Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/691,270

COFFEE BEANS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING COFFEE BEANS

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Mar 12, 2024
Examiner
YOO, HONG THI
Art Unit
1792
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Suntory Holdings Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
337 granted / 739 resolved
-19.4% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
777
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 739 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 . Application Status Claim 1-8 are under examination. Claim 1-8 are rejected. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/15/2024, 05/21/2025 and 09/04/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 4, 6 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4, line 2 recites “the content of 2-phenylethanol” should be “a content of the 2-phenylethanol”; claim 4, line 5 recites “coffee beans” should be “the coffee beans” since antecedent basis have been established in claim 1; claim 4, lines 8-9 recites “the content of 2-phenylethanol” should be “the content of the 2-phenylethanol” since antecedent basis have been established in claim 4, line 2; claim 6, line 1 recites “production method” should be “the method” for consistent claim language set forth in claim 5; claim 6, line 2-3 recites a list of yeast however, since the list of yeast are scientific names and should be italicized; claim 8, line 2 recites “the content of 2-phenylethanol” should be “a content of the 2-phenylethanol”; claim 8, line 5 recites “coffee beans” should be “the coffee beans” since antecedent basis have been established in claim 5; and claim 8, lines 8-9 recites “the content of 2-phenylethanol” should be “the content of the 2-phenylethanol” since antecedent basis have been established in claim 8, line 2; 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. 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 4 and 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 4 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the resulting diethyl ether layer" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the resulting liquid" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the mixture" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the resulting diethyl ether layer" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 recites the limitation "the resulting liquid" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by F. Hadj Salem et al. (Applicant submitted IDS filed on 05/15/2024, Ref. 1, Food Chemistry, Vol. 322, 2020) as evidenced by Fitri et al. (Composition of amino acids and fatty acids on Luwak coffee processing, Ref. U). Regarding claim 1, 2 and 3, F. Hadj Salem et al. (Salem) discloses green coffee beans with an amount of 2-phenylethanol in range amount 18.8 + 1.75 ug/g (Ref. 1, pg. 4, col. 2, under Mass transfer resistance study, second paragraph) which corresponds to 18.8 + 1.75 ppm, and in range with the cited range of claim 1 and claim 2. With respect to claim 3, Salem’s green coffee beans are unroasted coffee beans. Regarding claim 4, it is noted the claims is a product and not a method, wherein the recitation of measuring the amount of the 2-phenylethanol in the coffee beans; hence it is considered a functional limitations of the claimed product, coffee beans with the 2-phenylethanol; hence it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitation that stem from the claimed structure (product). In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spade, 15 USPQ2d 655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 5, 6 and 7, F. Hadj Salem et al. (Salem) discloses a method of processing plant materials including fresh coffee cherries, depulped coffee beans (Ref. 1, pg. 2, col. 2 under Materials and methods) with yeast strain, Saccharomyces cerevisiae LSCC1 (Ref. 1, pg. 3, col. 1, 4th full paragraph) and treating (fermenting) at 25°C for five time periods (Ref. 1, pg. 3, col. 1, 5th-7th paragraph) to provide a green coffee beans with an amount of 2-phenylethanol in range amount 18.8 + 1.75 ug/g (Ref. 1, pg. 4, col. 2, under Mass transfer resistance study, second paragraph) which corresponds to 18.8 + 1.75 ppm, and in range with the cited range of claim 5. With respect to the recitation of phenylalanine in an amount of 0.01 g or greater per 1 kg of the raw material beans; Salem’s depulped coffee beans (raw bean) contains innate amount of 0.20 + 0.007% of phenylalanine as evidenced by Fitri et al. (Ref. U, pg. 62, Table 1), which is in range with the cited range 0.01g or greater per 1 kg of raw material beans (0.001% or greater). With respect to claim 7, Salem discloses the time periods (Ref. 1, pg. 3, col. 1, 5th-7th paragraph) including 6 hours which is in range with the cited range. Regarding claim 8, it is noted the claims are to a method of producing coffee beans, wherein the recitation of measuring the amount of the 2-phenylethanol in the coffee beans; hence it is considered a functional limitations of the claimed product, coffee beans with the 2-phenylethanol; hence it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitation that stem from the claimed structure (product). In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spade, 15 USPQ2d 655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG THI YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM to 3PM. 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. /HONG T YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 12, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599266
AXIALLY OPERABLE BREWING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593856
REDUCED CALORIE BEVERAGE OR FOOD PRODUCT AND PROCESS AND APPARATUS FOR MAKING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588686
METHOD FOR PRODUCING MODIFIED PEA PROTEIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12568986
A METHOD OF REDUCING ACRYLAMIDE IN COFFEE EXTRACT AND A SOLUBLE COFFEE PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557826
PLANT-BASED MILK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+26.0%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 739 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month