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 Objections
With regard to the dependent claims 11, 13-14, 16-17, and 30-35, the dependent claims must conform to the language of the independent claim. To clarify, dependent claims the reference, “the high pressure homogenization” should be amended to further state “the first high pressure homogenization” or “the second high pressure homogenization”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-15, 17, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (WO 2018075589 A1) in view of Wang et al. (herein referred to as Wang, CN 108967550 A) with evidentiary support from Smith (“Temperature and Speed for Bacterial Fermentation”) for Claim 14.
With regard to Claim 1, Zhang teaches a process for manufacturing a homogenized pea protein composition (abstract, [0006]) wherein the composition can be used in food such as dairy products ([00038]). Zhang teaches (i) providing a soluble-plant protein isolate in a dried form; (ii) preparing an aqueous solution of said plant protein isolate ([00010]). Zhang teaches (iii) high pressure homogenizing said solution wherein the operating temperature is from 10 to 70℃ ([0009]). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Zhang teaches the high pressure homogenization effectively reduces the particle diameter of the pea protein composition consequently improving solubility ([00032]). Because Zhang teaches the high-pressure homogenization, as instantly claimed, and the resulting reduction in mean particle size, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that sedimentation and particle size are directly related. Meaning decreasing the size of the particle, in this case of the protein isolate, would decrease the protein sedimentation (See applicant’s specification [00134], these results correlate with the decrease in particle size distribution PSD after the HPH (high pressure homogenization) step since the stability of suspensions and emulsions is a function of the particle size). The composition taught by Zhang does not contain a stabilizer (whole document).
However, Zhang is silent to process steps (iv) and (v).
Wang teaches a process for the manufacturing of a homogenized emulsion for the preparation of a fermented dairy product-substitute ([0021]-[0022], Claim 9 Wang read such that the method uses soy protein isolate to produce a stirred yogurt). The process comprises providing a soluble- or partially soluble-plant protein concentrate/isolate in a dried form ([0012], [0023] Wang reads such that soy protein isolate is mixed with water to hydrate evenly. The isolate is prepared by an alkali-dissolution and acid-precipitation method which inherently would result in a dried product). Next, Wang teaches preparing an aqueous solution or dispersion of the plant concentrate/isolate ([0023] ). Wang teaches adding oil to the aqueous solution and mixing at high speed until completely emulsified, now referred to as the soy protein emulsion ([0023]). Wang teaches the soy protein emulsion is homogenized in a two-stage high pressure homogenization step with an preheat temperature of 40-50℃ ([0030]). Wang teaches sucrose can be added after the oil is emulsified with the protein isolate and before the high-pressure homogenization ([0023]).
Wang reads on the instant claims limitations of steps (i), (ii), (iv), and (v). With regard to step (iv) and (v) Wang reads such that the aqueous solution containing the oil is homogenized to form and emulsion ([0023]) and the emulsion of the oil and aqueous solution then undergoes high-pressure homogenizing ([0024], [0030]). Wang teaches this process is advantageous for the development of a room-temperature yogurt product ([0005]). Wang also teaches the high-stability room-temperature stirred yogurt adopts a high-concentration fermentation and post-dilution method, which has a better flavor and a more stable system than the yogurt prepared by direct low-concentration fermentation ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to include steps (iv) and (v) taught by Wang to produce a product which has a better flavor and a more stable system.
With regard to Claim 2, Zhang teaches the plant protein isolate is a pea protein isolate ([00010]).
With regard to Claim 3, Zhang teaches the aqueous solution or dispersion is prepared by dissolving or dispersing said plant protein concentrate/isolate in water ([00023]).
With regard to Claims 4 and 5, Zhang teaches the concentration of plant protein in the homogenized emulsion is at least 30 wt% ([00021]). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
With regard to Claim 6, Zhang is silent to the composition comprising oil.
Wang teaches the vegetable oil is one or a mixture of two or more of corn germ oil, olive oil, soybean oil, coconut oil and palm oil. ([0014]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to include steps (iv) and (v) with one or a mixture of two or more of corn germ oil, olive oil, soybean oil, coconut oil and palm oil as taught by Wang to produce a room-temperature yogurt product.
With regard to Claims 8, Zhang is silent to the step the sugar is added.
Wang teaches sugar is added together with said oil in step (iv) ([0023])
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to add sucrose together with the oil in step (iv) as taught by Wang to produce a room-temperature yogurt product.
With regard to Claim 11, Zhang teaches the high-pressure homogenization in step (iii) is carried out under a pressure of 5 MPa to 200 MPa ([00011]). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
With regard to Claim 12, Zhang is silent to steps (iv) and (v) being carried out as a single step.
Wang teaches the steps of adding an oil to the high-pressure homogenized solution or dispersion, homogenizing the mixture to obtained an emulsion and high-pressure homogenizing said emulsion can be carried out in a single step ([0023], [0029]-[0030])
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang carry out steps (iv) and (v) as a single step as taught by Wang to produce a room-temperature yogurt product.
With Regard to Claim 13, Zhang is silent to steps (vi) and (vii).
Wang teaches step (vi) inoculating the high-pressure homogenized emulsion with a lactic acid bacteria ([0017], [0025]-[0026]) and step (vii) fermenting the inoculated high-pressure homogenized emulsion to obtain yogurt ([0033]-[0034]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to include steps (vi) and (vii) to obtain yogurt.
With regard to Claim 14, Zhang is silent to (a)-(d).
Wang teaches the inoculated high-pressure homogenized emulsion is fermented at 42℃ for 6 hours ([0053]). Wang teaches the metabolites produced during the lactic acid bacteria fermentation process have unique nutritional value ([0005]). Smith teaches for lactic acid bacteria temperature range depends on the type of bacteria and fermentation. Thermophilic lactic acid bacteria for yogurt work best between 110 to 115℉ (43 to 46℃) (paragraph 5). Therefore, Wang teaches the inoculated high-pressure homogenized emulsion is fermented at a temperature, or temperature range, compatible with said lactic acid bacteria.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in view of Wang to inoculated high-pressure homogenized emulsion is fermented at 42℃ for 6 hours, which is compatible with the lactic acid bacteria, because teaches the metabolites produced during the lactic acid bacteria fermentation process have unique nutritional value.
With regard to Claim 15, Zhang teaches a process for manufacturing a homogenized pea protein composition (abstract, [0006]) wherein the composition can be used in food such as dairy products ([00037]). Zhang teaches (i) providing a soluble-plant protein isolate in a dried form; (ii) preparing an aqueous solution of said plant protein isolate ([00010]). Zhang teaches (iii) high pressure homogenizing said solution wherein the operating temperature is from 10 to 70℃ ([0009]). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Zhang teaches the high pressure homogenization effectively reduces the particle diameter of the pea protein composition consequently improving solubility ([00032]). Because Zhang teaches the high-pressure homogenization, as instantly claimed, and the resulting reduction in mean particle size, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that sedimentation and particle size are directly related. Meaning decreasing the size of the particle, in this case of the protein isolate, would decrease the protein sedimentation (See applicant’s specification [00134], “these results correlate with the decrease in particle size distribution) PSD after the HPH (high pressure homogenization) step since the stability of suspensions and emulsions is a function of the particle size). The composition taught by Zhang does not contain a stabilizer (whole document).
However, Zhang is silent to process steps (iv), (v), (vi), and (vii).
Wang teaches a process for the manufacturing of a homogenized emulsion for the preparation of a fermented dairy product-substitute ([0021]-[0022], Claim 9 Wang read such that the method uses soy protein isolate to produce a stirred yogurt). The process comprises providing a soluble- or partially soluble-plant protein concentrate/isolate in a dried form ([0012], [0023] Wang reads such that soy protein isolate is mixed with water to hydrate evenly. The isolate is prepared by an alkali-dissolution and acid-precipitation method which inherently would result in a dried product). Next, Wang teaches preparing an aqueous solution or dispersion of the plant concentrate/isolate ([0023] ). Wang teaches adding oil to the aqueous solution and mixing at high speed until completely emulsified, now referred to as the soy protein emulsion ([0023]). Wang teaches the soy protein emulsion is homogenized in a two-stage high pressure homogenization step with an preheat temperature of 40-50℃ ([0030]). Wang teaches sucrose can be added after the oil is emulsified with the protein isolate and before the high-pressure homogenization ([0023]).
Wang reads on the instant claims limitations of steps (i), (ii), (iv), and (v). With regard to step (iv) and (v) Wang reads such that the aqueous solution containing the oil is homogenized to form and emulsion ([0023]) and the emulsion of the oil and aqueous solution then undergoes high-pressure homogenizing ([0024], [0030]). Wang teaches step (vi) inoculating the high-pressure homogenized emulsion with a lactic acid bacteria ([0017], [0025]-[0026]) and step (vii) fermenting the inoculated high-pressure homogenized emulsion to obtain yogurt ([0033]-[0034]).
Wang teaches this process is advantageous for the development of a room-temperature yogurt product ([0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to include steps (iv) and (v) taught by Wang to produce a room-temperature yogurt product.
With regard to Claim 17, Zhang is silent to steps (vi) and (vii).
Wang teaches the manufacturing of a yogurt product ([0021]-[0022],). Wang teaches the steps of inoculating the high-pressure homogenized emulsion with a bacteria selected from the group consisting of Lactobacillus or Streptococcus ([0017] Wang reads such that the fermentation agent is one or a mixture of two or more of Lactobacillus bulgaricus, Streptococcus thermophilus, and Lactobacillus plantarum). Wang teaches fermenting the inoculated high-pressure homogenized emulsion to obtain said yogurt ([0052], [0053], [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang to include steps (vi) and (vii) to obtain yogurt.
With regard to Claim 27, Zhang teaches the concentration of plant protein in the homogenized emulsion is at least 30 wt% ([00021]). Zhang teaches current pea protein products suffer from severe problems in terms of solubility and flavor ([0003]).
However, Wang teaches the concentration of plant protein in the homogenized emulsion is 1-6% ([0011]). Wang teaches the composition and proportion of essential amino acids in plant protein are similar to those in animal protein, and it is rich in lysine ([0004]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Zhang to use the protein concentration as taught by Wang so the stable room temperature product has the desired lysine concentration similar to that of animal protein.
With regard to Claim 29, as shown in the rejection of Claim 14, Wang teaches the inoculated high-pressure homogenized emulsion is fermented at 42℃ for 6 hours ([0053]). Since claim 29 does not further limit the “inoculated high-pressure homogenized emulsion” which was optionally recited in claim 14 and has not been positively recited in Claim 29, the limitations of claim 29 are seen to have been met.
With regard to Claims 30-35, Zhang teaches the high-pressure homogenization in step (iii) is carried out under a pressure of 5 MPa to 200 MPa ([00011]). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 16, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (WO 2018075589 A1) in view of Wang et al. (herein referred to as Wang, CN 108967550 A) and Kizer et al. (herein referred to as Kizer, CN 109153982 A) with evidentiary support from Smith (“Temperature and Speed for Bacterial Fermentation”) for Claim 14.
With regard to Claim 7, Zhang is silent to the sugar being added to the aqueous solution or dispersion obtained in step (ii) prior to step (iii).
Kizer teaches a method for producing a dairy yogurt analogue ([0021]) The first steps include blending the at least one carbohydrate component, the at least one lipid component, and the at least one refined protein component with a water component to produce a mixture ([0025]). The mixture is then heated and emulsified ([0026]). These steps read on the instant claim 1’s steps (ii) and (iii). Kizer teaches in some embodiments, one or more other ingredients are further added. In some such embodiments, the one or more other ingredients are added to the water component prior to mixing. In other embodiments, the one or more additional ingredients are added to the lipid and/or protein components or to the lipid, protein and water mixture ([0131]). Kizer further teaches other ingredients include sugar ([0251]). Advantageously, Kizer teaches additional ingredients improve one or more of the following characteristics: color, taste, and nutritional and other qualities ([0249]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in view of Kizer to include sugar to improve one or more of the following characteristics: color, taste, and nutritional and other qualities ([0249]). In addition, Kizer imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows the step of sugar being added to an aqueous solution of plant protein concentrate/isolate prior to further treatment (this reads on instant claim 1’s step (ii)) to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing , which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to add sugar to the aqueous solution prior to further treatment, because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
With regard to Claims 9 and 10, Kizer teaches in addition to sugar, other ingredients include health promoting compounds such as a probiotic ([0257]), prebiotics ([0267]), antioxidants ([0250]), lipophilic vitamins (Vitamin A, D, E, and K), and carotenoids ([0250], [0252]). Advantageously, Kizer teaches additional ingredients improve one or more of the following characteristics: color, taste, and nutritional and other qualities ([0249]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in view of Kizer to include a probiotic ([0257]), prebiotics ([0267]), antioxidants ([0250]), lipophilic vitamins (Vitamin A, D, E, and K), and/or carotenoids ([0250], [0252]) to improve one or more of the following characteristics: color, taste, and nutritional and other qualities ([0249]). In addition, Kizer imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows the step of a health promoting compound being added to an aqueous solution of plant protein concentrate/isolate prior to further treatment (this reads on instant claim 1’s step (ii)) to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing , which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to add a health promoting compound to the aqueous solution prior to further treatment, because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
With regard to Claim 16, Zhang teaches (i) providing a soluble-plant protein isolate in a dried form; Zhang teaches the plant protein isolate is a pea protein isolate ([00010]). (ii) preparing an aqueous solution of said plant protein isolate ([00010]). Zhang teaches (iii) high pressure homogenizing said solution wherein the operating temperature is from 10 to 70℃ ([0009]). Zhang teaches the high-pressure homogenization in step (iii) is carried out under a pressure of 5 MPa to 200 MPa ([00011]). Zhang teaches the concentration of plant protein in the homogenized emulsion is at least 30 wt% ([00021]).
However, Zhang is silent to the oil added in step (iv).
Wang teaches the plant protein concentrate is prepared by dissolving or dispersing the plant protein concentrate/isolate in water ([0023]) in an amount such that the concentration of the protein is 6-8% ([0023]). ). Wang teaches adding vegetable oil to the aqueous solution and mixing at high speed until completely emulsified, now referred to as the soy protein emulsion ([0023]).
However, Wang is silent to the vegetarian oil being canola oil.
Kizer teaches suitable lipids include canola oil ([0108]).
Therefore, Kizer imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that it was known to utilize pea protein isolate/concentrate and canola oil in their respective steps in the processes of making a yogurt beverage substitute. Using pea protein isolate/concentrate and canola oil had been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select these ingredients because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
With regard to Claim 28, Zhang is silent to the composition containing oil.
Wang teaches a composition with vegetable oil ([0014]) However, the reference is silent to the percent of oil in the composition.
Kizer teaches the milk product analogue may further include a lipid. In some embodiments, the milk product analogue comprises between 0% by weight and about 10% of a lipid. Kizer teaches suitable lipids include olive oil, soybean oil, coconut oil and palm oil ([0106]). Kizer teaches The amounts and ratios of the at least one lipid and at least one refined protein component are thereby selected to provide a desired nutritional profile ([0125]). During emulsification, by varying certain parameters the degree of emulsification can be achieved and thus the final texture of the emulsion can be controlled to a certain extent. Examples of such parameters include, but are not limited to, the type and/or amount of the lipid component ([0133]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zhang and Wang in view of Kizer to include oil in an amount between 0-10% to provide the composition with the desired nutritional profile and assist in controlling the final texture of the emulsion. See MPEP 2144.05(I) which states In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examiner selectively combined only certain features from Wang, while ignoring Wang’s explicit teaching that stabilizer’s are necessary. However, Wang is not relied upon to teach the claimed limitation of “said homogenized emulsion does not comprise a stabilizer”. In this case, Zhang the primary reference teaches Steps (i)-(iii) and then further teaches the emulsion does not comprise a stabilizer. With regard to Zhang, the art teaches further processing in form of “flashing” after high pressure homogenization to mask the taste (Zhang [0017]). Wang teaches steps (iv) and (v) assist in masking bad taste ([0006]). Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to substitute an equivalent methods to mask taste. In addition to the motivation already provided by Wang. See MPEP 2144.06(I) "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Applicant argues that Zhang and Wang are directed to fundamentally different problems and therefore one with ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to combine. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Zhang and Wang are analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Zhang teaches a pea protein composition that can be used to prepared dairy products which would be in the field of the inventor endeavor and in addition Zhang teaches the claim high pressure homogenization which is pertinent to the stability of the emulsion which is a particular problem in which the inventor was concerned (see applicant specification [0032]).. Further, Wang teaches analogous art in the form of a fermented dairy substitute which is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor and teaches the high pressure homogenization which is pertinent to a particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. Continuing, in addition to Zhang and Wang being analogous art, Wang provides ample motivation to combine with Zhang because Wang teaches steps (iv) and (v) are advantageous for the development of a room-temperature yogurt product.
Next, applicant argues that the claimed invention shows unexpected results in view of Wang’s teaching. Applicant argues thar the claimed invention achieves a result that is contrary to the teachings of the prior art. Applicant points to figures 2-10 to show improved protein solubility, reduced sedimentation, prevention of oil separation during fermentation and stable gel formation without stabilizers. The examiner would like to point to MPEP 716.02(d)(II) To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Figures 2-10 do not show a sufficient number of data points to show an unexpected result. In addition, to show unexpected results the data must be compared to the closes prior art. In this case, the closest prior art would be the primary reference Zhang not the secondary reference Wang. Thus, applicants’ argument regarding unexpected results is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant further argues that the combination of Wang and Zhang go beyond obvious optimization and could only be achieved with the knowledge of the present invention. 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). Thus, since there is ample motivation to combine Zhang and Wang, as discussed above, applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Zhang and Wang do not teach a two-stage approach wherein the first stage is carried out on the protein solution and the second stage is carried out on the emulsion. Applicant argues that as a result the amendments made to claims 1 and 15, referring to the two stage, explicitly recites the inventive combination. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Zhang is relied upon to teach the steps (i)-(iii) as amended by applicant but is not relied upon to teach steps (iv)-(v). This is where Wang is brough in. As stated above in the rejection, Wang reads on steps (i)-(iii) and then further goes on to teach that the aqueous solution containing the oil is homogenized to form and emulsion (Wang [0023]) and the emulsion of the oil and aqueous solution then undergoes high-pressure homogenizing (Wang [0024], [0030]). Wang teaches this process is advantageous for the development of a room-temperature yogurt product ([0005]). Wang also teaches the high-stability room-temperature stirred yogurt adopts a high-concentration fermentation and post-dilution method, which has a better flavor and a more stable system than the yogurt prepared by direct low-concentration fermentation ([0034]).
As a result, Wang provides ample motivation to modify Zhang to include steps (iv) and (v) as taught by Wang to produce a product which has a better flavor and a more stable system. Therefore, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive because the combination of Zhang and Wang teaches the two-stage approach as instantly claimed.
Lastly, applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the controlled low inlet temperature of step (iii) of the process. Zhang is relied upon to teach step (iii), and teaches high pressure homogenizing said solution wherein the operating temperature is from 10 to 70℃ (Zhang [0009]). As stated in the rejection above, this range encompasses the claimed 10-25℃ as instantly claimed. See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);. In applicant’s remarks, the applicant states “the present application uses an inlet temperature of 15℃”. This value is also within the range taught by Zhang and thus applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KARLA I DIVIESTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (MST).
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/K.I.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights