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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 10-14 in the reply filed on August 4, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims share the same technical feature because Novejarque teaches a post-extraction fortification process rather than including the fruit prior to separation of the liquid and solid phases (Remarks, p. 4, ¶ 4- p. 7, ¶ 1). This is not deemed persuasive because the 35 USC 103 rejection below demonstrates that the shared feature (i.e., the method of claim 10) is not a special technical feature in view of the prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 4, 2026.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
10-20
Withdrawn claims:
15-20
Previously canceled claims:
1-10
Claims currently under consideration:
10-14
Currently rejected claims:
10-14
Allowed claims:
None
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacchi (Sacchi, Raffaele, et al. “Characterization of lemon-flavored olive oils”, LWT - Food Science and Technology, Vol. 79, p. 326-332, published January 12, 2017 [accessed online August 18, 2026]).
Regarding claim 10, Sacchi discloses a method of making olive oil comprising combining olive oil and fresh lemons at an amount of 0.35 kg/kg olive (equivalent to 25.9% fruit by weight of the total olive paste mixture, which falls within the claimed range of “between 10 and 30% by weight”), crushing (i.e., grinding into a paste), malaxation (i.e., pressure extraction), and centrifugation to obtain an olive oil composition (p. 327, col. 2, ¶ 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that fresh lemons would necessarily comprise lemon pulp.
Although Sacchi discloses adding the lemon during the crushing step, MPEP §2144.04(IV)(C) states “Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious”, In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) and “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”, In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Therefore, it would have been obvious to add the lemons after the crushing step absent evidence of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 11, although Sacchi does not disclose adding mandarin to an olive paste, Sacchi does teach that it is known in the art to aromatize olive oil using mandarin (p. 326, col. 2, ¶ 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Sacchi with the use of mandarins in place of the lemons in the method of making olive oil. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Sacchi teaches that mandarins are known in the art to be added to olive oil (p. 326, col. 2, ¶ 2).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacchi (Sacchi, Raffaele, et al. “Characterization of lemon-flavored olive oils”, LWT - Food Science and Technology, Vol. 79, p. 326-332, published January 12, 2017 [accessed online August 18, 2026]) in view of Erica (Erica, “How to include oils and fats in your food storage”, Productive Home by Erica, published November 7, 2017 [accessed online August 18, 2026]).
Regarding claim 12, Sacchi does not teach wherein the fruit pulp is pasteurized or sterilized prior to adding it to the olive paste.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Erica teaches that sterilization procedures dramatically reduce the risk of microbial rancidity (p. 4, ¶ 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the lemons used in the process of Sacchi to include a sterilization step as taught by Erica. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Erica teaches that sterilization procedures dramatically reduce the risk of microbial rancidity (p. 4, ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 14, Sacchi does not teach the process further comprising storing the enriched extra virgin olive oil in a sealed container for between 12 and 24 months.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Erica teaches that unopened olive oil will last for 18 months to 2 years (p. 7, ¶ 1), which lies within the claimed range of “between 12 and 24 months”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Sacchi to include a step of storing the olive oil for the time disclosed by Erica. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Erica teaches that olive oil lasts longer is storage than other processed seed oils (7, ¶ 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacchi (Sacchi, Raffaele, et al. “Characterization of lemon-flavored olive oils”, LWT - Food Science and Technology, Vol. 79, p. 326-332, published January 12, 2017 [accessed online August 18, 2026]) in view of Loh (Loh, Alex, “Can You Freeze Lemons?”, EatingWell, published January 31, 2022 [accessed online August 18, 2026]).
Regarding claim 13, Sacchi does not teach wherein the fruit pulp is frozen before being added to the olive paste.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Loh teaches that you can freeze whole lemons to extend their viability (p. 2, ¶ 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Sacchi with the addition of freezing the fresh lemons prior to use as taught by Loh. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Loh teaches that freezing lemons extends their viability for months, and is a great solution when you can’t finish a whole bag at once (p. 2, ¶ 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00a-4:00p, F 8:00a-1:00p ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793 /Michele L Jacobson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights