the plurality of concentrated the concentrated coffee in single-serving container.
Claims 2 and 4 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 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimmel (US 2016/0066592) in view of Hoon (US 2020/0385160) and Kamata (JPH06335348A; English translation relied on for citations).
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 also discloses that the concentrated coffee minimizes the bulk and weight of concentrate to make it easier to package and sell the concentrated coffee [0009]-[0010].
Kimmel does not disclose that the method comprises the claimed homogenization step, filling step, or secondary sterilization step. Kimmel also does not disclose that the concentrated coffee is in a single-serving container.
However, Hoon teaches packaging liquid extracts and concentrates such as coffee and dairy products in containers that allow the product to be packaged densely [0025]. Hoon teaches that the method comprises filling the liquid in the accommodation part molded within a container molding material (corresponding to pockets/depressions in a formed foil base portion) [0005], wherein the accommodation part has a cup-shape and holds a predetermined amount of liquid to form a single serving of the liquid ([0009], Fig. 1). Hoon teaches that the method further comprises: filling the space other than the liquid in the accommodation part with an inert gas; and then sealing the opening of the accommodation part with a peelable lid material [0006], [0011], [0032]. Hoon teaches that the container molding material has a gas barrier property [0005]; and that the peelable lid is made from foil [0011], thus also having a gas barrier property.
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 Hoon. Since Kimmel teaches minimizing the bulk and weight of its concentrated coffee to make it easier to package and sell the concentrated coffee [0009]-[0010], but does not disclose a method of packaging the concentrated coffee, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Hoon in order to determine a suitable method of packaging concentrated coffee while minimizing bulk of the packaging. Therefore, the combination of Kimmel and Hoon disclose that the claimed filling step wherein the concentrated coffee and inert gas are contained within a single-serving container sealed with a peelable lid as presently recited by claim 1, thereby rendering these features obvious.
The combination of Kimmel and Hoon 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 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 subjecting to sterilization after the filling step, thereby rendering the claimed secondary sterilization step obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Kimmel teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the stabilizer is present in the blend of stabilizer and unprocessed concentrated coffee liquid in an amount from about 0.2 wt.% to about 1.4 wt.% [0042], which encompasses the claimed amount. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I.
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 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) in view of Hoon (US 2020/0385160) and Kamata (JPH06335348A; English translation relied on for citations) 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).
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]; Hoon [0005]). 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 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) in view of Hoon (US 2020/0385160) and Kamata (JPH06335348A; English translation relied on for citations) 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).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kimmel teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the concentrated coffee minimizes bulk and weight to make it easier to package and sell the concentrated coffee (Kimmel [0009]-[0010]); and packaging liquid extracts and concentrates in containers that allow the product to be packaged densely (Hoon [0025]).
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 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. Therefore, the claim is rendered obvious.
Conclusion
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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791