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 Status
The claim set filed June 12, 2026 and Applicant’s remarks have been entered.
Claims 1-15, 22, 32 and 34 are canceled.
Claims 29-30 continue to be withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
Thus, claims 16-21, 23-28, 31, 33 and 35 as amended are examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
With respect to the objections and/or rejections mailed in the non-final office action on March 13, 2026:
The rejection of claims 22 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant canceling these claims as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 16-21, 23-28, 31, 33, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
Applicant argues:
(A) Claim 16 has been amended to incorporate the temperature limitations (from previously presented claim 32) required to define the operative window of the invention and to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 6, last paragraph of the page.
With respect to Applicant’s argument (A), the Examiner respectfully notes the Schiewer reference is used to teach the newly incorporated temperature limitations required in claim 16 and is discussed in further detail in the modified 103 rejections below.
(B) Kern’s disclosed method for removing heavy metals from beverages uses synthetic polyacrolein, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7, analysis of the prior art references, paragraph 1.
With respect to Applicant’s argument (B), the Examiner notes Ivanov was used to modify the polyacrolein as the heavy metal binding agent as taught by Kern, as Ivanov specifically teaches the use of pectic acid in removing heavy metals from hydrogenated vegetable oil; and where Ivanov teaches pectic acid is known to be completely insoluble in vegetable oils and also completely harmless, which favors its application for this particular purpose, see pg. 210, left column, summary, paragraph 1.
(C) The cited references represent disparate fields of endeavor and fundamentally distinct chemical systems that cannot be integrated as the Examiner suggests, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7, analysis of the prior art references, paragraph 1.
With respect to Applicant’s argument (C), the Examiner notes Kern, Ivanov, Dhakal, and newly added Schiewer are all drawn to the same field of endeavor of removing heavy metals from liquids via binding to pectic acids as discussed in greater detail within the modified 103 rejections below.
(D) Kern operates at elevated temperatures (30°C-65°C) and provides no teaching or suggestion regarding the protection of “oxidative-sensitive molecules”, as this disclosure is directed solely to heavy metal removal, see Applicant’s arguments, pg. 7, analysis of the prior art references, paragraph 2.
With respect to Applicant’s argument (D), the Examiner reiterates the newly added Schiewer reference teaches the temperature limitations required in claim 16.
Additionally, the Examiner notes in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., "the protection of oxidative-sensitive molecules") is not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the Examiner notes even if the limitation of “the protection of oxidative-sensitive molecules” were claimed, the Examiner has reviewed the specification filed October 08, 2021 and did not find any disclosure referencing the protection of oxidative-sensitive molecules as argued by Applicant.
(E) Ivanov’s process relies on a mandatory 24-hour pre-swelling step in water to activate the ion exchange centers, which is entirely absent from the present invention, as Ivanov’s own data (Table 2) identifies 90-92°C as the optimum temperature; and since the present invention operate without this prolonged swelling period, the process is fundamentally distinct, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7 last paragraph – pg. 8, first paragraph.
With respect to Applicant’s argument (E), the Examiner notes in Table 2 of Ivanov as referenced by Applicant, Ivanov discloses within experiments 5 and 6 the swelling time was 0 hours, see pg. 212, Table 2.
Additionally, the Examiner notes experiments 1 and 2 in Table 2 of Ivanov test pectic acid in the same amount, swelling time, and water percentage; the difference therein was the temperature conducted, where experiment 1 was conducted at 50°C and experiment 2 was conducted at 90°C which resulted in a slight difference in the percentage of metal removed from sunflower oil depending on the identity of the metal; (e.g. a difference of 15.1% for copper; 10.6% for iron; 16.9% for zinc, and 7.6% for nickel).
Moreover, the Examiner notes at both 50°C and 90°C greater than 50% of each metal were removed from the solution as demonstrated in Table 2 of Ivanov.
Furthermore, the Examiner would like to respectfully and particularly note to Applicant the following:
instant claim 16, lines 1-2, recite any liquid or semi-liquid organic composition that is aqueous, hydroalcoholic or oily is used;
instant claim 16, lines 3-4, recite “said method comprising the following successive steps”; which the Examiner notes does not exclude a pre-swelling step;
instant claim 16, line 3, recites any pro-oxidizing cations, which the Examiner notes is not specifically limited to heavy metals, and any oxidation-sensitive molecules with said composition;
instant claim 16, lines 5-7, recite contacting at least one negatively charged polymer, which may be selected from either pectic acid or alginic acid; and wherein the Examiner reasonably interprets would include any amount of the polymer; and
instant claim 16, lines 8-13, recite said composition has at least 50% of the pro-oxidizing cations removed by bonding to the polymer at the newly recited temperature range.
(F) Dhakal fails to identify temperature as a result effective variable and offers no insight into the stability of oxidation-sensitive molecules, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 2.
With respect to Applicant’s argument (F), the Examiner reiterates the newly added Schiewer reference teaches the temperature limitations required in claim 16.
Additionally, the Examiner notes in response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which Applicant relies (i.e., "the ) is not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the Examiner notes even if the limitation of “the stability of oxidative-sensitive molecules” were claimed, the Examiner has reviewed the specification filed October 08, 2021 and did not find any disclosure referencing the stability of oxidative-sensitive molecules as argued by Applicant; as the Examiner notes the only reference to stability is in relation to the conductivity of a sample treated with pectic acid, wherein said sample is apple juice (see pg. 11, lines 15-25).
(G) Dehelean offers no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for the removal of those metals, and relying on Dehelean for anything other than the fact that fruit juices contain metals is an impermissible expansion of Dehelean’s teachings, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 3.
With respect to Applicant’s argument (G), the Examiner reiterates above and further notes Dehelean was relied on to teach apple juice contains both heavy metals and oxidation-sensitive molecules as pointed out by Applicant above.
(H) The Examiner’s position is a classic example of impermissible hindsight reconstruction by attempting to “cherry-pick” a single parameter, e.g. temperature, from Ivanov and Dhakal to force-fit into Kern’s beverage-clarification process, ignoring the technical integration of the art, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 8, impermissible hindsight and technical incompatibility, paragraph 1.
(I) The cited systems are physically and chemically distinct as Ivanov operates in an oil-phase system requiring high heat for fluidity; Dhakal operates in a dilute aqueous column system using rigid, crosslinked gels; and a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would understand Ivanov’s parameters are interdependent and cannot be disaggregated, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 8, fundamental incompatibility, paragraph 1.
(J) The present invention operates at 15°C-25°C, where Ivanov’s lowest tested temperature is 50°C; and Dhakal’s temperature is fixed at 30°C. Accordingly, the Examiner’s proposal requires the POSA to extrapolate outside and below the operative ranges of the prior art; and there is no positive teaching that such extrapolation would be effective, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, lack of reasonable expectation of success, paragraph 1.
(K) The Examiner provides no evidence, and none exists, that the system remains functional at 15°C-25°C, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, the 15°C-25°C range is a critical technical parameter, paragraph 1.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments (H)-(K), the Examiner respectfully reiterates above and further notes Schiewer teaches a general method of adsorption studies where 50 mg of peel was contacted with 50 mL of metal solution in 250 mL Erlenmeyer flasks; where the Examiner reasonably interprets said metal solution is an aqueous solution; and where the flasks were shaken at a temperature of 25 ± 2°C for 180 min; and where the uptake of Cd, an exemplified heavy metal, was the highest for pectic acid as discussed in greater detail within the modified 103 rejections below.
Moreover, the Examiner notes Kern is drawn to a method for selective removal of heavy metals from liquids, exemplifying fruit juices, which the Examiner reasonably interpreted as an aqueous solution, and Dehelean teaches fruit juices, exemplifying apple juice, contains both heavy metals and oxidation-sensitive molecules as discussed in greater detail within the modified 103 rejections below.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant's argument that the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the Applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
(L) The present invention’s successful and efficient operation within the 15°C-25°C window constitutes an unexpected result, confirming that the claimed range is not an arbitrary optimization, but a critical, non-obvious operational parameter that achieves a technical objective (molecular preservation) that the prior art fails to contemplate, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, the 15°C-25°C range is a critical technical parameter, paragraph 1.
With respect to Applicant’s argument (L), the Examiner reiterates above and further notes Applicant’s mere allegation of an unexpected result is not persuasive in view of the prior art as a whole, and particularly in view of the newly added Schiewer reference discussed herein.
Additionally, the Examiner notes to be of probative value, any objective evidence should be supported by actual proof; and said objective evidence, which must be factually supported, should be provided by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value which includes evidence of unexpected results, see MPEP 716.01(c)(I).
Moreover, arguments presented by the Applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record, where examples of said statements which are not evidence and must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results, see MPEP 716.01(c)(II).
Furthermore, the evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance", see MPEP 716.02(b)(I); in other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range, see MPEP 716.02(d).
Moreover, Applicant has the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness, see MPEP 716.02(b)(II); and evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims, see MPEP 716.02(b)(III).
Finally, with particular attention to Applicant’s allegation the 15°C-25°C range is a critical technical parameter, the Examiner notes to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicant should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range, see MPEP 716.02(d)(II).
Thus, Applicant’s arguments (A)-(L) have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
New Claim Rejections
The following are new modified rejections necessitated by Applicant's amendment, filed on June 12, 2026, where the limitations in pending claims 16-21, 23-28, 31, 33 and 35 as amended now have been changed.
Therefore, rejections from the previous Office action, dated March 13, 2026, have been modified and are listed below.
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.
(I) Claims 16-20, 23-24, 26, 28, 31 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern (Published 19 July 1988, US-4758351-A, PTO-892) in view of Dehelean et al. (Published 18 December 2013, The Scientific World Journal, Vol. 2013, Article ID 215423, pp. 1-6, PTO-892 mailed 12/27/2024), Ivanov et al. (Published 01 September 1990, Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und-Forschung, Vol. 191, pp. 210-213, PTO-892 mailed 03/13/2026) and Schiewer et al. (Published 11 January 2010, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 177, Issue 1-3, pp. 899-907, PTO-892).
Regarding claims 16-20, 23-24, 26, 28, 31 and 35, Kern teaches a method for selective removal of heavy metals from liquids, see title. Kern teaches an agent for selective removal of heavy metals from liquids, especially from wine and fruit juices (e.g. a liquid organic composition, required in claim 16, lines 1-2; said composition be aqueous, required in claim 16, line 2; further contains at least one biomass, required in claim 20, line 2; and said biomass is of plant origin, required in claim 31), consists of a polymer with heavy metal ion binding groups which can be produced by oximating a free aldehyde group containing polymer with the aid of hydroxylamine or by polymerizing a polymerizable aldehyde oximated with hydroxylamine, see abstract.
Kern exemplifies said polymer is polyacrolein or said polymerizable aldehyde as acrolein, Col. 2, lines 20-25.
Kern teaches said liquids containing heavy metals can be objectionable from the toxicologic and hygienic viewpoint, or can cause clouding in the beverages, and that efforts have long been underway to reduce the heavy metal contents of such beverages, see Col. 1, lines 5-11.
Kern teaches obtaining new means for selective removal of heavy metals, especially iron and copper ions (e.g. the pro-oxidizing cation selected from divalent cations, see claim 17, line 2) from liquids most especially from fruit juices; and binds iron and copper equally to the most complete extent possible, produces no toxicologically objectionable products and acts selectively on heavy metal ions, see Col. 2, lines 1-10.
Kern teaches when speaking of the fact that this agent consists of the polymers mentioned, naturally this does not mean that when the agent is added to the beverage to be clarified this polymer cannot be added in a mixture with or simultaneously with other materials for example with other clarifying agents. Therefore, Kern teaches said polymers in a mixture with other substances. See Col. 2, lines 25-35.
Kern teaches upon use of the clarification of beverages, said oximated polymer which is subsequently oxidized is added to the beverage (e.g. contacting so as to obtain a preparation, required in claim 16, line 5 and line 7), and following an appropriate treatment time which must be sufficient to bind the heavy metal ions (e.g. the binding, required in claim 17, pg. 2, lines 1-2), especially iron and copper, it is removed (e.g. separating and allowing a free organic composition to be recovered, see claim 16, line 8 and line 9). See Col 2, lines 35-40.
Kern teaches separation can be performed by filtration, centrifugation and the like (e.g. solid-liquid separation, required in claim 24, line 2 and claim 26, line 2), see Col. 2, lines 40-42.
The Examiner is making the reasonable interpretation that the fruit juices taught by Kern above are aqueous compositions per claim 16 as discussed above; and are an aqueous organic composition as required in claim 16.
Although, Kern does not teach (a) the oxidation-sensitive molecules, required in claim 16, line 3; (b) the pectic acid, required in claim 16, line 7 and claim 19; and (c) the temperature required in claim 16, last two lines of the claim.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fruit juices that contain heavy metals, with respect to limitation (a), Dehelean teaches 21 commercial fruit juices (apple, peach, apricot, orange, kiwi, pear, pineapple, and multifruit) available in a Romanian market were investigated for their heavy metals and mineral content by ICP-MS, see pg. 1, abstract.
Dehelean teaches the aim of this study was the precise determination of heavy metal content from the most known commercial fruit juices present in a Romanian market, see pg. 1, 1. Introduction, right column, second full paragraph.
Dehelean teaches the levels of heavy metals including copper (Cu), nickel (Ni), zinc (Zn) and lead (Pb) were investigated in the samples, see pg. 3, Table 2.
The Examiner is making the reasonable interpretation that the apple juice cited in the Dehelean study contains chlorogenic acid (e.g. the aqueous organic composition comprising at least oxidation-sensitive molecules, such as polyphenols, required in claim 16, line 3), as evidenced by the specification which discloses apple juice contains chlorogenic acid (see pg. 10, example 3, lines 15-20).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of removing heavy metals from liquids, with respect to limitation (b), Ivanov teaches application of pectic acid (e.g. the pectic acid, required in claim 16, line 7) for removing heavy metals from liquids, exemplifying vegetable oils, see pg. 210, title.
The Examiner is making the reasonable interpretation that the pectic acid of Ivanov has a methylation level of 0% (e.g. wherein the methylation level is lower than 5%, required in claim 19).
Ivanov teaches the use of both pectic acid and synthetic ion exchangers in removing heavy metals from hydrogenated vegetable oil. However, pectic acid was shown to be the most efficient in removing the metal complex from the hydrogenated vegetable oil, see pg. 210, left column, summary, paragraph 1.
Ivanov teaches before processing the oil 1 g of ion exchanger was left to swell in a specific volume of deionized water and was then mixed with 100 g oil (e.g. the preparation is mixed, required in claim 18, line 2 and claim 23, line 2), see pg. 210, right column, materials and methods, paragraph 3.
Ivanov further teaches an experimental temperature of removing heavy metals from sunflower oil as 50°C (e.g. the temperature, required in claim 22), see pg. 212, Table 2, experiment 1.
Ivanov teaches the removal of copper, iron, zinc and nickel from the oils ranged over 87 to 94%, see pg. 210, left column, summary, paragraph 1.
Ivanov concludes pectic acid could be applied to decrease the heavy metal content in hydrogenated oils by 87-94% (e.g. at least 50% of the pro-oxidizing cations present in said liquid have been removed with pectic acid, required in claim 16, lines 10-12; at least 80%, required in claim 28, line 2; and at least 90%, required in claim 35, line 2), see pg. 212, left column conclusion, paragraph #1.
Although, Ivanov does not teach the temperature of each step is carried out between 15 to 25°C required in claim 16, last two lines of the claim.
However, in the same field of endeavor of using pectic acid to remove heavy metals from liquids, with respect to limitation (c), Schiewer teaches the role of pectin in cadmium (Cd) binding by orange peel biosorbents, wherein said pectin is exemplified as pectic acid, see title. Schiewer teaches applications of using citrus peels can be a cost efficient method for removing heavy metals from wastewater, see pg. 899, abstract.
Schiewer teaches pectic acid extracted from orange peel, see pg. 900, left column, 2.1.3, Peel pectic acid (PP), paragraph 1; and a general method of adsorption studies where 50 mg of peel was contacted with 50 mL of metal solution in a 250 mL Erlenmeyer flasks; where the flasks were shaken at a temperature of 25 ± 2°C for 180 min (e.g. the temperature, required in claim 16, last two lines of the claim), see pg. 900, right column, 2.3.1. General, paragraph 1; and that uptake of Cd was highest for pectic acid, see pg. 902, left column, 3.2. Effect of pH on metal binding, paragraph 2.
With particular attention to the limitation “wherein each of steps 1) and 2) are carried out at a temperature in the range of 15-25°C as required in claim 16, last two lines of the claim, although Schiewer does not explicitly teach wherein separating said polymer in step 2) is carried out at the temperature recited in claim 16 above; the Examiner reasonably interprets this limitation as a physical limitation that is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art which may be controlled during the adsorption and separation process; as Schiewer already teaches the absorption of heavy metals, e.g. cadmium (Cd), was carried out at 25 ± 2°C as discussed above.
Therefore, the Examiner reasonably interprets based on the combined teachings of Ivanov and Schiewer, the temperature can vary when removing heavy metals from liquids using pectic acid as discussed above; and as a consequence, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed limitation of separating the pectic acid from the liquid at the recited temperature required within claim 16 through routine experimentation and optimization by being motivated to understand how the efficiency of heavy metal retention by pectic acid depends on its temperature during removal of heavy metals from liquids as taught by Ivanov as discussed above.
Additionally, MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) states “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. [W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”.
Therefore, based on the combined teachings of Ivanov and Schiewer as discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the temperature range recited in claim 16, in the last two lines of the claim, into the method of Kern as discussed above as within the scope of the artisan through routine experimentation and optimization. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to understand how the efficiency of heavy metal retention by pectic acid depends on its temperature during removal of heavy metals from liquids as taught by Ivanov above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success as Schiewer already teaches the absorption of heavy metals from liquids, e.g. cadmium (Cd), using pectic acid as the contacting agent when carried out at 25 ± 2°C as discussed above.
With respect to the limitation of “lowering the oxidizing power of a liquid”, required in claim 16, line 1; the Examiner reasonably interprets this limitation to be a functional consequence of removing the pro-oxidizing cations within the aqueous organic composition as recited in claim 16, lines 1-3. Since the combination of Kern, Dehelean, Ivanov, and Schiewer teach the removal of 87-94% of heavy metal ions from liquids using pectic acid; wherein Kern exemplifies fruit juices; and wherein Dehelean teaches at least copper, zinc and nickel as heavy metals; as a consequence, the Examiner reasonably interprets the functional limitation as discussed above is met by the combined teachings of Kern, Dehelean, Ivanov, and Schiewer as discussed above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the invention’s effective filing date to have incorporated the teachings of Dehelean, Ivanov, and Schiewer into the method of Kern as discussed above as combining prior art elements according to known compositions and methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide new means for selective removal of heavy metals from liquids as taught by Kern above; because liquids containing heavy metals can be objectionable from the toxicologic and hygienic viewpoint, or can cause clouding in the beverages as taught by Kern above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Ivanov and Schiewer use pectic acid to remove heavy metals from liquids as discussed above.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have incorporated limitations (a)-(c) as taught by Dehelean, Ivanov, and Schiewer above, respectively, into the method of Kern as discussed above as within the scope of the artisan as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement a method for selective removal of heavy metals from liquids as taught by Kern above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of incorporating limitations (a)-(c) above into the method of Kern as discussed above, as Kern, Ivanov, and Schiewer are all drawn to removing heavy metals from liquids.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art.
(II) Claims 25, 27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern (Published 19 July 1988, US-4758351-A, PTO-892), Dehelean et al. (Published 18 December 2013, The Scientific World Journal, Vol. 2013, Article ID 215423, pp. 1-6, PTO-892 mailed 12/27/2024), Ivanov et al. (Published 01 September 1990, Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und-Forschung, Vol. 191, pp. 210-213, PTO-892 mailed 03/13/2026) and Schiewer et al. (Published 11 January 2010, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 177, Issue 1-3, pp. 899-907, PTO-892) as applied to claims 16-20, 23-24, 26, 28, 31 and 35 above, and further in view of Dhakal et al. (Published 22 September 2004, Separation and Purification Technology, Vol. 42, Issue 3, pp. 219-225, PTO-892 mailed 12/27/2024).
Kern, Dehelean, Ivanov, and Schiewer address claims 16-20, 23-24, 26, 28, 31 and 35 as written above.
Kern further teaches in the selective removal of copper and iron from wine within Example 2, see Col. 4, lines 30-35; the wine was treated with 1 g/L to 2 g/L of various agents, for example acrolein, see Col. 4, lines 30-68.
Ivanov further teaches efficiency of heavy metal retention by polyuronides, such as pectic acid, also depend on the temperature (Table 2), see pg. 211, right column, paragraph 2.
Although Kern, Dehelean, Ivanov, and Schiewer do not teach (a) the pectic acid content range required in claims 25; and (b) wherein the pectic acid is bound to a column, required in claim 27.
However, in the same field of endeavor of using pectic acids to remove heavy metals, with respect to limitations (a)-(b), Dhakal teaches the adsorption behavior of lead (II) on crosslinked pectic acid, alginic acid and their amide derivative forms have been investigated; and that the nature of such acidic polysaccharides for the removal of lead (II) ions was examined through batch wise tests and column tests, see pg. 219, abstract.
Dhakal teaches that the packed column employed in the column test was a glass column of 8 mm in diameter shown in Fig. 1. It was packed with 0.1 g crosslinked pectic acid gels (e.g. the pectic acid is bound to a column, required in claim 27), see pg. 221, right column, 2.4 Column adsorption test, paragraph 2, lines 1-4.
Dhakal teaches in Fig. 2 the weight of the gel was 25 mg and the volume of the test solution was 15 mL, see pg. 222, right column, section 3.1.1. adsorption gels for metal ion removal, Fig. 2. Thus, the Examiner calculates (25 mg / 15 mL) multiplied by (1 g / 1000 mg) and then multiplied by (1000 mL / 1 L) would result in the polymer being present in the preparation at 1.67 g/L (e.g. the polymer content range required in claim 25).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have incorporated limitations (a)-(b) as taught by Dhakal above into the method of Kern as discussed above as within the scope of the artisan as combining prior art elements according to known compositions and methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement a method for selective removal of heavy metals from liquids as taught by Kern above; by using pectic acid as taught by Ivanov above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to have incorporated limitations (a)-(b) into the method of Kern as discussed above, because Kern, Ivanov, Schiewer and Dhakal are all drawn to removing heavy metals from liquids as discussed above
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art.
(III) Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kern (Published 19 July 1988, US-4758351-A, PTO-892), Dehelean et al. (Published 18 December 2013, The Scientific World Journal, Vol. 2013, Article ID 215423, pp. 1-6, PTO-892 mailed 12/27/2024), Ivanov et al. (Published 01 September 1990, Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und-Forschung, Vol. 191, pp. 210-213, PTO-892 mailed 03/13/2025) and Schiewer et al. (Published 11 January 2010, Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 177, Issue 1-3, pp. 899-907, PTO-892) as applied to claims 16-20, 23-24, 26, 28, 31 and 35 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (Published 12 August 2016, Food Chemistry, Vol. 216, pp. 234-242, PTO-892 mailed 07/08/2025).
Kern, Dehelean, Ivanov, and Schiewer address claims 16-20, 23-24, 26, 28, 31 and 35 as written above. Although, Kern, Dehelean, Ivanov, and Schiewer do not teach the biomass is ground before being added to the composition, required in claim 21.
However, in the same field of endeavor of apple juice production, Kim teaches grinding of apples is a process used extensively in producing juices, see pg. 241, 4. Conclusions, first paragraph.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have included the limitation wherein the biomass was ground before being added to the composition as within the scope of the artisan as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include grinding the biomass before addition to the composition to produce the commercially available apple juices as taught by Dehelean above and used within the method of Kern as discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to have included the limitation as discussed above as Kim teaches the grinding of fruit, exemplifying apples, which is a process used extensively in producing fruit juices as discussed above.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed in this action.
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 JARET J CREWS whose telephone number is (571)270-0962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am-5:30pm EST.
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, Renee Claytor can be reached at (571) 272-8394. 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.
/JARET J CREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 1691
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Prosecution Insights