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 .
Status of the Claims
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-11
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously canceled claims: None
Newly canceled claims: None
Amended claims: None
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-11
Currently rejected claims: 1-11
Allowed claims: None
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 20 September 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202331063040 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code on p. 2, line 4. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On p. 5, line 17, it appears that “semi-soling gum” should read “semi-solid gum”.
On p. 17, line 4, “Figure 4” should read “Figure 5”.
Throughout the specification, initial capitalization of words (e.g., Crude Coffee Oil, Mechanical Hydraulic Press, Hot Brew, Partnering Cafes, etc.) should be limited to proper nouns, headings, and titles.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “Crude Coffee Oil”, “Spent Coffee Ground”, and “Mechanical Hydraulic Press Machine” should not be capitalized.
In claim 2, at line 21, “Tray Dried” should not be capitalized.
In claim 6, it appears that “semi-soling gum” should read “semi-solid gum”.
In claim 7, at line 21, “Crude Coffee Oil” should not be capitalized.
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 1-11 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 regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “using a mechanical hydraulic press machine” at line 5 without reciting an active method step that details how the mechanical hydraulic press machine is used. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted broadly, such that any step involving a hydraulic press reads on the claim as written.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a. reducing moisture content of the raw material…” at line 7. There insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not first recite “a raw material”. Applicant may overcome this rejection by instead reciting “a. reducing moisture content of a SCG raw material…”. For purposes of examination, this limitation is construed as suggested for amendment.
Claims 1-2 and 7-8 recite “% moisture content”. It is unclear how the percent is determined, for example, percent by weight, percent by volume, etc. For purposes of examination, any types of percentages in the prior art are deemed to be acceptable.
Claim 2 recites, “ii. drying of dewatered SCG raw material as obtained in step (i) at a temperature of about 36-39°C for about 60 minutes to produce tray dried SCG (TDSCG) raw material having 19-26% moisture content.” It is unclear how tray dried SCG is obtained without reciting a tray drier as part of the method step. Applicant may overcome this rejection by instead reciting “ii. drying of dewatered SCG raw material as obtained in step (i) at a temperature of about 36-39°C for about 60 minutes in a tray drier to produce tray-dried SCG (TDSCG) raw material having 19-26% moisture content.” For purposes of examination, this limitation is construed as suggested for amendment.
Claims 2-6 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claims 6 and 11 recite the limitation “i. decanting by heating of CCO at 35-45°C for a period of 20-25 minutes, to obtain three separate layers of semi purified coffee oil, moisture and coffee dust and other semi-solid gum / wax particles within the vessel”. It is unclear how decanting is achieved by heating the CCO. For purposes of examination, this limitation is interpreted as “i. heating of CCO at 35-45°C for a period of 20-25 minutes, to obtain three separate layers of semi purified coffee oil, moisture and coffee dust and other semi-solid gum / wax particles within the vessel, and then decanting the semi-purified coffee oil”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a. reducing moisture content of the raw material…” at line 18. There insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim does not first recite “a raw material”. Applicant may overcome this rejection by instead reciting “a. reducing moisture content of a SCG raw material…”. For purposes of examination, this limitation is construed as suggested for amendment.
Claims 8-11 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 7.
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.
Claim 1, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efthymiopoulos et al. (Efthymiopoulos, I., Hellier, P., Ladommatos, N., Kay, A., & Mills-Lamptey, B. (2018). Integrated strategies for water removal and lipid extraction from coffee industry residues. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 29, 26-35. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.seta.2018.06.016) in view of Hamell et al. (US 4156031 A).
Regarding claim 1, Efthymiopoulos teaches a method for extraction of crude coffee oil (CCO) from spent coffee ground (SCG) using a mechanical hydraulic press machine (p. 28, col. 2, ¶¶ 1-3; p. 29, Fig. 1; p. 30, col. 1, last ¶ - col. 2, ¶ 3), the method comprising the steps of:
a. reducing moisture content of a SCG raw material to obtain a SCG raw material having 19-26% moisture content -– Efthymiopoulos teaches using a hydraulic ram press to dewater SCG (p. 30, col. 1, last ¶), removing 40.7% (w/w) moisture from SCG having an initial moisture content of 57.67% (w/w) (p. 30, col. 2, ¶ 2), thereby resulting in SCG having a moisture content of 23.47% (w/w) (57.67% x 0.407 = 23.47%). The disclosed moisture content of 23.47% lies inside the claimed range of 19-26%.
b. extracting the SCG raw material obtained at the end of step (a) to produce crude coffee oil – Efthymiopoulos teaches, “Mechanical pressing with the hydraulic ram press was also used as a pre-treatment for moisture reduction of wet SCGs prior to solvent extraction…” (p. 30, col. 2, ¶3).
Efthymiopoulos does not discuss that extraction of the SCG raw material involves compression of SCG raw material obtained at the end of step (a) at a pressure of about 400-600 bars and at a temperature of 36-39°C.
However, Hamell teaches obtaining crude coffee oil by pressing roasted coffee and/or water-extracted roasted coffee (Abstract). Hamell teaches that water-extracted ground roasted coffee will supply the most economical source of crude coffee oil (col. 1, lines 37-44), and solvent extraction or subjecting the coffee to extreme pressure conditions, resulting in “expressed coffee oil”, are common processes to extract coffee oil (col. 1, lines 45-58). Hamell teaches obtaining crude coffee oil by expressing in a screw or auger-type press at a pressure of at least 5000 psi (i.e., at least ~345 bars; conversion factor 1 bar = 14.504 psi), and that the recovered oil had a temperature of about 100 °C and the coffee meal residue had a temperature between 75 and 150 °C (col. 4, lines 44-56).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the solvent extraction of Efthymiopoulos with the oil extraction by pressing at a pressure of at least ~345 bars as disclosed by Hamell to obtain the crude coffee oil by simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). The method of Efthymiopoulos differs from the claimed method only by the means of crude oil extraction from the reduced-moisture SCG, and Hamell teaches that it was well-known in the art to extract SCG by pressing at extreme pressures of pressure of at least ~345 bars. The claimed range of about 400-600 bars lies inside the disclosed range of at least ~345 bars. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I). The results would have been predictable because both solvent extraction and pressing result in a crude coffee oil as taught by Hamell.
Although Hamell discloses that the recovered oil had a temperature of about 100 °C and the coffee meal residue had a temperature between 75 and 150 °C, Efthymiopoulos teaches that temperature is a result effective variable related to pressing SCG. Efthymiopoulos discloses that pressing SCG at higher temperature (e.g., 100 °C) results in more moisture extraction from the SCG as compared to pressing a lower temperature (e.g., 25 °C) (p. 31, Fig. 2a). Although related to moisture extraction from SCG, it is expected that the same trend would be observed during oil extraction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal value for the temperature used in the process of Efthymiopoulos in view of Hamell, through routine experimentation within the disclosed range of 25°C to 100 °C, including about 36-39 °C as claimed.
Claim 1 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Efthymiopoulos and Hamell teach the method according to claim 1.
Efthymiopoulos does not discuss that the crude coffee oil is purified to obtain pure coffee oil.
However, Hamell teaches methods useful for the purification of crude roasted coffee oil (col. 2, line 60 – col. 3, line 3). Hamell provides motivation to purify crude coffee oil in that “purified coffee oil may be superior, from an organoleptic viewpoint, to crude coffee oil as a carrier for condensed coffee aromatics” (col. 1, lines 27-35).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Efthymiopoulos to include a purifying the crude coffee oil as taught by Hamell for use as a carrier for condensed coffee aromatics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention because Hamell discloses various ways of purifying crude coffee oil to obtain pure coffee oil as claimed.
Claim 5 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Efthymiopoulos teaches a method comprising the steps of:
a. reducing moisture content of a SCG raw material to obtain a SCG raw material having 19-26% moisture content -– Efthymiopoulos teaches using a hydraulic ram press to dewater SCG (p. 30, col. 1, last ¶), removing 40.7% (w/w) moisture from SCG having an initial moisture content of 57.67% (w/w) (p. 30, col. 2, ¶ 2), thereby resulting in SCG having a moisture content of 23.47% (w/w) (57.67% x 0.407 = 23.47%). The disclosed moisture content of 23.47% lies inside the claimed range of 19-26%.
b. extracting the SCG raw material obtained at the end of step (a) to produce crude coffee oil – Efthymiopoulos teaches, “Mechanical pressing with the hydraulic ram press was also used as a pre-treatment for moisture reduction of wet SCGs prior to solvent extraction…” (p. 30, col. 2, ¶3).
Efthymiopoulos does not discuss c. purifying the crude coffee oil (CCO) to obtain pure coffee oil (PCO); wherein extraction of the SCG raw material involves compression of SCG raw material obtained at the end of step (a) at a pressure of about 400-600 bars and at a temperature of 36-39°C.
However, Hamell teaches obtaining crude coffee oil by pressing roasted coffee and/or water-extracted roasted coffee (Abstract). Hamell teaches that water-extracted ground roasted coffee will supply the most economical source of crude coffee oil (col. 1, lines 37-44), and solvent extraction or subjecting the coffee to extreme pressure conditions, resulting in “expressed coffee oil”, are common processes to extract coffee oil (col. 1, lines 45-58). Hamell teaches obtaining crude coffee oil by expressing in a screw or auger-type press at a pressure of at least 5000 psi (i.e., at least ~345 bars; conversion factor 1 bar = 14.504 psi), and that the recovered oil had a temperature of about 100 °C and the coffee meal residue had a temperature between 75 and 150 °C (col. 4, lines 44-56). Hamell also teaches methods useful for the purification of crude roasted coffee oil (col. 2, line 60 – col. 3, line 3). Hamell provides motivation to purify crude coffee oil in that “purified coffee oil may be superior, from an organoleptic viewpoint, to crude coffee oil as a carrier for condensed coffee aromatics” (col. 1, lines 27-35).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the solvent extraction of Efthymiopoulos with the oil extraction by pressing at a pressure of at least ~345 bars as disclosed by Hamell to obtain the crude coffee oil by simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). The method of Efthymiopoulos differs from the claimed method only by the means of crude oil extraction from the reduced-moisture SCG, and Hamell teaches that it was well-known in the art to extract SCG by pressing at extreme pressures of pressure of at least ~345 bars. The claimed range of about 400-600 bars lies inside the disclosed range of at least ~345 bars. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I). The results would have been predictable because both solvent extraction and pressing result in a crude coffee oil as taught by Hamell.
Although Hamell discloses that the recovered oil had a temperature of about 100 °C and the coffee meal residue had a temperature between 75 and 150 °C, Efthymiopoulos teaches that temperature is a result effective variable related to pressing SCG. Efthymiopoulos discloses that pressing SCG at higher temperature (e.g., 100 °C) results in more moisture extraction from the SCG as compared to pressing a lower temperature (e.g., 25 °C) (p. 31, Fig. 2a). Although related to moisture extraction from SCG, it is expected that the same trend would be observed during oil extraction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal value for the temperature used in the process of Efthymiopoulos in view of Hamell, through routine experimentation within the disclosed range of 25°C to 100 °C, including about 36-39 °C as claimed.
Regarding purifying the crude coffee oil, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Efthymiopoulos to include a purifying the crude coffee oil as taught by Hamell for use as a carrier for condensed coffee aromatics. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention because Hamell discloses various ways of purifying crude coffee oil to obtain pure coffee oil from spent coffee ground as claimed.
Claim 7 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efthymiopoulos et al. in view of Hamell et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7, respectively, above, and further in view of Kay et al. (US 2020/0270539 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 13 September 2024) and Osorio-Arias et al. (Osorio-Arias, J., Delgado-Arias, S., Cano, L., Zapata, S., Quintero, M., Nuñez, H., ... & Vega-Castro, O. (2020). Sustainable management and valorization of spent coffee grounds through the optimization of thin layer hot air-drying process. Waste and Biomass Valorization, 11(9), 5015-5026. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-019-00793-9).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Efthymiopoulos and Hamell teach the method according to claim 1 and claim 7, respectively.
Efthymiopoulos also teaches that the step (a) of reducing moisture content of the raw material comprises:
i. dewatering of SCG raw material having a moisture level of about 46-66% to produce dewatered SCG raw material having 20-28% moisture content – Efthymiopoulos teaches using a hydraulic ram press to dewater SCG (p. 30, col. 1, last ¶), removing 40.7% (w/w) moisture from SCG having an initial moisture content of 57.67% (w/w) (p. 30, col. 2, ¶ 2), thereby resulting in SCG having a moisture content of 23.47% (w/w) (57.67% x 0.407 = 23.47%) after 30 min of pressing at 450 bars. The disclosed moisture content of 23.47% lies inside the claimed range of 20-28%.
Efthymiopoulos does not specifically discuss that the dewatering is conducted at 200-400 bars for about 60 minutes, or ii. drying of dewatered SCG raw material as obtained in step (i) at a temperature of about 36-39°C for about 60 minutes in a tray drier to produce tray-dried SCG (TDSCG) raw material having 19-26% moisture content.
Regarding the dewatering pressure and time, Efthymiopoulos teaches that pressure and time are result effective variables related to pressing SCG. Efthymiopoulos discloses that increasing the pressure increases the percentage of moisture removed from the SCG, and as pressing duration increases at a given pressure, the percentage of moisture removed from the SCG increases (p. 31, Fig. 2b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal value for the pressure and time used in the process of Efthymiopoulos in view of Hamell, through routine experimentation, to impart the SCG with the desired moisture content, including 20-28% as claimed.
Regarding step ii, Kay teaches drying waste coffee grounds (WCG) ([0040] – [0041]) prior to extracting coffee oil from the WCT and optionally refining the extracted coffee oil ([0042]). Kay teaches that any appropriate method of drying may be used, such as convective drying, typically to a moisture content of between 6 and 20% ([0040]). Kay further teaches that the step of drying may comprise a pre-drying step, including a dewatering press, to remove up to 30%, 40% or 50% of the moisture in the WCG to reduce overall energy consumption ([0041]).
Osorio-Arias teaches hot air drying of spent coffee grounds in a tray-type convection dryer at a temperature of 40 ± 1 °C (pp. 5016-5017, bridging ¶). The disclosed temperature is “about 39 °C” as claimed, and therefore falls within the claimed range of “about 36-39 °C). Osorio-Arias dries spent coffee grounds from a moisture content of about 60% to about 5.5% (p. 5019, Table 1), and uses drying times up to 310 minutes to do so (p. 5020, Table 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Efthymiopoulos as modified by Hamell to include a tray drying step as taught by Kay and Osorio-Arias following the dewatering by pressing as taught by Efthymiopoulos. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Although Osorio-Arias teaches drying times up to 310 minutes, drying time is a result-effective variable; increased drying time leads to reduced moisture content. In the context of the teachings of Kay, the pre-drying by pressing would reduce the initial moisture content, and the final dryness may be up to 20 % moisture. Therefore, such long drying times are not required, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the drying time within the disclosed range of up to 310 minutes by routine experimentation to arrive at a moisture content of 6-20% as disclosed by Kay, including a time of about 60 minutes as claimed. The claimed moisture content of 19-26% overlaps the disclosed range of 6-20%. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claims 2 and 8 are therefore rendered obvious.
Claims 3-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efthymiopoulos et al. in view of Hamell et al. as applied to claims 1 and 7, respectively, above, and further in view of Shrestha (Shrestha, P. (2020, June 6). Manufacture of edible oil: Screw press method. Food Tech Notes. Retrieved July 8, 2026 from https://foodtechnotes.com/2020/06/06/manufacture-of-edible-oil-screw-press-method/).
Regarding claim 3, Efthymiopoulos and Hamell teach the method according to claim 1.
The cited prior art does not discuss that step (b) of extracting the SCG raw material is carried out for 3-4 cycles, and each cycle has a time period of 60-120 minutes.
However, Shrestha, in the related art of oilseed pressing, teaches that the screw press cycle is carried out for 4-5 times to reduce the amount of oil in the cake (p. 2, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Efthymiopoulos as modified by Hamell to carry out the screw-pressing of the SCG for 4-5 cycles in order to reduce the amount of oil in the SCG cake/maximize oil yield. The claimed range of 3-4 cycles overlaps the disclosed range of 4-5 cycles. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention because Hamell teaches extracting crude coffee oil from SCG by screw pressing, and Shrestha teaches that screw pressing is carried out for 4-5 cycles.
Regarding the claimed cycle time period of 60-120 minutes, Efthymiopoulos teaches that pressing time is a result effective variable. Efthymiopoulos cites a study by Santoso et al. who found a relationship between increasing duration of pressing (30-90 min) and higher crude oil yield (p. 27, ¶ 3). It is also considered that optimal pressing time depends on the amount of raw material being pressed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal value for the pressing cycle time used in the process of Efthymiopoulos in view of Hamell and Shrestha, through routine experimentation, including 60-120 minutes as claimed.
Claim 3 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Efthymiopoulos, Hamell, and Shrestha teach the method of claim 3.
Regarding “wherein the pressure is reduced to zero at each cycle at every 20-25 minutes”, where the cited prior art as applied to claim 3 involves screw pressing the SCG, and where Shrestha teaches that the cake leaves the press through a narrow concentric opening at the end of the worm shaft as the material is conveyed (p. 2, ¶ 1), the pressure on the cake is reduced to zero. Where the pressing cycle lasts longer than 25 minutes, the cake leaving the press at every 20-25 minutes meets the limitations of the claim.
Therefore, where claim 3 is obvious, so too is claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, Efthymiopoulos and Hamell teach the method according to claim 7.
The cited prior art does not discuss that step (b) of extracting the SCG raw material is carried out for 3-4 cycles.
However, Shrestha, in the related art of oilseed pressing, teaches that the screw press cycle is carried out for 4-5 times to reduce the amount of oil in the cake (p. 2, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Efthymiopoulos as modified by Hamell to carry out the screw-pressing of the SCG for 4-5 cycles in order to reduce the amount of oil in the SCG cake/maximize oil yield. The claimed range of 3-4 cycles overlaps the disclosed range of 4-5 cycles. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention because Hamell teaches extracting crude coffee oil from SCG by screw pressing, and Shrestha teaches that screw pressing is carried out for 4-5 cycles.
Claim 9 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Efthymiopoulos, Hamell, and Shrestha teach the method of claim 9.
Regarding “wherein the pressure is reduced to zero at each cycle at every 20-25 minutes”, where the cited prior art as applied to claim 9 involves screw pressing the SCG, and where Shrestha teaches that the cake leaves the press through a narrow concentric opening at the end of the worm shaft as the material is conveyed (p. 2, ¶ 1), the pressure on the cake is reduced to zero.
Regarding the cycle time, Efthymiopoulos teaches that pressing time is a result effective variable. Efthymiopoulos cites a study by Santoso et al. who found a relationship between increasing duration of pressing (30-90 min) and higher crude oil yield (p. 27, ¶ 3). It is also considered that optimal pressing time depends on the amount of raw material being pressed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine the optimal value for the pressing cycle time used in the process of Efthymiopoulos in view of Hamell and Shrestha, through routine experimentation. Where the pressing cycle lasts longer than 20-25 minutes, the cake leaving the press at every 20-25 minutes meets the limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claims 6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Efthymiopoulos et al. in view of Hamell et al. as applied to claims 5 and 7, respectively, above, and further in view of Shrestha (Shrestha, P. (2020, June 6). Manufacture of edible oil: Screw press method. Food Tech Notes. Retrieved July 8, 2026 from https://foodtechnotes.com/2020/06/06/manufacture-of-edible-oil-screw-press-method/), Nakajima et al. (JP 2013013344 A, see Espacenet translation provided), Laux et al. (EP 3417713 A1), and Karmee (Karmee, S. K. (2020). Technical valorisation of spent coffee grounds and food waste using sulphuric acid immobilised on silica. Biofuels, 11(2), 155-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/17597269.2017.1378989), and as evidenced by Kramer Inc. (Kramer Inc. (n.d.). Mesh Size. Kramer Industries, Inc. Retrieved July 8, 2026 from https://kramerindustriesonline.com/resources/mesh-size/).
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Efthymiopoulos and Hamell teach the method according to claim 5 and claim 7, respectively.
Efthymiopoulos also teaches ii. filtering the semi purified coffee oil through multiple mesh filters having mesh size between 150 to 800 to produce semi purified coffee oil – Efthymiopoulos teaches that oil obtained by screw press was filtered through a bag filter with pore size of 25 µm, followed by a further filtration with filter paper of 5 µm pore size. As evidenced by Kramer Inc., 25 µm is about 400 mesh, and 5 µm is about 1200 mesh (p. 2, Table). The disclosed bag filter and filter paper are broadly considered to be mesh filters. The claimed range of 150 to 800 mesh size overlaps the disclosed range of about 400 to about 1200 mesh size. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Additionally, regarding sulfuric acid treatment, Hamell teaches:
According to the acid treatment purification process, crude coffee oil is contacted directly with an anhydrous, strong, mineral acid, preferably concentrated sulfuric or concentrated phosphoric acid. This contact produces a reaction which causes complete destruction and removal of the diterpene esters in the form of a charred, insoluble black sludge. This precipitate can then be removed or separated by filtration and/or centrifugation… The oil, which now contains only edible fatty acid esters, is steam-vacuum distilled to deodorize the purified oil, remove free fatty acids, and give a bland taste to the edible oil. (col. 3, lines 19-45)
The cited prior art does not discuss that the crude coffee oil is purified by a method comprising the steps of: i. heating of CCO at 35-45°C for a period of 20-25 minutes, to obtain three separate layers of semi purified coffee oil, moisture and coffee dust and other semi-solid gum / wax particles within the vessel, and then decanting the semi-purified coffee oil; and iii. non thermal drying of filtered semi purified coffee oil by passing the semi purified coffee oil over concentrated anhydrous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and silica gel to obtain the purified coffee oil.
However, Shrestha teaches that crude oil expressed from a screw press is rested for days to settle the mucilage (solids/semi-solids) and moisture and finally strained with a muslin cloth or filter press (p. 2, ¶ 1).
Nakajima teaches heating a mixture of ground coffee beans and water at a preferred temperature of 30 to 50 °C in order to more efficiently obtain a crude oil by modifying viscosity (p. 4, ¶ 1). Nakajima then separates the liquid preferentially by a three-phase separator to obtain a crude oil, extract, and coffee residue (insoluble fine particles, also referred to as sludge) (p. 4, ¶ 3). The “extract” represents an aqueous/moisture phase. Nakajima therefore teaches heating a mixture of crude oil, moisture, and solids followed by phase separation. The claimed temperature range of 35-45°C lies inside the disclosed range of 30 to 50 °C.
Laux teaches separating a suspension of ground coffee cherries and water into a water phase (heavy phase), an oil phase (light phase), and a solid phase by the use of a decanter (claim 8).
Karmee teaches subjecting oil extracted from spent coffee grounds to purification and then reflux using sulfuric acid immobilized on silica gel (p. 156, col. 1, ¶ 3) to prepare biofuel (Abstract). Addition of the oil to the sulfuric acid-silica gel prior to heating for reflux represents a credible intermediate that meets the non-thermal drying limitation of the claim.
These references and teachings establish the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Regarding i. heating of CCO at 35-45°C for a period of 20-25 minutes, to obtain three separate layers of semi purified coffee oil, moisture and coffee dust and other semi-solid gum / wax particles within the vessel, and then decanting the semi-purified coffee oil:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Efthymiopoulos as modified by Hamell with the teachings of Shrestha, Nakajima, and Laux to heat the obtained crude oil at 30 to 50 °C to obtain three separate layers of semi purified coffee oil, moisture, and solids and semi-solids (i.e., coffee dust and other semi-solid gum/wax particles inherent to the SCG), and then decant the semi-purified coffee oil. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to separate the oil fraction from the remaining moisture phase and solids by known methods as disclosed by the cited prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to heat the oil in order to reduce viscosity and more efficiently separate the oil from the moisture and solids as taught by Nakajima. The claimed temperature range of 35-45°C lies inside the disclosed range of 30 to 50 °C. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I). The heating time is a known result effective variable; longer heating time is expected to impart more heat and therefore reduce viscosity. However, too long of a heating time would result in unnecessary energy consumption and increased costs. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the heating time in the method of Efthymiopoulos as modified by Hamell, Shrestha, and Nakajima, by routine experimentation, in order to expedite phase separation, but not waste energy, including for a duration of 20-25 minutes as claimed. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the three-phase separation of Nakajima with the decanter of Laux by simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable result of separating the oil light phase from the moisture heavy phase and solid phase. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B). One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention because the proposed modifications to the method of Efthymiopoulos as modified by Hamell use well-known methods of oil extraction and phase separation.
Regarding iii. non thermal drying of filtered semi purified coffee oil by passing the semi purified coffee oil over concentrated anhydrous sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and silica gel to obtain the purified coffee oil:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Efthymiopoulos as modified by Hamell, Shrestha, Nakajima, and Laux with the teachings of Karmee to subject the semi-purified coffee oil to sulfuric acid immobilized on silica gel reflux in order to obtain biofuel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Efthymiopoulos is concerned with biofuel production, and Karmee teaches that the transesterification by reflux of the oil with sulfuric acid immobilized on silica gel is part of biofuel production. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention because addition of the semi-purified coffee oil to the sulfuric acid-silica gel prior to heating for reflux constitutes “passing the semi purified coffee oil over concentrated anhydrous sulfuric acid and slica gel” and represents a credible intermediate that meets the non-thermal drying limitation of the claim.
Claims 6 and 11 are therefore rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm 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.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights