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 .
Prosecution has been reopened after allowance. Claims 11-13, 18-21 and 33-36 are under examination.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/9/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/4/2023, 11/15/2023 and 1/9/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 18-20 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hjelland et al. (US 2012/0302742; published November 29, 2012) in view of Herve et al. (US 4,897,266; January 30, 1990).
Applicant claims a concentrated algae extract, wherein the percentage of dry matter of said extract is between 6 and 100% and said extract contains 0-5% by weight of alginate and cellulose relative to the weight of said extract, wherein the algae is chosen from Ascophyllum nodosum, Fucus vesiculosus, Laminaria digitata, Laminaria hyperborea, Laminaria saccharina, Eklonia maxima, Sargassum spp. And mixtures thereof; and wherein said extract is not produced by a process including a basic hydrolysis step in the presence of a reducing agent and elevated temperature and wherein said extract comprises laminarin, fucans, lipids, proteins and polyphenols.
Hjelland et al. teach a process for obtaining fucoidan and laminarin from live, harvested seaweed by exuding seaweed, collecting the exudate solution and separating fucoidan or laminarin from the exudate (abstract). The fucoidan primarily contain L-fucose and ester sulfate groups and protein and is an alternate name for fucan [0002]. Chemical extraction, purification and fractionating steps for obtaining fucoidan from seaweed include adding water then hydroxides, ethanol or quaternary ammonium salts or cationic surfactants to precipitate crude fucoidan which comprises alginate [0007]. The harvested seaweeds include genuses of Laminaria, Ecklonia, Fucus, Ascophyllum and Sargassum, specifically, Laminaria digitata, Laminaria hyperborea, Ascophyllum nodosum and Fucus vesiculosus [0015]. The components are separated from lower molecular weight component by ultrafiltration [0023-24]. The fucoidan and laminarian can be separated in any order and remain in their natives state because no chemical extraction or thermal degradation step is used which results in low amounts of alginate, pigments, polyphenols, proteases, acids and other components of seaweed [0026]. The exudate solution is filtered and dried to separate a powder which comprises 70-90% fucoidan along with proteins, inorganic salts and water [0027]. The yield of fucoidan and laminarian can be increased by rinsing with water one to three times wherein the rinse water will have additional exudate that can be added to the exudate solution collected in step (ii) prior to step (iii), or directly from the rinse water [0031]. The fucoidan obtained cay be used in nutraceuticals, cosmetics, supplements, medicinal applications and functional foods [0034-35]. Examples 1 & 2 comprise dry matter of 3.45-5.7% before being collected, dried, pressed and freeze dried [0038, 0040, 0044]. The dried powder has a pH of 6.89-6.98, 85wt% fucoidan, 4.4-7wt% moisture, 0-3wt% salt and 4-6wt% protein [0039, 0041, 0044].
Hjelland et al. do not specified the extract has 6-100% dry matter, however collecting samples with a dry matter of 3.45-5.7% and further drying them to make 85% fucoidan with 4.4-7% moisture is taught which teaches that % dry matter can be increased with routine optimization by drying the samples to a specific moisture degree.
Hjelland et al. teach removing alginate but does not specify removing 0-5% by weight cellulose and alginate, preferably 1-4% by weight, such that the intracellular fluid is preserved or that lipids are present in the exudate solution. It is for this reason that Herve et al. is joined.
Herve et al. teach a method of obtaining products extracted from algae by cryocomminution, milling, ultradecantation and ultrafiltration (abstract). The process produces products with a pH close to 4.8 (column 1, lines 17-31). The filtrate produced has cellulose and alginate that is eliminated during decantation (column 1, lines 43-46; column 3, lines 31-34). A filtrate of laminaria saccharine was prepared by milling and then decanting at high speed to eliminate cellulose and alginate before being filtered to remove impurities (Examples 1 & 4). The filtrates comprise ash, lipids, proteins, and glucides (Tables 1 & 4).
Both Hjelland et al. and Herve et al. teach methods of making concentrated algae extracts. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Hjelland et al. and Herve et al. to produce an extract comprising 0-5% alginate and cellulose with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Hjelland and Herve to adjust the amount of cellulose and alginate to 0-5% because Hjelland teach crude fucoidan comprises alginate and components of extracts can be separated from lower molecular weight components by ultrafiltration and Herve teach that filtrates of laminaria saccharine are decanted at high speed to eliminate cellulose and alginate before being filtered to remove impurities. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the amounts of alginate and cellulose by routine optimization 1-4% by weight of the extract by decantation.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Hjelland et al. and Herve et al. to produce an extract comprising intracellular fluid comprising lipids with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Hjelland and Herve to obtain extracts comprising lipids because Hjelland teach fucoidan and laminarian can be separated in any order along with low amounts of alginate, polyphenols and proteins and Herve teach that filtrates of laminaria saccharine comprise lipids along with proteins. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust process steps to produce algae extracts wherein the intracellular fluid is preserved along with laminarin, fucans, lipids, proteins and polyphenols with routine optimization.
Claim(s) 13, 21 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hjelland et al. (US 2012/0302742; published November 29, 2012) in view of Herve et al. (US 4,897,266; patented January 30, 1990) as applied to claims 11, 12, 18-20 and 33-35 in view of Moigne et al. (US 6,346,252; patented February 12, 2002).
Applicant claims a concentrated algae extract, wherein the percentage of dry matter of said extract is between 6 and 100% and said extract contains 0-5% by weight of alginate and cellulose relative to the weight of said extract, wherein the algae is chosen from Ascophyllum nodosum, Fucus vesiculosus, Laminaria digitata, Laminaria hyperborea, Laminaria saccharina, Eklonia maxima, Sargassum spp. And mixtures thereof; and wherein said extract is not produced by a process including a basic hydrolysis step in the presence of a reducing agent and elevated temperature and wherein said extract comprises laminarin, fucans, lipids, proteins and polyphenols.
The teachings of Hjelland et al. and Herve et al. are addressed in the above 103 rejection.
Hjelland and Herve do not teach pH of the extract is between 2.5 to 3. It is for this reason that Moigne is joined.
Moigne teach a clarified algae extract produced by crushing algae, grinding and concentrating the extract (abstract; column 3, lines 22-58). The supernatant was acidified with citric acid to a value of 2 to 5 to slow down degradation of the matrix and allows activity of the product to be maintained more than 13 months (column 3, lines 59-61; column 7, lines 9-17).
Hjelland et al., Herve et al. and Moigne teach methods of making concentrated algae extracts. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Hjelland et al., Herve et al. and Moigne to produce an extract with a pH of 2.5-3 with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the time of filing to combine the teachings of Hjelland, Herve and Moigne to adjust the pH to 2.5 to 3 because Moigne teach adjusting to pH of 2 to 5 aids in preserving activity of the algae matrix over a period of months.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
DANIELLE D. JOHNSON
Examiner
Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights