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 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 1-4 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 1, claim 1 recites “the watermelon juice” in lines 11-12 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1 claim 1 recites “the step of obtaining the watermelon juice”. It is unclear what step “the step of obtaining the watermelon juice” is referring to since step (a) recites “to obtain juice”, it is not clear that step (a) is “the step of obtaining the watermelon juice”.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “(e) quickly thawing the watermelon juice after the step of obtaining the watermelon juice”, as discussed above it is unclear what step “the step of obtaining the watermelon juice” is referring to. Furthermore, if it is referring to step (a) it is unclear how the watermelon juice is thawed, since the step (a) does not specify that the juice is frozen and therefore capable of being thawed.
Regarding claim 1, The term “quickly” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quickly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “a second cold air supply portion coupled inside the freezing body” in lines 13-14. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation, it is unclear what the second cold air supply portion is coupled to.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the pre-freezing step is performed by means of a second pre-freezing portion and the second pre-freezing portion comprises a second freezing body; a plurality of second supports arranged inside the second freezing body; a rotating support shaft rotatably coupled to the inside of the second freezing body; a rotating body configured to be coupled to the rotating support shaft and rotate together with the rotating support shaft to transport the sterilized product; a second cold air supply portion coupled inside the second freezing body to supply cold air to the rotating body; a second transport conveyor arranged in the second freezing body to transport the sterilized product to the rotating body; and a third transport conveyor arranged in the second freezing body to discharge the sterilized product supplied from the rotating body to the outside of the second freezing body” in claim 3. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costelow et al. US 2016/0128373 in view of Toubia et al. US 2021/0015127 in view of Mohan US 2019/0320678 in view of Liao CN 106360201 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Palleschi US 2011/0217435 in view of What is Cold Pressed Juice as evidenced by Birdseye US 1,775,549.
Regarding claim 1, Costelow discloses a method for producing a watermelon juice ([0029]), the method comprising:
(a) squeezing raw material (watermelon) to obtain juice (watermelon juice) (the produce is fed to a juice extraction system; the juice extraction station comprises a screw press) ([0032], [0033]);
(b) filling a container with the juice and then sealing the container to produce a final product (the final juice product is fed to a packaging station) ([0036]- [0039]).
(c) sterilizing the final product by non-thermal high pressure processing at a pressure of 3090 bar (300MPa) to 8270 bar (827 MPa) for a few seconds to a few minutes ([0039]-[0040]) using a high pressure system (HPP station) to obtain a sterilized product ([0039], [0040]). The pressure and time ranges of the non-thermal high-pressure processing encompass the claimed pressure and time and therefore present a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim 1 differs from Costelow in the recitation that the method comprises a step of freezing the sterilized final product.
Toubia discloses preserving juice by applying high hydrostatic pressure (HPP) and additionally freezing the juice ([0263]). Thus, Toubia suggests a known technique for preserving juice includes subjecting the juice to high pressure processing followed by freezing of the juice. It is noted that Costelow already discloses that the juice product after the high-pressure processing step is stored under refrigerated conditions ([0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Costelow to include a step of freezing the juice as suggested by Toubia, in order to further preserve the juice after the step of high-pressure processing. Additionally, it has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Claim 1 differs from Costelow in view of Toubia in the recitation that the step of freezing the sterilized final product is carried out at a temperature of -25 °C to -45 °C for 6 to 24 hours. Claim 1 differs from Costelow in view of Toubia in the recitation that the method comprises a step of pre-freezing the sterilized product after the sterilizing step by non-thermal high pressure processing.
Mohan discloses a freezing process for juice and discloses that maintaining juice at a temperature below -35 °C for 15 hours or more may destroy pathogens present in the juice ([0065]). Mohan teaches that the freezing process includes a pre-freezing step (first cooling stage) ([0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Costelow in view of Toubia in such that the step of freezing the sterilized product is carried out at a temperature of less than -35 °C for 15 hours or more, overlapping the claimed ranges (MPEP 2144.05.I), and include a pre-freezing step as suggested by Mohan in order to destroy any pathogens present in the juice.
It is additionally noted that Liao discloses a method for producing fruit juice comprising squeezing fruit to obtain juice and freezing the juice in order to extend the shelf life of the juice (‘201, Espacenet Translation [0012], [0022]). Liao teaches quick freezing the juice at a temperature from -20 °C to -40 °C for 20 to 40 hours until the juice is quick frozen (‘201, Espacenet Translation [0016], [0022]). Liao also discloses storing the frozen product at -10 °C to -25 °C (‘201, Espacenet Translation [0018]). Liao discloses that storing the juice at such temperatures reduces loss of volatile substances in the juice and maintains the original flavor and aroma of the fruit (‘201, Espacenet Translation [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the freezing step Costelow in view of Toubia such that the step of freezing the sterilized final product is carried out at a temperature of -38 °C for 24 hours as taught by Liao, since Costelow in view of Toubia already generically teaches a freezing step of the juice, and Liao recognizes a known freezing step that was suitable for freezing of fruit juices in order to extend the shelf life of the juice includes quick freezing the juice at a temperature from -20 °C to -40 °C for 20 to 40 hours until the juice is quick frozen, thus combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of obtaining a frozen juice with extended shelf life (MPEP 2143.I.A) and/or performing simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of obtaining a frozen juice with extended shelf life (MPEP 2143.I.B);
Additionally, regarding the particular pressure used for the HPP process, Palleschi discloses that operating conditions for a HPP process includes a hydrostatic pressure in the range of 2,000 psi to 120,000 psi, more preferably in the range of about 70,000 psi to 100,000 psi and even more preferably in the range of about 80,000 psi to about 90,000 psi. It is noted that 5,500 bar = 79,770.76 psi and 79,770.76 psi is about 80,000 psi. Palleschi discloses that pressures below the most preferred range are less desirable because a longer process time is required and pressures above the most preferred range are less desirable because more expensive equipment is needed to safely handle higher pressures ([0036], [0038]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to routinely adjust the pressure of the HPP process based on desired processing time, and equipment requirements
Regarding the limitation that the freezing step ensures that a layer separation between the liquid component and the pulp of the watermelon juice does not occur during the process of freezing the product in step (d): First, it is noted that the juice of Costelow is a cold pressed juice (Fig. 8), and What is Cold Pressed Juice discloses that cold pressed juice contains pulp (Pg. 3, paragraph 4), therefore the juice of Costelow obviously contains a liquid component and pulp. Second, it is noted that the freezing process taught by the prior art, as discussed above, is substantially identical to that of the claims. Thus, since the product obtained by the prior art is identical to that of the claims and is subjected to a freezing step that is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01.I). Additionally, it is noted that Birdseye provides evidence that quick freezing of fruit juice prevents separation of components of the juice (Pg. 1, left col. Lines 31-41).
Regarding the additional remaining limitations of quickly thawing the watermelon juice after the step of obtaining the watermelon juice and capturing watermelon flavor after the quick thawing step: In light of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112b regarding the step of quickly thawing the watermelon juice after the step of obtaining the watermelon juice as discussed above, and with broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps of quickly thawing the watermelon juice after the step of obtaining the watermelon juice and capturing watermelon flavor can be considered obvious steps of a consumer using and consuming the product made obvious by the prior art, since the frozen juice obviously needs to be thawed for easier consumption and capturing watermelon flavor can be interpreted as a consumer consuming the watermelon juice which necessarily has a watermelon flavor.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costelow et al. US 2016/0128373 in view of Toubia et al. US 2021/0015127 in view of Mohan US 2019/0320678 in view of Liao CN 106360201 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Palleschi US 2011/0217435 in view of What is Cold Pressed Juice as evidenced by Birdseye US 1,775,549 in view of Bernaert US 2022/0071228 in view of Renz US 5,606,861.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 differs from Modified Costelow in the recitation that the pre-freezing step is performed by a first pre-freezing portion and the first pre-freezing portion comprises: a first freezing body; a first support arranged inside the first freezing body; a plurality of first cold air supply portions arranged on the first support to provide cold air to the sterilized product; and a first transport conveyor configured to transport the sterilized product introduced into the interior of the first freezing body through a first inlet of the first freezing body to a first outlet of the first freezing body.
Bernaert discloses that freezing of packaged pulp juice can be carried out using a freezing tunnel, and optionally an individually quick-frozen freezing tunnel ([0101]).
Renz discloses that freezing is performed by a first pre-freezing portion (individual quick freeze apparatus) and the first pre-freezing portion comprises: a first freezing body (freezer housing 20); a first support arranged inside the first freezing body (support on which 18 rests see Fig. 5); a plurality of first cold air supply portions (blowers 18) arranged on the first support to provide cold air to the sterilized product; and a first transport conveyor (12) configured to transport the sterilized product introduced into the interior of the first freezing body through a first inlet of the first freezing body to a first outlet of the first freezing body (Figs. 1-5, claim 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Modified Costelow such that the pre-freezing step is performed by a first pre-freezing portion and the first pre-freezing portion comprises: a first freezing body; a first support arranged inside the first freezing body; a plurality of first cold air supply portions arranged on the first support to provide cold air to the sterilized product; and a first transport conveyor configured to transport the sterilized product introduced into the interior of the first freezing body through a first inlet of the first freezing body to a first outlet of the first freezing body as taught by Renz, based on the prior art as a whole since Bernaert recognizes that packaged pulp juice can be frozen using a freezer tunnel and Renz teaches a known freezer tunnel and since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art carry out a known freezing step utilizing a known freezing device with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Costelow et al. US 2016/0128373 in view of Toubia et al. US 2021/0015127 in view of Mohan US 2019/0320678 in view of Liao CN 106360201 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Palleschi US 2011/0217435 in view of What is Cold Pressed Juice as evidenced by Birdseye US 1,775,549 in view of Bernaert US 2022/0071228 in view of Onodera US 5,452,588.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 differs from Modified Costelow in the recitation that the pre-freezing step is performed by means of a second pre-freezing portion and the second pre-freezing portion comprises a second freezing body; a plurality of second supports arranged inside the second freezing body; a rotating support shaft rotatably coupled to the inside of the second freezing body; a rotating body configured to be coupled to the rotating support shaft and rotate together with the rotating support shaft to transport the sterilized product; a second cold air supply portion coupled inside the second freezing body to supply cold air to the rotating body; a second transport conveyor arranged in the second freezing body to transport the sterilized product to the rotating body; and a third transport conveyor arranged in the second freezing body to discharge the sterilized product supplied from the rotating body to the outside of the second freezing body.
Bernaert discloses that freezing of packaged pulp juice can be carried out using a conventional freezer ([0101]).
Onodera discloses a second pre-freezing portion (freezer apparatus) and the second pre-freezing portion comprises a second freezing body (casing 2); a plurality of second supports (link member 7) (Fig. 3) arranged inside the second freezing body; a rotating support shaft (drum 3) rotatably coupled to the inside of the second freezing body (col. 3, lines 36-49, Fig. 1); a rotating body (conveyor A) configured to be coupled to the rotating support shaft (drum 3) and rotate together with the rotating support shaft to transport the sterilized product (col. 3, lines 36-49); a second cold air supply portion (16/17) coupled inside the second freezing body to supply cold air to the rotating body (col.4, lines 11-16, Fig. 2); a second transport conveyor (conveyor portion 1 entering 2, see Fig. 2, claim 11, col. 3, lines 36-45) arranged in the second freezing body to transport the sterilized product to the rotating body; and a third transport conveyor (conveyor portion 1 exiting 2, see Fig. 2, claim 11) arranged in the second freezing body to discharge the sterilized product supplied from the rotating body to the outside of the second freezing body (col. 3, lines 36-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Costelow such that the pre-freezing step is performed by means of a second pre-freezing portion and the second pre-freezing portion comprises a second freezing body; a plurality of second supports arranged inside the second freezing body; a rotating support shaft rotatably coupled to the inside of the second freezing body; a rotating body configured to be coupled to the rotating support shaft and rotate together with the rotating support shaft to transport the sterilized product; a second cold air supply portion coupled inside the second freezing body to supply cold air to the rotating body; a second transport conveyor arranged in the second freezing body to transport the sterilized product to the rotating body; and a third transport conveyor arranged in the second freezing body to discharge the sterilized product supplied from the rotating body to the outside of the second freezing body as taught by Onodera, based on the prior art as a whole since Bernaert recognizes that packaged pulp juice can be frozen using a conventional freezing device and Onodera teaches a known freezer device and since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art carry out a known freezing step utilizing a known freezing device with a reasonable expectation of success. It has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. London US 5,702,245 and Nothum JR US 2005/0092014 both disclose spiral type freezers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 5:30.
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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights