DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claim
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-11 and 16-20 are under examination. Claims 12-15 are withdrawn from consideration. Any objections or rejections not repeated below have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
11. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 20200154732) in view of Wanasundara et al. (US 20100249378) and Hauptgenossenschaft Nord AG (DE 202015005535). Hereinafter Shi, Wanasundara and Nord, respectively.
Please note the rejection for Nord DE 202015005535 is based off of paragraph numbers in the WIPO English translation of Nord supplied with the rejection.
Regarding claims 1-3, Shi teaches a protein depleted rapeseed meal, as required by claim 1 (residual oilseed cake; [0069]).
Shi does not teach the amount of protein in the protein depleted rapeseed meal. Wanasundara teaches a protein depleted (low-protein residue) rapeseed meal, which has had the cruciferins and napins removed and the residue contains between 1% to about 40% protein, providing a high fiber product that can be used in further applications [0012], [0020], [0074]. This fully encompasses the claimed range of 20 to 35% protein, as required by claim 1, 20 to 30% protein as required by claim 2 and 24 to 28% protein as required by claim 3.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shi in view of Wanasundara by having rapeseed meal contain protein within the claimed ranges of claims 1-3 because it provides a product that is high in fiber and the protein depleted rapeseed meal can be used in further applications, as recognized by Wanasundara [0074], such as animal feed, as recognized by Shi [0069].
The protein depleted rapeseed meal that is obvious over Shi in view of Wanasundara does not teach the amount of oil in the protein depleted rapeseed meal. Nord teaches rapeseed expander, or rapeseed meal, as a feeding component for animals (beef; pg. 4 claim 1). Nord discloses the rapeseed presscake, after pressing the cake and removing oil and preparing into a feed, has 25% oil (crude fat; [0003], pg. 2 Table “Comparison of Rapeseed-ProFil RaPass XL, Row: ProFil Rabbet XL, Column: Crude Fat%), which is high in alpha-linoleic acid and linoleic acid, and improves health and fertility of female cattle [0012]. This is within the claimed range of 20-30% oil, required by claim 1, and 20-25% oil, required by claim 3.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shi in view of Wanasundara by incorporating the teachings of Nord by having rapeseed meal contain oil within the claimed ranges of claims 1 and 3 because it provides a product high in alpha-linoleic acid and linoleic acid which improves health and fertility of female cattle [0012].
Shi discloses the protein depleted rapeseed meal (oilseed cake) has undergone an extraction of the protein fraction containing cruciferins and napins [0027-0028], [0042], [0063]. Shi does not state the amount of cruciferins and napins is less than 1% (w/w) in the rapeseed meal after their extraction, but Shi teaches the extracted cruciferin and napin protein (rapeseed protein isolate) is an alternative to other proteins for human food use, having a balanced amino acid profile on par with animal proteins [0004], so extracting the maximum amount would be advantageous. Additionally, Shi discusses rapeseed proteins can be removed from the rapeseed meal using an extraction technique such as with a sodium chloride solution. The extraction of the proteins is carried out through a conduit having a length and a flow rate for a residence time sufficient to effect the desired extraction [0062]-[0063]. Therefore, adjusting the residence time in the conduit could allow for an extraction wherein the rapeseed meal comprises a total amount of cruciferins and napins of less than 1% (w/w), which is within the claimed range for claim 1.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shi by extracting the cruciferins and napins so they are in the rapeseed meal at an amount of less than 1% (w/w), because Shi teaches extracted cruciferin and napin protein (rapeseed protein isolate) as an alternative to other proteins for human food use, having a balanced amino acid profile on par with animal proteins [0004]. Therefore, it is advantageous to extract as much cruciferin and napin protein as possible from the rapeseed meal, resulting in a protein depleted rapeseed meal with less than 1% cruciferin and napin, to obtain a high yield of protein isolate consisting of cruciferin and napin protein.
Moreover, the amount of protein extracted and the type of protein extracted can be adjusted to meet the needs at hand and are result-effective variables [0026-0027], [0062-0063]. As such they are the product of routine optimization rather than innovation. Noting, “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Regarding claim 4, Shi does not teach the amount of dry matter content in the protein depleted rapeseed meal.
Wanasundara teaches the dry matter content in protein depleted rapeseed meal (protein deficient residue without defatting (Product III)) is 30% dry matter, rounded to the nearest whole number [0160] (Table 3, pg. 13), providing a product that is rich in fiber [0081]. This is the endpoint of the claimed range of 20 to 30% dry matter content.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shi in view of Wanasundara and Nord by further incorporating the teachings of Wanasundara by having rapeseed meal contain the dry matter content within the claimed range because it provides a product that is rich in fiber, as recognized by Wanasundara [0081].
Regarding claim 5, Shi teaches the conditions and processes used on the rapeseed meal (rapeseed cake) do not result in substantial denaturation of the protein present, keeping the rapeseed protein in its native (non-denatured) form [0049].
Regarding claim 6, Shi teaches using non-dehulled rapeseed to prepare the rapeseed meal (rapeseed oil cake; [0129-0131]), which is rapeseed meal that still contains the seed hulls. Shi in view of Wanasundara and Nord, or modified Shi, teaches a substantially identical composition to the claimed composition, as shown by the rejection above. Therefore, since modified Shi is substantially identical it is considered to possess the property of 30 to 70% seed hulls as required by claim 6 absent convincing arguments or evidence to the contrary. As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2112.01 (I)): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.
Regarding claim 7, Shi does not explicitly teach the amount of carbohydrates in the protein depleted rapeseed meal.
Nord discloses the rapeseed presscake, after pressing the cake and removing oil and preparing into a feed, has 7.9% sugar, or carbohydrates ([0003], pg. 2 Table “Comparison of Rapeseed-ProFil RaPass XL, Row: ProFil Rabbet XL, Column: sugar%), which helps with the improvement in feed efficiency and milk formation [0010]. This is within the claimed range of 1-20% carbohydrates.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shi in view of Wanasundara and Nord by further incorporating the teachings of Nord by having rapeseed meal contain carbohydrates within the claimed range because it helps with the improvement in feed efficiency and milk formation [0010].
Alternatively, the protein depleted rapeseed meal of Shi would contain carbohydrates between the claimed range of 1 to 20% carbohydrates because as noted by Shi, during the process of extracting the proteins, specifically cruciferins and napins, the soluble carbohydrates are washed out from the protein depleted rapeseed meal and are within the aqueous solution. The carbohydrates can then be further removed from the aqueous solution if desired though ultrafiltration [0071-0074], making the amount of carbohydrates adjustable in the product within the capabilities of a skilled artisan. The carbohydrates within the protein depleted rapeseed meal of Shi is substantially identical to the claimed product. Since modified Shi is substantially identical it is considered to possess the property of 1 to 20% carbohydrates as required by claim 7 absent convincing arguments or evidence to the contrary. As stated in In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2112.01 (I)): Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. [citation omitted] Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 U.S.C. § 102, on “prima facie obviousness” under 35 U.S.C. § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.
Moreover, Shi teaches that the amount carbohydrate content in the protein depleted rapeseed meal can be adjusted through ultrafiltration and therefore it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to adjust the carbohydrate content because "it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." Id. at 5 (see MPEP § 2144.05(II) (9th ed. Rev. 07.2022, Feb. 2023). In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). It is noted that this rule applies to cases in which the optimized variable is a "result-effective variable." In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977). In other words, optimization in Aller is premised on the general conditions of a claim being disclosed in the prior art. See Aller, 220 F.2d at 456.
Regarding claim 10, Shi teaches the protein depleted rapeseed meal (separated residual oilseed cake) can be used in other applications including as an ingredient in animal feed [0069].
Regarding claim 11, modified Shi teaches a substantially identical product to the claimed product, as shown by the above rejection. Since modified Shi teaches the product is substantially identical to the claimed product, including the claimed amount of oil, the product of modified Shi is considered to possess the claimed limitation of a protein depleted rapeseed meal that contains extractable oil. Thus, the substantially identical product of modified Shi is considered to meet the claimed limitation of the protein depleted rapeseed meal containing extractable oil. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claims 16-20, Shi in view Wanasundara and Johansson rendered the product of claim 1 obvious. Claims 16-20 differ from Shi in view of Wanasundara and Johansson in specifically reciting wherein the total amount of cruciferins and napins are less than 0.8% in claim 16, less than 0.5% for claim 17, less than 0.3% for claim 18, less than 0.2% for claim 19 and are less than 0.1% for claim 20.
However, Shi discusses rapeseed proteins can be removed from the rapeseed meal using an extraction technique such as with a sodium chloride solution. The instant specification outlines a process to achieve less than 0.02 cruciferin + napin (pg. 9 Table, Comparative Example 1). As shown in Comparative Example 1 of the specification a cold-pressed rapeseed meal has an extraction step by mixing with an aqueous salt solution of 2% sodium chloride at a temperature between 40 to 75°C. After 30 minutes to 1 hour the extraction slurry underwent centrifugation to separate the protein rich solution from the insoluble material (pg. 8 Lines 35-38 and pg. 9 Lines 1-5). Shi employs a substantially identical technique to Comparative Example 1 for protein extraction. Shi teaches the protein extraction of cold pressed rapeseed meal by using a 1 to 5% NaCl solution at a temperature between 40 to 75°C [0060], [0065], [0067]. Shi also teaches extracting for 30 to 60 minutes and then after the extraction step separating the insoluble material (residual oilseed cake) from the protein by employing filtration and/or centrifugation [0066], [0068]. Therefore, the process of Shi is considered to provide a protein depleted rapeseed meal with a total amount of cruciferins and napins as recited in claims 16-19. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2112.01 (I)).
Further regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shi by extracting the cruciferins and napins so they are in the rapeseed meal at an amount of less than 0.1% (w/w), because Shi teaches the extracted cruciferin and napin protein (rapeseed protein isolate), as an alternative to other proteins for human food use, having a balanced amino acid profile on par with animal proteins [0004]. Therefore, it is advantageous to extract as much cruciferin and napin protein as possible from the rapeseed meal, resulting in a protein depleted rapeseed meal with less than 0.1% cruciferin and napin, to obtain a high yield of protein isolate consisting of cruciferin and napin protein.
Moreover, the amount of protein extracted and the type of protein extracted can be adjusted to meet the needs at hand and are result-effective variables [0026-0027], [0062-0063]. As such they are the product of routine optimization rather than innovation. Noting, “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 20200154732) in view of Wanasundara et al. (US 20100249378) and Hauptgenossenschaft Nord AG (DE 202015005535) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of and further in view of Tang (US 20110287478).
Regarding claim 8, Shi teaches the removal of glucosinolates through ultrafiltration in the protein isolate extracted from the protein depleted rapeseed meal [0034], [0072-0073]. Shi does not talk about the amount of glucosinolates in the protein depleted rapeseed meal.
Tang teaches a rapeseed meal which is also called a protein-enriched meal [0130], that has had the antinutritional compounds, including glucosinolate removed from the meal through extraction and vacuum filtration or other similar options [0535], resulting in the protein product, or rapeseed meal, with less than 1% antinutritionals, which includes glucosinolates [0462]. This is the same as the claimed range of less than 1% glucosinolates. Tang discloses these antinutritionals compounds, which includes glucosinolates, are either not digestible by mammals, have adverse effects, such as toxicity or are bitter tasting, and are therefore desirably removed [0462].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shi in view of Wanasundara and Nord by incorporating the teachings of Tang to have rapeseed meal contain less than 1% glucosinolates because removal to less than 1% antinutritionals, which includes glucosinolates, is desirable; these compounds either are not digestible by mammals, have adverse effects, such as toxicity or are bitter tasting, and are therefore desirably removed, as recognized by Tang [0462].
Regarding claim 9, Shi teaches the removal of phytates (phytic acid is a phytate), phenolics (sinapine is a phenolic), and glucosinolates (sinigrin is a glucosinolate) through ultrafiltration, in the protein isolate extracted from the protein depleted rapeseed meal [0034], [0072-0073]. Shi does not talk about the amount of phytic acid, sinapine or sinigrin in the protein depleted rapeseed meal.
Tang teaches a rapeseed meal (a protein-enriched meal; [0130]), that has had the antinutritional compounds removed from the meal through extraction and vacuum filtration or other similar options [0535]. The antinutritional compounds include phytic acid, and other compounds, such as sinapine and sinigrin. The removal of the antinutritional compounds results in the protein product, or rapeseed meal, having less than 1% antinutritionals, specifically having less than 1% phytic acid, sinapine or sinigrin [0462]. This is the same as the claimed range of less than 1% phytic acid, sinapine or sinigrin. Tang discloses these antinutritionals compounds either are not digestible by mammals, have adverse effects, such as toxicity or are bitter tasting, or cause darkening or variation in the color and a bitter taste or a pungent odor, and are therefore desirably removed [0462].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Shi in view of Wanasundara and Nord by incorporating the teachings of Tang to have rapeseed meal contain less than 1% phytic acid, sinapine or sinigrin because these compounds either are not digestible by mammals, have adverse effects, such as toxicity or are bitter tasting, or cause darkening or variation in the color and a bitter taste or a pungent odor, and are therefore desirably removed, as recognized by Tang [0462].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Applicant argues, on pg. 6 of their remarks, that the end product of Shi is a protein isolate, while the claims recite a meal with 20-35% protein. Applicant explains that Shi’s end product is an extract taken from oilseed cake (oilseed meal) and the separated residual oilseed cake may be dried and used for animal feed. Applicant states the residual oilseed cake from Shi’s process does not provide any characterization as to the specific amount of oil, protein and cruciferin/napin content because it is a “waste stream.” Applicant argues that Shi fails to teach or suggest the claimed protein depleted rapeseed meal. However, the Office disagrees for the following reasons.
The residual oilseed cake of Shi is still considered a relevant teaching of a protein depleted rapeseed meal from an oilseed cake (oilseed meal) that still has protein in its native form regardless of whether the protein depleted rapeseed meal is the intended primary output or a secondary byproduct, it is still a product that has properties that can be characterized. Additionally, the rejection of claim 1 is not a rejection based only on the Shi reference but is a rejection of Shi in view of Wanasundara and Nord. As shown in the above rejection for claim 1, claim 1 is rendered obvious by Shi in view of Wanasundara and Nord.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues, on pgs. 6-7 of their remarks, that Wanasundara describes an aqueous process to fractionate Brassicaceae oilseeds (rapeseed) into a napin-rich and cruciferin-rich extracts and a low protein fiber-rich residue. Applicant argues that the process of Wanasundara requires an oil-free meal as a starting material and a skilled artisan would understand that the high oil content of the applicant’s claimed composition would interfere with the aqueous extraction and membrane filtration steps taught by Wanasundara. Applicant states that the focus of Wanasundara is the extracted protein fractions and not the leftover rapeseed meal, which is a byproduct. Applicant argues that while the byproduct rapeseed meal of Wanasundara is depleted of soluble cruciferins and napins, there is not teaching or suggestion that this process could achieve the protein depleted rapeseed meal product of claim 1. However, the Office disagrees for the following reasons.
Applicant is reminded that the claims for the protein depleted rapeseed meal are directed towards a product and not a method. Even though Wanasundara uses a different method then what is outlined in the specification and in the Shi reference, they are all directed towards a protein depleted rapeseed meal that has had a specific type of protein removed, specifically the cruciferins and napins removed, and the resulting product is showing how much protein would be left when cruciferin and napin protein is removed. Therefore, regardless of the method used to remove the cruciferins and napins, Wanasundara reference shows how much remaining protein would be present in a product when these proteins are removed, since Shi is silent as to the amount of protein left. Thus, the protein content in Wanasundara can be seen to be representative of the protein content in Shi.
Moreover, in response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues, on pg. 8 of their remarks, that Nord’s rapeseed meal (Rapsexpeller) feed for cattle is specifically treated to enhance rumen stability and the entire inventive concept of Nord is to take standard rapeseed meal and modify the proteins within the meal to make them rumen-stable. Applicant states that Nord discloses a rapeseed meal with high levels of modified (heat-treated) cruciferins and napins, which is the opposite of the claimed limitation of less than 1% and a skilled artisan would be motivated to preserve and modify the existing cruciferin and napin proteins and not eliminate them. However, the Office disagrees for the following reasons.
Nord’s disclosure of rumen-stable modified proteins is not a critical element when looking at the combination of references. Nord is specifically used to modify Shi for oil content, see rejection above. Nord is showing motivation to have an oil content within the claimed range in a rapeseed meal that has already been pressed and had some oil removed but is being prepared into a feed, (see Nord [0003], pg. 2 Table “Comparison of Rapeseed-ProFil RaPass XL, Row: ProFil Rabbet XL, Column: Crude Fat%). These modifications of Shi in view of Nord are independent of Nord’s protein content and modification. Therefore, even though the secondary reference does disclose rumen-stable modified proteins, the combination of Shi, Wanasundara and Nord still would make obvious all the claimed limitations.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Nord discloses a rapeseed meal with high levels of modified (heat-treated) cruciferins and napins, Nord does not distinguish the type of proteins present but only refers to the protein as “protein” or “crude protein.” There is not specific amount of cruciferins and napins identified in the product of Nord. Moreover, the protein content in Nord is within the claimed range of protein in claim 1, (see Nord, pg. 2 Table “Comparison of Rapeseed-ProFil RaPass XL, Row: ProFil Rabbet XL, Column: Crude protein%).
Applicant argues, on pgs. 8-9 of their remarks, that a person of ordinary skill would not have been motivated to combine the high-oil, high-protein rapeseed meal from Nord with the complex protein-extraction processes of Shi and/or Wanasundara. Applicant states that if a person were to apply the protein extraction processes of Shi and Wanasundara to Nord’s rapeseed meal, the result would be to remove the cruciferin and napin proteins and this would render Nord’s invention unsatisfactory for its intended purpose as a feed by removing the protein content.
As stated in the response to arguments above, the Nord reference is specifically used to modify Shi for oil content and not protein. These modifications of Shi in view of Wanasundara and Nord are independent of Nord’s protein content and modification. Additionally, as shown by Wanasundara, the cruciferins and napins can be removed from the rapeseed meal and still have a protein content as stated in Nord (23-24% protein) and as claimed in claim 1 (20-35% protein), see Wanasundara [0012], [0020], [0074].
Applicant argues, on pg. 9 of their remarks, that there is no teaching or suggestion to modify the processes of Shi and Wanasundara as both are optimized to produce purified protein isolates and the leftover meal is a byproduct. Applicant states the core purpose of Shi and Wanasundara is recovering cruciferin and napin isolates, which is opposite the claimed invention since the claimed invention is a rapeseed meal characterized by the near-total absence of cruciferins and napins. However, the Office disagrees for the following reasons.
As stated in the above response to arguments, the residual rapeseed meals of Shi and of Wanasundara are still considered relevant products even if they are secondary byproducts. The residual rapeseed meals of Shi and Wanasundara result in a protein depleted rapeseed meal with low amounts of cruciferins and napins. Shi recognizes the usefulness of this byproduct in other applications including as an ingredient in animal feed [0069]. The rejection shows that a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Shi in view of Wanasundara and Nord based on the teachings cited above. Thus, the combination of Shi, Wanasundara and Nord do teach and suggest a protein depleted rapeseed meal comprising the limitations of claim 1.
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 STEPHANIE GERLA whose telephone number is (571)270-0904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Wed. and Fri. 7-12 pm; Th. 7-2pm.
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.
/S.R.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759