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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: The term “pKb” in line 2 of claim 7 should read “pKb”. 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.
Claims 8 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 8, the recitation “wherein the tea leaves are further contacted with a polysaccharide degrading enzyme (e.g., pectinase) . . .” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the enzyme is required to be pectinase or not. There is a question as to whether the pectinase is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or a required feature of the claim.
Regarding claim 13, the recitation “contacting tea leaves with a polysaccharide degrading enzyme (e.g., pectinase) . . .” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear if the enzyme is required to be pectinase or not. There is a question as to whether the pectinase is merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or a required feature of the claim.
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 1-4, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson et al. (US 4,051,264).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6 and 8-10, Sanderson et al. disclose a method of making a tea product comprising the steps of: (a) obtaining fresh green tea having a total solids content of about 25%; (b) withering the green tea for 18 hours at 25°C to 35% solids (i.e., moisture content of 65%); (c) slicing the withered green tea and passing the sliced tea between a pair of rollers four times in succession to fully comminute the green tea (i.e., macerated tea leaves); (c) mixing the comminuted green tea with 0.7 g of potassium hydroxide in 10 mls of water (i.e., 7% by weight); (d) adding 600 units of tannase enzyme dissolved in 10 ml of water and mixing; (e) holding the tea mixture under anaerobic conditions for 30 minutes at 35°C (i.e., fermenting); (f) spreading the green tea particles on a tray and fermenting for 90 minutes at 32°C and a relative humidity higher than 90%; (g) firing the fermented tea by passing air at 80°-85°C through it for 30 minutes reducing its moisture content to less than 5% (Example II/Product A).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson et al. (US 4,051,264) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Balentine et al. (WO 0047056 A2).
Regarding claim 5, Sanderson et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Sanderson et al. disclose treating fresh tea leaves with potassium hydroxide, a base, the reference is silent with respect to treating finished tea leaves.
Balentine et al. teach cold water infusible tea leaf (Abstract). Balentine et al. teach it was known to treat tea leaf with an alkaline (e.g., KOH) to convert tea compounds to highly colored species and produce a tea with improved color (p. 16/L25-p. 17/L6).
Given Balentine et al. teach it was known to treat tea with an alkaline in order to improve the color of the tea, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have treated any tea, including finished tea, with potassium hydroxide and arrive at the present invention, a tea product with improved color.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanderson et al. (US 4,051,264) as applied to claim 9, and further in view of Sanderson et al. (US 3,787,585)(Hereinafter “Sanderson et al. 585’).
Regarding claim 11, Sanderson et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sanderson et al. is silent with respect to contacting the fresh tea leaves with a polysaccharide degrading enzyme.
Sanderson et al. 585’ teach a method of treating tea powders with pectinase enzyme (i.e., polysaccharide degrading enzyme) to improve the clarity and color of the tea.
Sanderson et al. and Sanderson et al. 585’ are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely preparing tea products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added pectinase enzyme, as taught by Sanderson et al. 585’, in the process of Sanderson et al. to obtain a dried tea product with improved color.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 107494806 A – Clarivate Analytics translation).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6, and 9, Wu discloses a method of processing tea comprising the steps of: (a) obtaining picked tea (i.e., fresh tea leaves with a moisture content of more than 65% by weight); (b) treating the picked tea with a solution of 10-20% sodium carbonate; soaking the sodium carbonate treated tea for 30-60 minutes (i.e., fermenting); (c) spreading the treated tea onto a mesh screen; (d) drying the treated tea to a moisture content of 8-10%; and (e) fermenting the leaves at 30°-35°C for 30-40 days (Abstract, Claims).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Wu discloses a base, sodium bicarbonate, inherently the base has a pKb value of greater than 4.68.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 107494806 A – Clarivate Analytics translation) in view of Balentine et al (WO 0047056 A2).
Wu discloses a method of processing tea comprising the steps of: (a) obtaining picked tea (i.e., fresh tea leaves with a moisture content of more than 65% by weight); (b) treating the picked tea with a solution of 10-20% sodium carbonate; soaking the sodium carbonate treated tea for 30-60 minutes (i.e., fermenting); (c) spreading the treated tea onto a mesh screen; (d) drying the treated tea to a moisture content of 8-10%; and (e) fermenting the leaves at 30°-35°C for 30-40 days (Abstract, Claims).
While Wu discloses treating fresh tea leaves, the reference is silent with respect to treating finished tea with a moisture content of less than 5%.
Balentine et al. teach cold water infusible tea leaf (Abstract). Balentine et al. teach it was known to treat tea leaf with an alkaline (e.g., KOH) to convert tea compounds to highly colored species and produce a tea with improved color (p. 16/L25-p. 17/L6).
Given Balentine et al. teach it was known to treat tea with an alkaline in order to improve the color of the tea, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have treated any tea, including finished tea, with sodium carbonate, as taught by Wu, and arrive at the present invention, a tea product with improved color.
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 107494806 A – Clarivate Analytics translation) in view of Balentine et al (WO 0047056 A2) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Sanderson et al. (US 3,787,585)(Hereinafter “Sanderson et al. 585’).
Regarding claim 13, modified Wu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Wu is silent with respect to contacting the fresh tea leaves with a polysaccharide degrading enzyme.
Sanderson et al. 585’ teach a method of treating tea powders with pectinase enzyme (i.e., polysaccharide degrading enzyme) to improve the clarity and color of the tea.
Wu and Sanderson et al. 585’ are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely preparing tea products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added pectinase enzyme, as taught by Sanderson et al. 585’, in the process of modified Wu to obtain a dried tea product with improved color.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights