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 Application
The claim amendments dated 22 September 2025 have been entered. Claims 19-26, 28-37, 43-46 and 48-51 are pending. Claims 1-18, 27, 38-42 and 47 have been cancelled. The previous claim objections not repeated below have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims. The previous 112 rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims. The previous 103 rejections have been modified in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Examiner’s Note
In the current set of amended claims dated 22 September 2025, claim 22, line 1, the word “composition” should be underline since it was added to the claims during this current round of amendments and is not recited in the previous claim set dated 24 September 2024.
Claim Interpretation
Mutual agreement with Applicant was reached that the term “protein rich” will be interpreted as the composition comprises a higher protein content than the original oilseed meal (see Remarks date 03/27/2024 p5).
Claim Objections
Claims 23, 25, 44 and 48-51 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 23 and 25, line 1: “said composition” should read “said protein-rich composition” in order to keep the language consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 44: lines 2, 5, 8, 9-10 and 11: “said protein-rich composition” should read “said dry sunflower protein-rich composition” in order to keep the language consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 48, lines 1 and 3: “said protein-rich composition” should read “said dry sunflower protein-rich composition” in order to keep the language consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 49, lines 1 and 3: “said protein-rich composition” should read “said dry sunflower protein-rich composition” in order to keep the language consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 50, line 1: “said protein-rich composition” should read “said dry sunflower protein-rich composition” in order to keep the language consistent throughout the claims.
Claim 51, lines 1 and 2: “said protein-rich composition” should read “said dry sunflower protein-rich composition” in order to keep the language consistent throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 19-22, 25-26, 28-29, 36-37, 43-46, 49 and 51 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delrue (EP 1908355 A1) in view of Yang (WO 2017/139362 A1) and Kumar (Kumar, Vikas & Barman, Debtanu. (2012). Anti-nutritional Factors in Plant Feedstuffs Used in Aquafeeds, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237046544_Anti-nutritional_Factors_in_Plant_Feedstuffs_Used_in_Aquafeeds) as evidenced by Eurofins (Acid Detergent Lignin (ADL), 2023, https://www.eurofins-agro.com/en/adl) and The National Sunflower Association 2017 (Product Specifications Sunflower Meal, 2017, https://web.archive.org/web/20170724165354/https://www.sunflowernsa.com/wholeseed/Product-Specs---28/).
Regarding claims 43, 20 and 45; Delrue discloses protein enriched fractions of oilseeds for use in animal feeds (Abstract) and the oilseeds can be sunflower seeds [0011]. Delrue discloses the protein enriched fractions can be used in aquafeed [0024].
Delrue also discloses a suitable protein content for a protein enriched oilseed fraction from rapeseed is a protein content of more than 35% by weight on a dry basis and a fiber content of less than 10% by weight on dry basis [0020]. Delrue’s more than 35% weight protein overlaps with the claim 43 range of 44-60 wt%. In the 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.
As evidenced by Eurofins, acid detergent lignin (ADL) is the part of the plant that is not at all digestible (a type of fiber) (p1). Delrue discloses a suitable fiber content for a protein enriched oilseed fraction less than 10% by weight on dry basis [0020]. The total fiber of the protein enriched oilseed fraction of Delrue is less than 10% by weight, and ADL is a type of fiber, therefore the total ADL content of Delrue’s protein enriched oilseed fraction is also less than 10% by weight, which encompasses the claimed ranges of from 0.5-5 wt% (claims 43) and 2-5 wt% (claim 20). In the 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.
Delrue does not disclose a specific embodiment with sunflower seeds with a protein content of more than 35% by weight on a dry basis and a fiber content of less than 10% by weight on dry basis, however the disclosed method is shown to be effective in removing fiber and enriching protein in oilseeds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using sunflower oilseeds with the disclosed method to obtain a protein enriched fraction of oilseed similar to that of the protein enriched fraction of rapeseed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substituted the sunflower seeds of Delrue for the rapeseeds of Delrue since they are both disclosed as appropriate for creating a protein enriched oilseed fraction. Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious per MPEP 2144.06 II.
Delrue discloses the protein enriched fractions can be used in aquafeed [0024]. Delrue does not disclose the active method step of providing the composition to a fish. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fed an aquafeed to a fish, since aquafeed is intended as a food source for fish.
Delrue does not disclose the fish is selected from a fish belonging to the family Salmonidae, European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer), Red sea bream (Pagrus maior) or Gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata).
Yang, in the field of protein concentrates, discloses protein concentrates from sustainable plant sources for use in animal feeds, especially nutrient dense aqua feeds for salmon and other marine species [0002]. Yang discloses the protein concentrate comes from oil seed material, including sunflower seeds [0004]. Yang discloses the protein concentrate comprises at least about 60% protein on a dry weight basis [0009]. Yang discloses the protein concentrate can be incorporated into animal feed diets [0012]. Yang discloses the protein concentrates have increase digestibility compared to other materials [0023].
Yang discloses the fish which can be provided the protein concentrates are salmon, trout (both Salmonidae), bass, tilapia [0052]. Delrue discloses an example where the protein concentrates are fed to rainbow trout (Example 6, [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the protein enriched fraction of sunflower seed intended for aquafeed of Delrue with the protein concentrates of sunflower seeds mean for salmon and trout feed of Yang because Yang discloses the protein concentrates have increased digestibility compared to other materials and are appropriate for salmon and trout.
Delrue further discloses the fiber containing oilseed are separated into at least two fractions, one of which is a fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction. Delrue discloses a suitable fiber content for a protein enriched oilseed fraction less than 10% by weight on dry basis [0020]. The fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction has a 20% or more reduced fiber content compared to the content of the oilseed before separation [0015], this would include a reduction in the acid detergent fiber content (ADF). Delrue’s 20% or more reduced fiber content would necessarily bring the fiber content below the less than 10% fiber by weight on a dry basis disclosed by Delrue.
Delrue also discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction can be made from oilseeds that are de-oiled prior to the separation [0034].
Delrue does not disclose the ADF content of the composition.
As evidenced by the National Sunflower Association (2017), sunflower meal (de-oiled sunflower seed) contains 30.15% ADF (Table, p1). Delrue’s 20% or more reduction in the fiber content of the fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction of the sunflower meal would result in an ADF content of less than 24.1% and less than 10% total fiber (necessarily less than 10% by weight acid detergent fiber) by weight and encompasses or overlaps with the claimed ranges of 5%-20% acid detergent fiber. In the 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.
Delrue is silent as to whether or not the protein enriched fractions comprise glucosinolates.
Kumar, in the field of plant feedstuffs used in aquafeeds, discloses sunflower meal as a commonly used aquaculture feed ingredient (Table 2, p67). Kumar discloses diets high in plant protein can result in reduced culture performance as a result of the presence of anti-nutritional factors. Anti-nutritional factors interfere with food utilization and affect the health and production of animals, which includes anti-nutritional factors affecting mineral utilization such as glucosinolates (p64, LH col, last 2 paragraphs). Consumption of glucosinolate containing feedstuff causes thyroid dysfunction and affects metabolism and growth in fish (p65, RH col).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have eliminated any glucosinolates present in the enriched protein fractions disclosed by Delrue because Kumar discloses the glucosinolates cause thyroid dysfunction and affects metabolism and growth in fish.
Regarding claim 19, Delrue discloses a suitable protein content for a protein enriched oilseed fraction is more than 35% by weight on a dry basis [0020], which encompasses the claimed range of 48-60% by weight. In the 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.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Delrue discloses a suitable fiber content for a protein enriched oilseed fraction less than 10% by weight on dry basis [0020]. The total fiber of the protein enriched oilseed fraction of Delrue is less than 10% by weight, and cellulose is a type of fiber, therefore the total cellulose content of Delrue’s protein enriched oilseed fraction is also less than 10% by weight, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of from 4-15 wt% (claim 21) and 4-10 wt% (claim 222). In the 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.
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction of claim 43 as detailed above. Delrue further discloses the fiber containing oilseed are separated into at least two fractions, one of which is a fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction. Delrue discloses a suitable fiber content for a protein enriched oilseed fraction less than 10% by weight on dry basis [0020]. The fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction has a 20% or more reduced fiber content compared to the content of the oilseed before separation [0015], this would include a reduction in the neutral detergent fiber content (NDF). Delrue’s 20% or more reduced fiber content would necessarily bring the fiber content below the less than 10% fiber by weight on a dry basis disclosed by Delrue.
Delrue also discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction can be made from oilseeds that are de-oiled prior to the separation [0034].
