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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-6,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harju(US 4971701).
Regarding claims 1,21, Harju teaches a process for manufacturing a demineralized milk protein composition, the process comprising the steps(abstract, example 10, col 4, line 56-col 5, line 20):
(i)- providing a milk protein composition;
(ii)- electrodialysis of the milk protein composition on an electrodialyzer, the unit cells of which have three compartments, and configured to substitute at least one cation by at least one hydrogen ion H+ in the milk protein composition to obtain an at least partially demineralized and acidified milk protein composition;
(iii)- electrodialysis of the milk protein composition obtained in step (ii) on an electrodialyzer, the unit cells of which have three compartments, and configured to substitute at least one anion by at least one hydroxyl ion OH in the milk protein composition;
(iv) obtaining the demineralized milk protein composition.
Regarding claim 2, Harju teaches treating the salts derived in steps (ii) and (iii) to yield acids and bases(abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Harju teaches that the treatment step(v) includes an electrodialysis step carried out in a bipolar membrane(example 10).
Regarding claim 4, Harju teaches wherein the bipolar membrane electrodialyzer, in step (v), comprises unit cells with three compartments A, B and C, the compartments A and B are supplied with water, and the compartment C, arranged between the compartments A and B, is supplied with one or more salt(s)(example 10).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Harju teaches whey recirculation which would cause acids or bases produced in step v to be supplied to one of the compartments in step (ii) and (iii)(col 2, line 43-46).
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.
Claim(s) 7-20,22,24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harju(US 4971701).
Regarding claim 7, Harju does not specifically teach a step of electrodialysis of the at least partially demineralized and acidified milk protein composition obtained in step (ii), and carried out before step (iii), on an electrodialyzer comprising two-compartment unit cells. However, Harju teaches that the several cells can be connected in series(col 3, line 63-65). It would have been obvious to adjust the order of electrodialysis steps and number of cells in order to effectively demineralize the whey product.
Regarding claim 8-13,15,17,19,22,24,25, Harju teaches that the electrodialyzer removes divalent and monovalent cations and anions(col 4, line 56-col 5, line 10). Harju further teaches that “The ion exchange membranes can be conventional ion-selective semi-permeable cation exchange membranes and anion exchange membranes used in electrodialysis”(col 3, line 33-41). Harju teaches that the resulting acids and bases formed from the divalent and monovalent can be saved and used for other purposes(col 5, line 11-17). It would have been obvious to separate the monovalent and divalent anions and cations and their salts through the use of a membrane permselective to monovalent cations or monovalent anions in order to provide specific acids and bases that can be used for other purposes.
It would have been obvious to adjust the structure and order of the compartments in order to effectively demineralize the whey product.
Regarding claim 14,16,18, Harju teaches that the three-compartment until cells of the electrodialyzer in step(ii) comprise one unit cell comprising a first compartment delimited between an anionic membrane and cationic membrane(example 10).
Regarding claim 20, Harju teaches that the process is performed at a temperature of 20 to 50C, which is above ambient temperature(i.e. involves heating)(col 4, line 32-33).
Regarding claim 26,Harju teaches that “The ion exchange membranes can be conventional ion-selective semi-permeable cation exchange membranes and anion exchange membranes used in electrodialysis”(col 3, line 33-41). It would have been obvious to adjust the number of membranes between each compartment in order to effectively demineralize the MPC.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The 112(b) rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s arguments.
The applicant argues that Harju teaches substation of the cation and the anion at the same time and does not teach separate steps as recited in claim 1. However, nothing in claim 1 dictates that the substitution steps need to be done at different times. The claims also do not recite that the cation and anion steps are done in different compartments.
Furthermore, Harju teaches that the several cells can be connected in series(col 3, line 63-65). It would have been obvious to adjust the order of electrodialysis steps and number of cells in order to effectively demineralize the whey product.
Also, Harju further teaches that “The ion exchange membranes can be conventional ion-selective semi-permeable cation exchange membranes and anion exchange membranes used in electrodialysis”(col 3, line 33-41). Harju teaches that the resulting acids and bases formed from the divalent and monovalent can be saved and used for other purposes(col 5, line 11-17). It would have been obvious to separate the monovalent and divalent anions and cations and their salts through the use of a membrane permselective to monovalent cations or monovalent anions in order to provide specific acids and bases that can be used for other purposes.
It would have been obvious to adjust the structure and order of the compartments in order to effectively demineralize the whey product.
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 KATHERINE D LEBLANC whose telephone number is (571)270-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/KATHERINE D LEBLANC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights