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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08 January 2026 has been entered.
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 56, 60, 62, 64-65, 67-68, 71-72, 77-78, and 80-83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raskin et al. (herein referred to as Raskin, WO 2016164224 A1) in further view of Megen (“Removal of Glucosinolates from Defatted Rapeseed Meal by Extraction with Aqueous Ethanol”) and Ares et al. (herein referred to as Ares, “Optimized extraction, separation and quantification of twelve intact glucosinolates in broccoli leaves”) with evidentiary evidence Jaafaru et al. (herein referred to as Jaafaru, “Nontoxic Glucomoringin-Isothiocyanate (GMG-ITC) Rich Soluble Extract Induces Apoptosis and Inhibits Proliferation of Human Prostate Adenocarcinoma Cells (PC-3)
With regard to Claim 56, Raskin teaches a method of producing an extract from a plant of the Moringaceae family ([0013]). The method teaches obtaining a starting material comprising a material selected from the group consisting of ground moringa seeds, ground germinated moringa seeds, and ground fermented moringa seeds ([0004] [0005], Raskin defines “plant material” as seeds, fresh leaves, and sprouts. One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize “sprouts” are equivalent to a germinated seed. [0042] Raskin teaches “injuring” the plant material which comprises pressing, slicing, blending, juicing, rolling, pulverizing or grinding the seeds, fresh leaves or sprouts of the plant).
Raskin teaches the method includes contacting said starting material with a first quantity of water for a first predetermined period of time, thereby producing a soaked moringa seed material ([0006] Raskin reads such that the seeds can be injured in a solution comprising water and the injured seeds are incubated with a solution comprising a volume of water for a time sufficient enough to achieve the desired result. One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize a “time sufficient enough” is constitutes as a predetermined period of time. In addition, per the Cambridge Dictionary, “soaked’ is defined as extremely wet. Therefore, incubation in a solution comprising water would result in the material being soaked per the Cambridge Dictionary).
Raskin teaches separating at least partially said soaked moringa seed from said water ([0009] Raskin reads such that solid plant material (i.e., seeds, leaves or sprouts) is separated from the plant composition).
Next, Raskin’s method includes contacting said soaked moringa seed material with a second quantity of water for a second predetermined amount of time, thereby producing debittered moringa seed material ([0057] One embodiment teaches injured seeds which were either incubated in a solution comprising water after injury, or are injured in a solution comprising water prior to the contacting step, are then contacted with a volume of extraction fluid. [0055] Raskin teaches an embodiment of extraction fluid with “at least 99% water”. Cambridge dictionary defines “at least” as “as much as, or more than, a number amount”. Therefore, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “at least 99%” would include 100% water). Therefore, Raskin’s method would inherently produce debittered moringa seeds because Raskin teaches substantially the same method as instantly claimed and as a result would produce substantially the same results. See MPEP 2112.01(I) Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Raskin teaches separating at least partially said debittered moringa seed material from said water ([0051] [0052] Raskin reads such that the solid plant material is separated from the extraction mixture).
Raskin teaches the step of separating at least partially the debittered moringa seed material from the water is followed by a step of drying the debittered moringa seed material to produce a final extract ([00139]). Raskin teaches the final extract can be a powder ([0076]). With regard to the protein content, Raskin teaches moringa leaves contain approximately 27% protein by dry weight ([0002]). In addition, Raskin teaches moringa seed extract used in diets formulated by Research Diets to be isocaloric for fat, protein and carbohydrate content (example 6, [000123]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the protein content of the moringa extract or select a moringa leave with the desired protein content to have the desired protein content for an isocaloric diet. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) 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)
In addition, Raskin teaches the method does not comprise any steps requiring the use of an organic solvent ([0055] [0057] Raskin teaches embodiments that do not require the use of organic solvents).
However, Raskin is silent to the starting material comprising ground moringa seeds that have undergone a process to remove oil at least partially from said moringa seeds.
Megen teaches a method for removing glucosinolates from defatted rapeseed meal (Title, Introduction) Megen teaches the presence of glucosinolates are the precursors for harmful and unpalatable compounds (Introduction). Megen teaches previous art which tested simultaneous extraction of rapeseed oil and isothiocyanates and oxazolidinethione (derivates of glucosinolates) from ground rapeseed which resulting in residual isothiocyanates and oxazolidinethione in the meal (Introduction). Megen imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that extracting glucosinolates from defatted material was known in the art to be successfully achieved and published at the time of filing. Which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a starting material with the oil fully or partially removed for further processing because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raskin in view of Megen to use moringa seed which has undergone a process to remove oil at least partially because Megen provides that it was known that glucosinolate can be successfully extracted from de-oiled (defatted) starting material at least partially by use of water and was published at the time of filing, which means it would have been obvious to one of 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.
However, the combination of Raskin and Megen are silent to reducing by at least 70% (w/w) a glucomoringin concentration of a starting material and the glucomoringin being essentially intact.
Ares teaches a method for determining the concentration of glucosinolates in broccoli leaves (abstract). Ares teaches the extraction method uses water as the extraction solvent because it showed an increased peak area (which indicates a higher concentration of glucosinolates extracted) compared to methanol and a mixture of water/methanol (3.1.1. Selection of extraction parameters). The method resulted in an 87%-106% recovery values (3.1.4. Extraction efficiency). Ares teaches that prior art clearly show glucosinolates have been extracted from edible parts including sprouts, florets, heads, stems, and roots using heated water (1. Introduction).
Ares imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that it was known in the art that water being used as a solvent can recover 87%-106% of glucosinolates in plant material (3.1.4. Extraction efficiency). Prior art, such as Jaafaru, clearly states that glucomoringin is a type of glucosinolate (Jaafaru, 1. Introduction, paragraph 1). Ares use of the word “recover” is equivalent to the instant claims “reducing” both referring to the amount of glucosinolate removed from the starting material. Ares method teaches the glucosinolates are intact after the extraction method (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Raskin and Megen to include the teachings of Ares because Ares proves it was known in the art to utilize water as a solvent to recover (or reduce) 87%-106% of glucosinolates from broccoli leaves (3.1.4. Extraction efficiency). Ares clearly teaches glucosinolates have been recovered from other edible parts of the plant material such as sprouts, florets, heads, stems, and roots. To clarify, glucomoringin is a type of glucosinolate (Jaafaru, 1. Introduction, paragraph 1). Advantageously, Ares teaches the extraction method using water had a higher percent recovery of glucosinolates than the methods using methanol or a mixture of water and methanol (3.1.1. Selection of extraction parameters). Therefore, modifying Raskin and Megen in view of Ares would have been obvious because based on the close structural starting plant materials and the chemical similarity of glucosinolate and glucomoringin, and the fact that the prior Art teaches using water as a superior recovery (or reduction) method for glucosinolate (compared to methanol and methanol/water mixtures), the result would have predictably been reducing by at least 70% (w/w) the glucomoringin concentration of a moringa seed starting material.
It is important to note Raskin's method includes the conversion of glucosinolates to moringa isothiocyanates via the enzyme myrosinase which is activated via injuring the plant (Raskin, [0004]). Meaning that glucosinolates are necessary in the extract for moringa isothiocyanates to be present because they are the precursor ([0003]). Raskin teaches moringa isothiocyanates lack the sugar moiety of glucosinolates but aside from the sugar moiety, have the same chemical structure. Thus, one with ordinary skill in the art would could reasonably deduce that the compound is “essentially” intact due to only lacking a sugar moiety. There is not further clarification in the applicant’s specification of the definition of essentially.
Continuing, Raskin teaches the extract produced comprises at least 0.5% moringa isothiocyanates per gram of plant material ([0058]). Raskin teaches the extract also can contain up to 10% polyphenols ([0060]). Raskin does not account for the remaining components of the extract. Raskin teaches the percent conversion of glucosinolates to moringa isothiocyanates is highly temperature dependent ([00108]). Raskin teaches at 22℃ significant quantities of glucosinolates are converted to moringa isothiocyanates but at 100℃ no glucosinolate were converted ([0108]). Therefore, Raskin reads such that there are embodiments between 22℃ and 100℃ in which there is only a small amount of glucosinolates converted to moringa isothiocyanates and therefore the extract will contain glucosinolates which are fully intact or essentially intact.
With regard to Claim 60, the combination of Raskin and Megen disclose all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
Raskin teaches the step of contacting the starting material with a first quantity of water comprises mixing or stirring said starting material and the first quantity of water for a predetermined amount of time. ([0005], [0006] Raskin teaches injuring the starting material in water, the injuring process comprises pressing, slicing, blending, juicing, rolling, pulverizing or grinding fresh leaves or sprouts of the plant. [0006] [0089] Raskin teaches an embodiment where the starting material is blended with water).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that subjecting the starting material to pressing, slicing, blending, juicing, rolling, pulverizing or grinding in water would sufficiently mix or stir the starting material with the first quantity of water. In addition, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art that through routine experimentation a predetermined mixing time would be established to impart the starting material with the desired properties.
With regard to Claim 62, the combination of Raskin and Megen disclose all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
Raskin teaches contacting the soaked moringa seed material with a second quantity of water with sufficient water to provide a water:starting material ratio of between 3 and 20. ([0049] Raskin reads such that injured seeds are incubated in a solution comprising a volume of water at ratios (written as grams of seed: volume of water, inverse of the instant claim) 1:1. 1:2, 1:3, 1:4, or 1:5). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions.
With regard to Claim 64, the combination of Raskin and Megen disclose all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
Raskin teaches contacting the soaked material with a second quantity of water comprising contacting with water characterized by a temperature selected from a group consisting of room temperature; <10℃: and between 85℃ and 99℃. ([0006] Raskin reads such that the second step includes incubating injured seeds of the plant in a solution comprising water at a temperature of less than 100°C. [0043] In addition Raskin teaches the methods described herein are performed at a temperature of less than 100°C, optionally at a temperature ranging from 18°C to 100°C) See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions.
With regard to Claim 65, the combination of Raskin and Megen disclose all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
Raskin teaches the step of separating at least partially, the soaked seed material from said water is performed by a method selected from, the group consisting of filtering, decanting, and centrifuging ([0013] Raskin reads such that after the second contact with water the material is separated from the extraction mixture. [0012] The separating step can be performed using any method known in the art including, but not limited to, filtration, sedimentation, centrifugation, evaporation, including reduced-pressure evaporation (e.g., rotavap), reduced-pressure distillation (less than 100°C), precipitation, and adsorption).
With regard to Claim 67, the combination of Raskin and Megen disclose all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
Raskin teaches the step of rinsing said soaked moringa seed material is preceded by a step of placing the soaked moringa seed material on a filter. ([0051] Raskin reads such that the solid plant material can separated from the extraction mixture. One embodiment teaches filtering with any filtering material and apparatus known in the art are contemplated for use in the filtering of the extraction mixture).
With regard to Claim 68, the combination of Raskin and Megen disclose all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
Raskin teaches the step of separating at least partially said debittered moringa seed material from the water is performed by a method selected from the group consisting of filtering decanting, and centrifuging ([0013] Raskin reads such that after the second contact with water, which results in debittered moringa seed, the material is separated from the extraction mixture. [0012] The separating step can be performed using any method known in the art including, but not limited to, filtration, sedimentation, centrifugation, evaporation, including reduced-pressure evaporation (e.g., rotavap), reduced-pressure distillation (less than 100°C), precipitation, and adsorption. Please referred back to Claim 56 for the discussion on debittered moringa seed).
With regard to Claim 71, the combination of Raskin and Megen disclose all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
Raskin's method does not comprise any steps of adjusting the pH ([00139] Example 8)
With regard to Claim 72, the combination of Raskin and Megen disclose all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
Raskin teaches wherein the water is tap water. ([0006], [00010] Raskin reads such that the steps use water)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention that water as taught by Raskin would include using tap water. The criticality of the tap water is not defined and the genus “water” encompasses tap water, therefore a predicable result with a reasonable expectation of success would be obvious from Raskin’s teaching.
With regard to Claim 76, Raskin’s method includes contacting said soaked moringa seed material with a second quantity of water for a second predetermined amount of time, thereby producing debittered moringa seed material ([0057] One embodiment teaches injured seeds which were either incubated in a solution comprising water after injury, or are injured in a solution comprising water prior to the contacting step, are then contacted with a volume of extraction fluid. [0055] Raskin teaches an embodiment of extraction fluid with “at least 99% water”. Cambridge dictionary defines “at least” as “as much as, or more than, a number amount”. Therefore, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “at least 99%” would include 100% water). Raskin’s method would inherently produce debittered moringa seeds because Raskin teaches substantially the same method as instantly claimed and as a result would produce substantially the same results. See MPEP 2112.01(I) Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Raskin teaches separating at least partially said debittered moringa seed material from said water ([0051] [0052] Raskin reads such that the solid plant material is separated from the extraction mixture).
However, Raskin is silent to the starting material comprising ground moringa seeds that have undergone a process to remove oil at least partially from said moringa seeds.
Megen teaches a method for removing glucosinolates from defatted rapeseed meal (Title, Introduction) Megen teaches the presence of glucosinolates are the precursors for harmful and unpalatable compounds (Introduction). Megen teaches previous art which tested simultaneous extraction of rapeseed oil and isothiocyanates and oxazolidinethione (derivates of glucosinolates) from ground rapeseed which resulting in residual isothiocyanates and oxazolidinethione in the meal (Introduction). Megen imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that extracting glucosinolates from defatted material was known in the art to be successfully achieved and published at the time of filing. Which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a starting material with the oil fully or partially removed for further processing because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raskin in view of Megen to use moringa seed which has undergone a process to remove oil at least partially because Megen provides that it was known that glucosinolate can be successfully extracted from de-oiled (defatted) starting material at least partially by use of water and was published at the time of filing, which means it would have been obvious to one of 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.
However, the combination of Raskin and Megen are silent to reducing by at least 70% (w/w) a glucomoringin concentration of a starting material.
Raskin’s method produces extracts which can contain as little as 0.05% moringa isothiocyanates per gram of fresh leaves or sprouts ([0017], [0044]). Moringaceae isothiocyanates are formed from their glycosylated precursors, glucosinolates, via a reaction carried out by myrosinase (thioglucoside glucohydrolase) ([0003]). Raskin teaches examples in which the glucosinolates were not converted to their respective isothiocyanates ([0108]) meaning one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the method taught by Raskin produces an extract of essentially intact glucosinolates. Raskin teaches various factors contribute to amount of Moringaceae isothiocyanates or glucosinolates in the extract including temperature ([0108] Raskin reads such that At 100°C myrosinase was inactivated and MGLs were not converted to their respective isothiocyanates) and processing of the starting material ([0109] Raskin reads such that using a blender instead of a coffee grinder resulted in more moringa isothiocyanates. Raskin hypothesizes this was likely due to finer fractionating of the leaves and the presence of water at the time of blending rather than grinding prior to combining with water in the case of the coffee grinder). Raskin teaches there are practical applications for both Moringaceae isothiocyanates and glucosinolates ([0003] Raskin reads such that Consuming Moringaceae isothiocyanates from crucifers in their non-active, but more stable, glucosinolates precursor form remains an option). Thus, one with ordinary skill in the art could reasonably deduce that through routine experimentation, Raksin’s method would be sufficient for the extraction of glucosinolates or reduce the glucosinolates concentration of a starting material.
In addition, Ares teaches a method for determining the concentration of glucosinolates in broccoli leaves (abstract). Ares teaches the extraction method uses water as the extraction solvent because it showed an increased peak area (which indicates a higher concentration of glucosinolates extracted) compared to methanol and a mixture of water/methanol (3.1.1. Selection of extraction parameters). The method resulted in an 87%-106% recovery values (3.1.4. Extraction efficiency). Ares teaches that prior art clearly show glucosinolates have been extracted from edible parts including sprouts, florets, heads, stems, and roots using heated water (1. Introduction).
Ares imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that it was known in the art that water being used as a solvent can recover 87%-106% of glucosinolates in plant material (3.1.4. Extraction efficiency). Prior art, such as Jaafaru, clearly states that glucomoringin is a type of glucosinolate (Jaafaru, 1. Introduction, paragraph 1). Ares use of the word “recover” is equivalent to the instant claims “reducing” both referring to the amount of glucosinolate removed from the starting material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Raskin and Megen to include the teachings of Ares because Ares proves it was known in the art to utilize water as a solvent to recover (or reduce) 87%-106% of glucosinolates from broccoli leaves (3.1.4. Extraction efficiency). Ares clearly teaches glucosinolates have been recovered from other edible parts of the plant material such as sprouts, florets, heads, stems, and roots. To clarify, glucomoringin is a type of glucosinolate (Jaafaru, 1. Introduction, paragraph 1). Advantageously, Ares teaches the extraction method using water had a higher percent recovery of glucosinolates than the methods using methanol or a mixture of water and methanol (3.1.1. Selection of extraction parameters). Therefore, modifying Raskin and Megen in view of Ares would have been obvious because based on the close structural starting plant materials and the chemical similarity of glucosinolate and glucomoringin, and the fact that the prior Art teaches using water as a superior recovery (or reduction) method for glucosinolate (compared to methanol and methanol/water mixtures), the result would have predictably been reducing by at least 70% (w/w) the glucomoringin concentration of a moringa seed starting material.
With regard to Claim 77 and 78, Raskin teaches step (b) comprises using water at a temperature of less than 100°C ([0006]). With regard to the protein content, Raskin teaches moringa leaves contain approximately 27% protein by dry weight ([0002]). In addition, Raskin teaches moringa seed extract is used for diets formulated by Research Diets to be isocaloric for fat, protein and carbohydrate content (example 6, [000123]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the protein content of the moringa extract or select a moringa leave with the desired protein content to have the desired protein content for an isocaloric diet. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) 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)
With regard to Claims 80 and 81, Raskin teaches step (b) and (d) where both steps utilize an extraction fluid and the steps comprise contacting the starting material (in step (b)) or the soaked moringa seed material (in step (d)) with sufficient water to provide a water: starting material weight ratio of 1: 1 (v/w) to about 4:1 (v/w) ([0011]). See MPEP 2144.05 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).
With regard to Claim 82, Raskin teaches separating at least partially said debittered moringa seed material from said water by any method known in the art including, but not limited to, filtration, sedimentation, centrifugation, evaporation, including reduced -pressure evaporation (e.g., rotavap), reduced-pressure distillation (less than 100°C), precipitation, and adsorption. ([0051] [0052]).
With regard to Claim 83, Raskin teaches the step of separating at least partially the debittered moringa seed material from the water is followed by a step of drying the debittered moringa seed material to produce a final extract ([00139]). Raskin teaches the final extract can be a powder ([0076]).
However, Raskin is silent to the glucomoringin concentration in the product.
Ares teaches a method for determining the concentration of glucosinolates in broccoli leaves (abstract). Ares teaches the extraction method uses water as the extraction solvent because it showed an increased peak area (which indicates a higher concentration of glucosinolates extracted) compared to methanol and a mixture of water/methanol (3.1.1. Selection of extraction parameters). The method resulted in an 87%-106% recovery values (3.1.4. Extraction efficiency). Ares teaches that prior art clearly show glucosinolates have been extracted from edible parts including sprouts, florets, heads, stems, and roots using heated water (1. Introduction).
Ares imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that it was known in the art that water being used as a solvent can recover 87%-106% of glucosinolates in plant material (3.1.4. Extraction efficiency). Ares use of the word “recover” is equivalent to the instant claims “reducing” both referring to the amount of glucosinolate removed from the starting material. Therefore, if 87%-106% of glucosinolates are recovered from the starting material, than it can be reasonably assumed that the starting material still contains about 0%-13% glucosinolates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raskin to include the teachings of Ares because Ares proves it was known in the art to utilize water as a solvent to recover (or reduce) 87%-106% of glucosinolates from broccoli leaves (3.1.4. Extraction efficiency). Therefore, the starting material still contains about 0%-13% glucosinolates. Advantageously, Ares teaches the extraction method using water had a higher percent recovery of glucosinolates than the methods using methanol or a mixture of water and methanol (3.1.1. Selection of extraction parameters) meaning there would be less glucosinolates in the starting material when using water rather than methanol or a mixture of water and methanol. Therefore, modifying Raskin in view of Ares would have been obvious because based on the close structural starting plant materials and the chemical similarity of glucosinolate and glucomoringin, and the fact that the prior Art teaches using water as a superior recovery (or reduction) method for glucosinolate (compared to methanol and methanol/water mixtures), the result would have predictably leave the starting material with less than 30% (w/w) of glucomoringin.
Claims 58, 61, and 66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raskin (herein WO 2016164224 A1) in further view of Megen (“Removal of Glucosinolates from Defatted Rapeseed Meal by Extraction with Aqueous Ethanol”), Levinson (US 4315034 A) and Ares (“Optimized extraction, separation and quantification of twelve intact glucosinolates in broccoli leaves”) with evidentiary evidence Jaafaru (“Nontoxic Glucomoringin-Isothiocyanate (GMG-ITC) Rich Soluble Extract Induces Apoptosis and Inhibits Proliferation of Human Prostate Adenocarcinoma Cells (PC-3)
With regard to Claim 58, the combination of Raskin and Megen disclose all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
However, Raskin is silent to the starting material comprising milled de-oiled moringa seed cake.
Levinson teaches a process for producing a soybean and other vegetable protein-based food product (abstract). Levinson teaches a starting material comprising vegetable protein containing seed meal product that has undergone a process to remove oil at least partially ([9] [10] Levinson reads such that the starting material is “defatted”, one with ordinary skill in the art recognizes that defatted would encompass removing the oil).Levinson teaches the de-oiled vegetable protein containing seed meal materials have undergone mastication (i.e., milled) and extrusion under high pressures and temperatures (10). The process results in a dense, compacted, and de-oiled product (11). From figure 1, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize the resultant starting material is a pressed cake (Figure 1). Levinson teaches that the pressed cake preserves the original material present in the product and the protein efficiency ratio is practically unchanged (23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raskin in view of Levinson to incorporate the moringa seed starting material as a milled de-oiled moringa seed cake to preserve the original material and maintain the protein efficiency ratio of the starting material (23).
With regard to Claim 61, the combination of Raskin and Megen disclose all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
However, Raskin is silent to at least one of the following conditions; the first predetermined period of time is between 30 and 90 minutes, and the second predetermined period of time is between 5 and 15 minutes.
Levinson teaches treating compacted, defatted vegetable protein containing seed meal materials with water for a time sufficient to extract a substantial amount of essentially non-proteinaceous components (9,10). Specifically, the first quantity of water contacts the starting material for a varied treatment time of 5 minutes to 90 minutes (18). The time should be sufficient to solubilize and extract a proportion of the non-proteinaceous component of said starting material, increase the relative protein content thereof and render the starting material substantially porous, and recovering the product from the resulting liquor (18, Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Raskin and Megen in view of Levinson to modify the predetermined period of time to be a time of 5 minutes to 90 minutes to advantageously solubilize and extract a proportion of the non-proteinaceous component of said starting material (18, Claim 1).
With regard to Claim 66, the combination of Raskin and Megen disclose all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
However, Raskin is silent to the second quantity of water comprises rinsing said soaked moringa seed material.
Levinson teaches after contact with the first quantity of water, the product may be washed with water to remove additional soluble (19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raskin in view of Levinson to rinse the soaked starting material with water to remove additional soluble (19).
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raskin (WO 2016164224 A1) in further view of Megen (“Removal of Glucosinolates from Defatted Rapeseed Meal by Extraction with Aqueous Ethanol”), Ares (“Optimized extraction, separation and quantification of twelve intact glucosinolates in broccoli leaves”) and Rweyemamu et al. (herein referred to as Rweyemamu, “Physical properties of extruded snacks enriched with soybean and moringa leaf powder”) with evidentiary evidence from Jaafaru (Jaafaru, “Nontoxic Glucomoringin-Isothiocyanate (GMG-ITC) Rich Soluble Extract Induces Apoptosis and Inhibits Proliferation of Human Prostate Adenocarcinoma Cells (PC-3).
With regard to Claim 70, Raskin teaches additional uses for the plant composition after the material has undergone contact with second quantity of water ([0061] this step equates to the instant claims “debittering”, see discussion above in Claim 56). Uses include incorporation in consumer products such as food products ([0061]).
However, Raskin is silent to the use of passing the debittered moringa seed material through an extruder.
Rweyemamu teaches the incorporation of moringa oleifera into expanded snack foods and instant flours by using extrusion cooking (Introduction, i.e., food products). The method includes applying a quantity of water to moringa oleifera leaves, subsequently drying the leaves, and furthering processing the dried leaves in a mill (MO leaf powder preparation). Next, the processed material was passed through a twin-screw extruder (Extrusion cooking process). Rweyemamu teaches the extrusion cooking technology has the capability to modify the physiochemical properties of food components (introduction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Raskin, Megen, and Ares to include the teaches of Rweyemamu to incorporate passing the debittered moringa seed material through an extruder to have the capability to modify the physiochemical properties of food components (introduction). In addition, the extrusion process taught by Rweyemamu would be suitable for moringa seed material in addition to the disclosed moringa leaf material. One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize it would have been obvious 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.
Claim 79 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raskin (WO 2016164224 A1) in further view of Megen (“Removal of Glucosinolates from Defatted Rapeseed Meal by Extraction with Aqueous Ethanol”), Ares ( “Optimized extraction, separation and quantification of twelve intact glucosinolates in broccoli leaves”), and Andrews (US 20090098230 A1) with evidentiary evidence from Jaafaru ( “Nontoxic Glucomoringin-Isothiocyanate (GMG-ITC) Rich Soluble Extract Induces Apoptosis and Inhibits Proliferation of Human Prostate Adenocarcinoma Cells (PC-3).
With regard to Claim 79, Raskin is silent to the starting material comprising ground moringa seeds that have undergone a process to remove oil at least partially from said moringa seeds.
Megen teaches a method for removing glucosinolates from defatted rapeseed meal (Title, Introduction) Megen teaches the presence of glucosinolates are the precursors for harmful and unpalatable compounds (Introduction). Megen teaches previous art which tested simultaneous extraction of rapeseed oil and isothiocyanates and oxazolidinethione (derivates of glucosinolates) from ground rapeseed which resulting in residual isothiocyanates and oxazolidinethione in the meal (Introduction). Megen imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that extracting glucosinolates from defatted material was known in the art to be successfully achieved and published at the time of filing. Which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a starting material with the oil fully or partially removed for further processing because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raskin in view of Megen to use moringa seed which has undergone a process to remove oil at least partially because Megen provides that it was known that glucosinolate can be successfully extracted from de-oiled (defatted) starting material at least partially by use of water and was published at the time of filing, which means it would have been obvious to one of 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.
However, the combination of Raskin and Megen are silent to the method being cold pressing.
Andrews teaches incorporating portions from the Moringa plant into a nutraceutical beverage to provide a therapeutic effect in a person. The leaves, seeds, and fruit of the Moringa plant are used to provide a biologically metabolized nutritional composition for health, well-being, and for treatment of ailments (abstract). Andrews teaches oil is removed through cold press commercial practices using commercial squeezing or extraction methods that avoid heat, light and oxygen to prevent damaging the vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and anti-inflammatory properties found in the seed solids ([00043]).
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 Raskin and Megen to incorporate cold pressing to defat the starting material to prevent damaging the vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and anti-inflammatory properties found in the seed solids
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the proposed Raskin/Megen combination would render the primary reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose. The applicant argues that Megen does not show that it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a starting material with the oil fully or partially removed for further processing. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Megen teaches a method for removing glucosinolates from defatted rapeseed meal (Title, Introduction). Both rapeseed and moringa seeds are seeds containing oil and therefore Megen shows it was known in the art to remove the oil of the starting material prior to further processing to removed glucosinolates. See MPEP The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Therefore the selection of utilizing a defatted material as a starting material would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art and therefore the applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that Raskin must work under conditions at which the enzyme myrosinase is highly active. But Megen teaches the industrial processing of the seeds is detrimental to the activity of myrosinase. The examiner acknowledges the applicants point, however, Megen is merely relied upon to teach the using of a defatted starting material. Megen is not relied upon to modify any of the processing steps within Raskin. Therefore, because Megen is used only in regard to the starting material and not modifying any processing steps, the argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that because Raskin must work under conditions at which the enzyme myrosinase is highly active, Raskin cannot work under temperatures above 80℃. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Raskin clearly teaches steps (b) and (d), which are the only steps with a temperature limitation, can utilize an extraction fluid of less than 100℃ ([0006]) The examiner acknowledges there may be preferred embodiments wherein the temperature in lower, regardless applicants argument is not found to be persuasive because Raskin teaches the extraction fluid can be less than 100℃ which is within the range of what is claimed by the applicant.
Applicant argues that the cited reference fail to teach or suggest each and every element of claim 56. Applicant argues that Raskin does not teach separation of the soaked moringa seeds solid material after the first contact with water followed by contacting the separated soaked solid with the second extraction fluid. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Raskin teaches injured seeds which has come in contact with a solution comprising water are then contact within a second volume of extraction fluid ([0057]). Raskin teaches the extraction fluid can contain “at least 99% water”. Cambridge dictionary defines “at least” as “as much as, or more than, a number amount”. Therefore, using the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “at least 99%” would include 100% water. With regard to the separation after the first water contact, Raskin teaches separating at least partially said soaked moringa seed from said water ([0009]). Therefore, applicant argument is not found to be persuasive because, as shown above, Raskin teaches the separation of the soaked seed solid material after contact with water and contacting the separated soaked solid with the second extraction fluid.
Applicant argues that Megen is not a remedy for the deficiencies of Raskin and points to the “extraction procedure” on page 94. Again, this argument is not found to be persuasive because Megen is merely relied upon to teach the use of a debittered starting material and is not relied upon to teach the processing steps.
In addition, applicant argues that Ares does not compensate for the short comings of Raskin. However, Ares is not relied upon to teach the processing steps applicant is arguing. Ares is merely relied upon to teach that it was known in the art to utilize water as a solvent to recover (or reduce) 87%-106% of glucosinolates from broccoli leaves. Therefore, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Continuing, applicants argument with regard to Jaafaru are not found to be persuasive because the reference is merely used as evidentiary support for what is known in the art and are not relied upon to teach any processing steps or modify any reference. Any arguments with regard to Ogusina are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that Raskin is silent about the taste/glucomoringin content and the protein content of the Moringa seeds that result from the process. With regard to the Glucomoringin content, the examiner acknowledges Raskin is silent to the glucomoringin concentration in the product. However, Ares teaches an extraction method using water because it was superior to other extraction fluids with organic solvents. (3.1.1. Selection of extraction parameters). The method resulted in an 87%-106% recovery values (3.1.4. Extraction efficiency). Therefore because water being used as a solvent can recover 87%-106% of glucosinolates in plant material (3.1.4. Extraction efficiency), One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if 87%-106% of glucosinolates are recovered from the starting material, than it can be reasonably assumed that the starting material still contains about 0%-13% glucosinolates. Thus, Ares proves it was known in the art to utilize water as a solvent to recover (or reduce) 87%-106% of glucosinolates from broccoli leaves (3.1.4. Extraction efficiency). Therefore, the starting material still contains about 0%-13% glucosinolates. Raskin in view of Ares would have been obvious because based on the close structural starting plant materials and the chemical similarity of glucosinolate and glucomoringin, and the fact that the prior Art teaches using water as a superior recovery (or reduction) method for glucosinolate (compared to methanol and methanol/water mixtures), the result would have predictably leave the starting material with less than 30% (w/w) of glucomoringin. Therefore applicants argument with regard to the glucomoringin concentration is not found to be persuasive.
With regard to the protein content, Raskin teaches moringa leaves contain approximately 27% protein by dry weight ([0002]). In addition, Raskin teaches moringa seed extract is used for diets formulated by Research Diets to be isocaloric for fat, protein and carbohydrate content (example 6, [000123]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the protein content of the moringa extract or select a moringa leave with the desired protein content to have the desired protein content for an isocaloric diet. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) 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. In addition, because Raskin teaches the process an instantly claimed, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably assumed that the final composition would inherently have the same or similarity properties. See MPEP 2112.01(I) Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Therefore, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 58, 61, and 66 would not have been obvious over the prior art because Levinson teaches processing conditions using high pressures and temperatures above the boiling point of water. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Levinson is merely relied upon to teach the starting material comprising milled de-oiled moringa seed cake and it not relied upon to teach processing conditions. Therefore, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rweyemamu is not concerned with subjecting ant part of moringa plant to extraction. This is not found to be persuasive because Rweyemamu is not relied upon to teaches the extraction of any part of the moringa and merely is relied upon to teach passing the debittered moringa seed material through an extruder which occurs after the extraction steps have already been completed. Therefore, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Beard (“Soaking nuts and seeds”)
Ogusina (“Comparative study of function and Physico-Chemical properties of debittered Moringa seeds and soybean flours”)
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
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792