Delrue does not disclose the NDF content of the composition.
As evidenced by the National Sunflower Association (2017), sunflower meal (de-oiled sunflower seed) contains 35.8% NDF (Table, p1). Delrue’s 20% or more reduction in the fiber content of the fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction of the sunflower meal would result in the NDF of the sunflower meal being reduced by 20% or more, which results in a NDF content of less than 28.6%, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 8%-38% (claim 25) and 16%-38% (claim 26). In the 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.
Regarding claims 28-29, Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction of claim 43 as detailed above. Delrue further discloses the fiber containing oilseed are separated into at least two fractions, one of which is a fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction. Delrue discloses a suitable fiber content for a protein enriched oilseed fraction less than 10% by weight on dry basis [0020]. The fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction has a 20% or more reduced fiber content compared to the content of the oilseed before separation [0015], this would include a reduction in the acid detergent fiber content (ADF). Delrue also discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction can be made from oilseeds that are de-oiled prior to the separation [0034].
Delrue does not disclose the ADF content of the composition.
As evidenced by the National Sunflower Association (2017), sunflower meal (de-oiled sunflower seed) contains 30.15% ADF (Table, p1). Delrue’s 20% or more reduction in the fiber content of the fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction of the sunflower meal would result in an ADF content of less than 24.1% and less than 10% total fiber, which encompasses or overlaps with the claimed ranges of 8%-20% (claim 28) and 8%-14% (claim 29). In the 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.
Regarding claim 36, Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction has a moisture content of between 10-20 wt% [0014], which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.5-12 wt% moisture. In the 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.
Regarding claim 37, Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction as discussed above. Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction can be made from oilseeds that are de-oiled prior to the separation [0034].
Delrue does not disclose the fat content of the protein enriched oilseed fraction.
The National Sunflower Association (2016) discloses sunflower meal comprises 1% fat (Table, p2), which falls within the claimed range of 1-6% fat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have maintained the fat content of the oilseed meal as disclosed by the National Sunflower Association (2016), since Delrue is drawn only to enriching the fiber and protein contents of the oilseed meal, not the fat content.
Regarding claims 44 and 46, Delrue discloses protein enriched fractions of oilseeds for use in animal feeds (Abstract) and the oilseeds can be sunflower seeds [0011]. Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fractions can be used in aquafeed (feed for fish) [0024], which meets the claim limitation of a dietary supplement or additive. Delrue further discloses the oilseed moisture content can be adjusted to between 10 and 20% water [0014]. Delrue’s protein enriched fractions of sunflower seeds with adjusted moisture content meets the claim limitation of a dry sunflower protein-rich composition.
Delrue also discloses a suitable protein content for a protein enriched oilseed fraction from rapeseed is a protein content of more than 35% by weight on a dry basis and a fiber content of less than 10% by weight on dry basis [0020]. Delrue’s more than 35% weight protein overlaps with the claimed range of 44-60%. In the 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.
As evidenced by Eurofins, acid detergent lignin (ADL) is the part of the plant that is not at all digestible (a type of fiber) (p1). Delrue discloses a suitable fiber content for a protein enriched oilseed fraction less than 10% by weight on dry basis [0020]. The total fiber of the protein enriched oilseed fraction of Delrue is less than 10% by weight, and ADL is a type of fiber, therefore the total ADL content of Delrue’s protein enriched oilseed fraction is also less than 10% by weight, which encompasses the claimed range of from 0.5-5 wt%. In the 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.
Delrue does not disclose a specific embodiment with sunflower seeds with a protein content of more than 35% by weight on a dry basis and a fiber content of less than 10% by weight on dry basis, however the disclosed method is shown to be effective in removing fiber and enriching protein in oilseeds. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when using sunflower oilseeds with the disclosed method to obtain a protein enriched fraction of oilseed similar to that of the protein enriched fraction of rapeseed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substituted the sunflower seeds of Delrue for the rapeseeds of Delrue since they are both disclosed as appropriate for creating a protein enriched oilseed fraction. Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious per MPEP 2144.06 II.
Delrue discloses the protein enriched fractions can be used in aquafeed [0024]. Delrue does not disclose the active method step of providing the composition to a fish. However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fed an aquafeed to a fish, since aquafeed is intended as a food source for fish.
Delrue does not disclose the fish is selected from a fish belonging to the family Salmonidae, European seabass (Dicentrarchus labrax), Asian seabass (Lates calcarifer), Red sea bream (Pagrus maior) or Gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata).
Yang, in the field of protein concentrates, discloses protein concentrates from sustainable plant sources for use in animal feeds, especially nutrient dense aqua feeds for salmon and other marine species [0002]. Yang discloses the protein concentrate comes from oil seed material, including sunflower seeds [0004]. Yang discloses the protein concentrate comprises at least about 60% protein on a dry weight basis [0009]. Yang discloses the protein concentrate can be incorporated into animal feed diets [0012]. Yang discloses the protein concentrates have increase digestibility compared to other materials [0023].
Yang discloses the fish which can be provided the protein concentrates are salmon, trout (both Salmonidae), bass, tilapia [0052]. Delrue discloses an example where the protein concentrates are fed to rainbow trout (Example 6, [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the protein enriched fraction of sunflower seed intended for aquafeed of Delrue with the protein concentrates of sunflower seeds mean for salmon and trout feed of Yang because Yang discloses the protein concentrates have increased digestibility compared to other materials and are appropriate for salmon and trout.
Delrue further discloses the fiber containing oilseed are separated into at least two fractions, one of which is a fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction. Delrue discloses a suitable fiber content for a protein enriched oilseed fraction less than 10% by weight on dry basis [0020]. The fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction has a 20% or more reduced fiber content compared to the content of the oilseed before separation [0015], this would include a reduction in the acid detergent fiber content (ADF). Delrue’s 20% or more reduced fiber content would necessarily bring the fiber content below the less than 10% fiber by weight on a dry basis disclosed by Delrue.
Delrue also discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction can be made from oilseeds that are de-oiled prior to the separation [0034].
Delrue does not disclose the ADF content of the composition.
As evidenced by the National Sunflower Association (2017), sunflower meal (de-oiled sunflower seed) contains 30.15% ADF (Table, p1). Delrue’s 20% or more reduction in the fiber content of the fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction of the sunflower meal would result in an ADF content of less than 24.1% and less than 10% total fiber (necessarily less than 10% by weight acid detergent fiber) by weight and encompasses or overlaps with the claimed ranges of 5%-20% acid detergent fiber. In the 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.
Delrue is silent as to whether or not the protein enriched fractions comprise glucosinolates.
Kumar, in the field of plant feedstuffs used in aquafeeds, discloses sunflower meal as a commonly used aquaculture feed ingredient (Table 2, p67). Kumar discloses diets high in plant protein can result in reduced culture performance as a result of the presence of anti-nutritional factors. Anti-nutritional factors interfere with food utilization and affect the health and production of animals, which includes anti-nutritional factors affecting mineral utilization such as glucosinolates (p64, LH col, last 2 paragraphs). Consumption of glucosinolate containing feedstuff causes thyroid dysfunction and affects metabolism and growth in fish (p65, RH col).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have eliminated any glucosinolates present in the enriched protein fractions disclosed by Delrue because Kumar discloses the glucosinolates cause thyroid dysfunction and affects metabolism and growth in fish.
Regarding claim 49, Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction of claim 43 as detailed above. Delrue further discloses the fiber containing oilseed are separated into at least two fractions, one of which is a fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction. Delrue discloses a suitable fiber content for a protein enriched oilseed fraction less than 10% by weight on dry basis [0020]. The fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction has a 20% or more reduced fiber content compared to the content of the oilseed before separation [0015], this would include a reduction in the neutral detergent fiber content (NDF). Delrue’s 20% or more reduced fiber content would necessarily bring the fiber content below the less than 10% fiber by weight on a dry basis disclosed by Delrue.
Delrue also discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction can be made from oilseeds that are de-oiled prior to the separation [0034].
Delrue does not disclose the NDF content of the composition.
As evidenced by the National Sunflower Association (2017), sunflower meal (de-oiled sunflower seed) contains 35.8% NDF (Table, p1). Delrue’s 20% or more reduction in the fiber content of the fiber-reduced and protein-enriched fraction of the sunflower meal would result in the NDF of the sunflower meal being reduced by 20% or more, which results in a NDF content of less than 28.6%, which overlaps with the claimed range of 8%-38%. In the 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.
Regarding claim 51, Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction has a moisture content of between 10-20 wt% [0014], which overlaps with the claimed range of 2.5-12 wt% moisture. In the 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 23-24, 30-35, 48 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delrue in view of Yang and Kumar as evidenced by Eurofins and the National Sunflower Association as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Barakat (US 2016/0310957).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction as discussed above.
Delrue does not disclose the mineral content of the protein enriched oilseed fraction.
Barakat, in the field of fractionation of oilseed cakes, discloses a method for extracting proteins from the cakes [0001] where the oilseed cake can be sunflower seed cake [0117]. Barakat discloses the method for fractionating the oilseed cake comprises grinding the oilseed cake into a powder of ultrafine particles, charging the particles and then separating the charged particles [0008-0011].
Barakat discloses one fraction of the sunflower oilseed cake, F1B+, has a high protein content (46.7%) and an ash content (mineral content) of 7.4% [0123], which falls within the claimed ranges of 6.5%-10% (claim 23) and 6.5%-8% (claim 24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the protein enriched oilseed fraction of Delrue with the ash (mineral) content of Barakat because both are drawn to the electrostatically fractionated sunflower seed oilcakes.
Regarding claims 30-32, Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction is obtained by electrostatic separation [0010]. Delrue discloses a mechanical treatment can be carried out on the oilseeds such as milling by hammer mill, impact mill and/or roller mill to create particles [0012].
Delrue does not disclose the particle sizes are D50 between 10 and 300 micrometers.
Barakat, in the field of fractionation of oilseed cakes, discloses a method for extracting proteins from the cakes [0001] where the oilseed cake can be sunflower seed cake [0117]. Barakat discloses the method for fractionating the oilseed cake comprises grinding the oilseed cake into a powder of ultrafine particles, charging the particles and then separating the charged particles [0008-0011].
Barakat discloses the ultrafine particles refer to a powder of which half (50%) have a diameter of less than 50 micrometers (D50 less than 50 micrometers) [0049], which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 10-300 micrometers (claim 30), 10-200 micrometers (claim 31) and 30-70 micrometers (claim 32). In the 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the grinding and electrostatic separation of Delrue with the particle size range of Barakat because both are drawn to the electrostatic fractionation of sunflower seed oilcakes.
Regarding claims 33-35, Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction is obtained by electrostatic separation [0010]. Delrue discloses a mechanical treatment can be carried out on the oilseeds such as milling by hammer mill, impact mill and/or roller mill to create particles [0012].
Delrue does not disclose the particle sizes are D90 between 50 and 500 micrometers.
Barakat, in the field of fractionation of oilseed cakes, discloses a method for extracting proteins from the cakes [0001] where the oilseed cake can be sunflower seed cake [0117]. Barakat discloses the method for fractionating the oilseed cake comprises grinding the oilseed cake into a powder of ultrafine particles, charging the particles and then separating the charged particles [0008-0011].
Barakat discloses the ultrafine particles refer to a powder of which the median diameter is between 50 and 500 micrometers [0048], which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 50-500 micrometers (claim 33), 50-300 micrometers (claim 34) and 50-150 micrometers (claim 35). In the 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.
Barakat is silent as to the distribution of the particle sizes around the median particle size diameter. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a narrow distribution of particle diameters around the range disclosed by Barakat, including a distribution range of D90, for uniformity of particles in order to facilitate a homogeneous mixture which ensures consistent delivery of the feed ingredients to the animal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the grinding and electrostatic separation of Delrue with the particle size range of Barakat because both are drawn to the electrostatic fractionation of sunflower seed oilcakes.
Regarding claim 48, Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction as discussed above.
Delrue does not disclose the mineral content of the protein enriched oilseed fraction.
Barakat, in the field of fractionation of oilseed cakes, discloses a method for extracting proteins from the cakes [0001] where the oilseed cake can be sunflower seed cake [0117]. Barakat discloses the method for fractionating the oilseed cake comprises grinding the oilseed cake into a powder of ultrafine particles, charging the particles and then separating the charged particles [0008-0011].
Barakat discloses one fraction of the sunflower oilseed cake, F1B+, has a high protein content (46.7%) and an ash content (mineral content) of 7.4% [0123], which falls within the claimed ranges of 6.5%-10%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the protein enriched oilseed fraction of Delrue with the ash (mineral) content of Barakat because both are drawn to the electrostatically fractionated sunflower seed oilcakes.
Regarding claim 50, Delrue discloses the protein enriched oilseed fraction is obtained by electrostatic separation [0010]. Delrue discloses a mechanical treatment can be carried out on the oilseeds such as milling by hammer mill, impact mill and/or roller mill to create particles [0012].
Delrue does not disclose the particle sizes are D50 between 10 and 300 micrometers.
Barakat, in the field of fractionation of oilseed cakes, discloses a method for extracting proteins from the cakes [0001] where the oilseed cake can be sunflower seed cake [0117]. Barakat discloses the method for fractionating the oilseed cake comprises grinding the oilseed cake into a powder of ultrafine particles, charging the particles and then separating the charged particles [0008-0011].
Barakat discloses the ultrafine particles refer to a powder of which half (50%) have a diameter of less than 50 micrometers (D50 less than 50 micrometers) [0049], which overlaps with the claimed ranges of 10-300 micrometers. In the 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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the grinding and electrostatic separation of Delrue with the particle size range of Barakat because both are drawn to the electrostatic fractionation of sunflower seed oilcakes.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 September 2025 have been fully considered. To the extent they apply to the above rejections they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues even if Delrue's method can be applied to sunflower, it does not follow that the absolute amount of fiber and/or the type of fiber obtained by replacing rapeseed meal by sunflower could be expected to be similar. For example, Delrue indicates that sunflower meals have more than twice the amount of fiber than rapeseed meals. As such, the skilled person would not understand that Delrue provides the means to remove any amount of fibers irrespective of their quantity in the starting material. Remarks p7.
This argument is not persuasive. Delrue discloses the fiber content can be reduced by more than 20%, more than 30% or more than 50% [0043] and that sunflower kernels normally have 19-34% fiber [0001]. Delrue discloses an embodiment with less than 10 wt% fiber for rapeseed [0020]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of lowering the fiber content to a sunflower seed fraction below 10 wt% when substituting the sunflower seeds of Delrue for the rapeseeds of Delrue because Delrue discloses sunflower seeds with 19-34% fiber which can have their fiber content reduced by more than 50%, which would encompass values of less than 10% fiber in the final product.
Applicant argues Delrue discloses an overall reduction in all types of fibers and not all fibers would be removed at the same rate. Remarks pp7-8.
This argument is not persuasive. Delrue’s overall reduction in fiber would decrease the total amount of fiber in the final product to less than 10% and/or more than a 20% reduction compared to the starting material. The limit of total fiber in the composition also limits the quantity of any specific fiber in the composition.
Applicant argues the claims recite an acid detergent fiber quantity of 5-20% by weight of dry matter of the said protein rich composition. Delrue discloses 20% or more reduction in the fiber content of the composition. Delrue discloses no examples removing more than 30% of the fiber. Even if one expected to remove 30% of the ADF of the sunflower seed (starting with 30.15% ADF) one would not reach the claimed value of 5-20 wt% ADF. Applicant argues the percentage of fiber is different in the sunflower kernel versus the fiber as a percentage of the dry matter in a sunflower kernel. Remarks pp8-9.
This argument is not persuasive. The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. Nonpreferred and alternative embodiments also constitute prior art. MPEP 2123 I. and II. In the instant case, this includes the disclosure by Delrue that more than 50% of the fiber can be removed from the starting material and the final product can have a fiber quantity of less than 10% on a dry matter basis.
Applicant argues that Kumar discloses heat treating the feed in order to decrease the quantity of glucosinolate, which does not suggest a feed free of glucosinolate. Remarks p9, C.
This argument is not persuasive. Kumar’s disclosure that diets high in plant protein can result in reduced culture performance as a result of the presence of anti-nutritional factors. Anti-nutritional factors interfere with food utilization and affect the health and production of animals, which includes anti-nutritional factors affecting mineral utilization such as glucosinolates (p64, LH col, last 2 paragraphs). Consumption of glucosinolate containing feedstuff causes thyroid dysfunction and affects metabolism and growth in fish (p65, RH col).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have eliminated any glucosinolates present in the enriched protein fractions disclosed by Delrue because Kumar discloses the anti-nutritional effects of the glucosinolates.
Applicant argues generally unexpected results. Remarks pp9-10.
This argument is not persuasive. No substantially new argument is presented with respect to unexpected results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE GLIMM whose telephone number is (571)272-2839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:30-6:30 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.
/C.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793