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 .
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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 08, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 and 34 are canceled. Claims 29-30 continue to be withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to non-elected inventions.
Thus, claims 16-28, 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Withdrawn Objections and Rejections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 July 8, 2025:
(I) The rejection of claims 34-35 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s canceling of claim 34 as discussed in the Claim Status section above; and in view of Applicant’s amendments to claims 28 and 35.
(II) With respect to the rejection of claims 16-28 and 31-34 under 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant argues:
(A) Dehelean merely analyzes the concentration of metals without proposing any method to reduce their oxidizing powder, see pg. 8, Dehelean, paragraph 3;
(B) Dehelean does not teach nor suggest any method to protect oxidation-sensitive molecules from deleterious effects of pro-oxidizing cations; nor does Dehelean address the concept of oxidation-sensitive molecules or the need to lower the oxidizing power of the composition, see pg. 8, Dehelean, paragraph 3; and
(C) Dehelean does not provide a method for the removal of heavy metals from liquids, see pg. 8, Dehelean, paragraph 4. These arguments were filed in Applicant’s remarks on October 08, 2025, have been fully considered and are found persuasive. Thus, the 103 rejection as discussed above has been withdrawn.
However, the Examiner respectfully notes new 103 rejections have been made using Kern as the primary reference which teaches a method for selective removal of heavy metals from liquids, exemplifying iron and copper, and further exemplifies said liquid as fruit juices which is discussed in greater detail within the new 103 rejections below.
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.
(I) Claims 16-20, 22-24, 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) and Ivanov et al. (Published 01 September 1990, Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und-Forschung, Vol. 191, pp. 210-213, PTO-892).
Regarding claims 16-20, 22-24, 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 22.
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 limitations (b)-(c), 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.
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 and Ivanov 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 and Ivanov 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 and Ivanov 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 uses pectic acid to remove heavy metals from liquids, exemplifying hydrogenated vegetable oils 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 and Ivanov 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 both Kern and Ivanov are 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 32-33 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) and Ivanov et al. (Published 01 September 1990, Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und-Forschung, Vol. 191, pp. 210-213, PTO-892) as applied to claims 16-20, 22-24, 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 and Ivanov address claims 16-20, 22-24, 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 and Ivanov do not teach (a) the temperature, required in claim 32; (b) the pectic acid content range required in claims 25 and 33; and (c) 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)-(c), 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 and claim 33).
Dhakal teaches adsorption tests carried out by the convention batch method were at 30°C; wherein test solutions were shaken vigorously together with adsorption gel in a flask for 24 h using a thermostatic shaker to attain equilibrium, see pg. 221, left column, 2.3. batch wise adsorption tests, first paragraph.
With particular respect to limitation (a), wherein each of steps 1) and 2) are carried out at a temperature in the range of 20-25°C as required in claim 32, the Examiner reasonably interprets this limitation as a physical limitation that is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art that may be controlled during the adsorption and separation process; as Ivanov teaches absorption tests of heavy metals to pectic acid was performed at 50°C and Dhakal teach their adsorption tests were performed at 30°C.
Therefore, the Examiner reasonably interprets based on the combined teachings of Ivanov and Dhakal, 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 required within claim 32 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”.
Therefore, based on the combined teachings of Ivanov and Dhakal as discussed above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the temperature range required in claim 32 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 Dhakal teaches column adsorption tests wherein the Examiner reasonably interprets said column tests were conducted at room temperature and wherein the Examiner reasonably interprets room temperature to include a temperature range of 20-22°C as required within claim 32.
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 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)-(c) into the method of Kern as discussed above, because Kern, Ivanov 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) and Ivanov et al. (Published 01 September 1990, Zeitschrift für Lebensmittel-Untersuchung und-Forschung, Vol. 191, pp. 210-213, PTO-892) as applied to claims 16-20, 22-24, 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 and Ivanov address claims 16-20, 22-24, 26, 28, 31 and 35 as written above. Although, Kern, Dehelean and Ivanov 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 in order 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.
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