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
Claims 5-7, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 5, 6, 12, and 13, each of claims 5, 6, 12 and 13 recites “wherein obtaining the used coffee grounds…” and should be changed to recite “wherein the obtaining of the used coffee grounds…”.
Regarding claims 7 and 14, claims 7 and 14 each recites “wherein de-fatting the used coffee grounds…” and should be changed to recite “wherein the de-fatting of the used coffee grounds…”.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, claims 10 and 17 each recites “wherein flavoring the used coffee grounds…” and should be changed to recite “wherein the flavoring of the used coffee grounds.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites “the used coffee ground” and appears should recite “the used coffee grounds”.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites “the used coffee ground” and appears should recite “the used coffee grounds”.
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 18 is 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 18, claim 18 recites “further comprising spraying the chocolate flavoring on the used coffee grounds”. It is unclear if claim 18 is further limiting the flavoring step to be carried out by spraying the chocolate flavoring on the used coffee grounds or if this is an additional different step.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, and 14-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feigelman US 2023/0276820.
Regarding claim 1, Feigelman discloses a method of processing used coffee grounds comprising obtaining used coffee grounds; defatting the used coffee grounds and flavoring the used coffee grounds (abstract, Fig. 2, 3A, [0023]).
Regarding claim 2, Feigelman discloses texturizing the used coffee grounds (milling the spent coffee ground material) ([0023]).
Regarding claim 3, Feigelman discloses aging the used coffee grounds (drying) ([0024]).
Regarding claim 4, Feigelman discloses grinding the used coffee grounds (milling the spent coffee ground material) ([0023]).
Regarding claim 7, Feigelman discloses that defatting the used coffee grounds comprises a supercritical extraction method ([0056]).
Regarding claim 8, Feigelman discloses that the supercritical extraction method comprises contacting the used coffee grounds with a supercritical fluid (supercritical carbon dioxide) ([0056]).
Regarding claim 9, Feigelman discloses that the supercritical fluid comprises carbon dioxide ([0056]).
Regarding claim 10, Feigelman discloses that flavoring the used coffee grounds comprises adding a chocolate flavoring to the used coffee grounds ([0029], [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 11, The Examiner notes that claim 11 does not imply any specific order of steps and “the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order” (MPEP 2111.01). Regarding claim 11, Feigelman discloses a method of processing used coffee grounds comprising obtaining used coffee grounds; defatting the used coffee grounds, flavoring the used coffee grounds (abstract, Fig. 2, 3A, [0023]), texturizing the used coffee grounds (vacuum drying) ([0051]) and aging the used coffee grounds (additional drying process of the one or more other drying processes- Feigelman discloses that the method S100 can including drying the spent coffee grounds via a combination of vacuum drying and one or more other drying processes) ([0051]) and grinding the used coffee grounds (milling the spent coffee ground material) ([0023]).
Regarding claim 14, Feigelman discloses that defatting the used coffee grounds comprises a supercritical extraction method ([0056]).
Regarding claim 15, Feigelman discloses that the supercritical extraction method comprises contacting the used coffee grounds with a supercritical fluid (supercritical carbon dioxide) ([0056])
Regarding claim 16, Feigelman discloses that the supercritical fluid comprises carbon dioxide ([0056]).
Regarding claim 17, Feigelman discloses that flavoring the used coffee grounds comprises adding a chocolate flavoring to the used coffee grounds ([0029], [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding claim 19, Feigelman discloses that the method S100 can include drying the spent coffee grounds via a combination of vacuum drying and one or more other drying processes ([0051]), since the additional drying can comprise “one or more other drying processes” a second additional drying step of the used coffee grounds is suggested by “one or more other drying processes”, therefore Feigelman
Regarding claim 20, Feigelman discloses a cocoa substitute (Fig. 2) comprising used coffee grounds that have been defatted with a supercritical fluid (Fig. 2, [0054]-[0056]); and flavoring added to the used coffee grounds ([0057], [0066]-[0067]), wherein the used coffee grounds simulate cocoa (Fig. 2, abstract, [0023], [0027]).
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 5, 6, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feigelman US 2023/0276820.
Regarding claims 5 and 12, Feigelman discloses that the used coffee grounds can be produced as waste from any coffee brewing process ([0035]). Since a commercial coffee manufacturing process is a known coffee brewing process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Feigelman to comprise obtaining the used coffee grounds from a commercial coffee manufacturing process, in order to suitably utilize the waste of a commercial coffee manufacturing process.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Feigelman discloses that the used coffee grounds can be produced as waste from any coffee brewing process ([0035]). Since a commercial cold brew coffee manufacturing facility obviously utilizes a coffee brewing process and therefore is a location utilized to perform a known coffee brewing process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Feigelman to comprise obtaining the used coffee grounds from a commercial cold brew coffee manufacturing facility, in order to suitably utilize the waste of a commercial cold brew coffee manufacturing process.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feigelman US 2023/0276820 in view of Sandolo US 5,361,560.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 differs from Feigelman in the recitation that the step of applying the flavoring comprises spraying the chocolate flavoring on the used coffee grounds.
Sandolo teaches it was a known technique in the art to apply flavoring material onto coffee by spraying. Sandolo discloses that the flavoring material is a chocolate flavoring ingredient (col. 1, lines 64-68, col. 2, lines 50-63). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Feigelman such the method comprises applying the flavoring by spraying the chocolate flavoring on the used coffee grounds, since it has been held that “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.D).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2013/0064956 discloses that supercritical carbon dioxide is a supercritical fluid ([0024]). US 4,335,153 discloses that artificial chocolate flavors in liquid form can be sprayed as a fine mist (col. 11, lines 65-68).
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
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights