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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 10/3/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-18, 41, and 42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Groups I and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 40, the claim recites “washing, neutralizing and pasteurizing “purified protein solids”, but does not recite how purified protein solids are obtained, as the previous step merely recites “adjusting the pH of the aqueous slurry to a pH between 4 and 5 to obtain “pongamia protein solids”. This rejection is also strengthened by the recitation of specific limitations in Claim 25 to “obtain purified pongamia protein solids”, which is missing from Claim 40. Therefore it is unclear what “purified protein solids” actually means in light of the claimed method steps and the general chemical understanding of a purified protein. For the purposes of applying prior art, the Examiner has taken the position that as long as the method steps of Claim 40 are met, “purified protein solids” are deemed to be obtained, thereby also providing a protein-enriched pongamia composition. However, Applicant is respectfully requested to clarify the claim language at issue.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-25 and 28 are allowed.
Claim 35 is objected to as being dependent upon rejected base Claim 34, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
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.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti et al. (IN 201102763 I1), Derwent abstract made of record by the Examiner, in view of Feedipedia, 2018, Vinay (2008) and Jaramillo et al. (USPA 2017/0280756), the two latter references made of record by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 34, Chakrabarti teaches a method of producing a protein-enriched pongamia ingredient comprising preparing an aqueous slurry of pongamia meal, as Chakrabarti teaches combining deoiled karanja cake with aqueous sodium hydroxide solution and stirring them together using a mechanical stirrer (Derwent abstract, “Preferred Method”, where the mixture of the components by stirring with a mechanical stirrer is reasonably expected to from an aqueous slurry. The taught deoiled karanja cake meets the limitation of the pongamia meal as Feedipedia teaches synonyms for karanja include pongamia (Page 1, Paragraph 1), and teaches that the pongamia tree has seeds that are oil rich, and that oil extraction yields a press cake (Page 1, Paragraph 8). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the seeds to be pressed into a cake to release the oil, thereby leaving behind the deoiled cake or meal of the pressed seeds. Chakrabarti teaches separating the slurry into a protein liquid fraction and an insoluble wet cake fraction, as Chakrabarti teaches separating an alkali insoluble portion from an alkali soluble portion and decanting the alkali soluble portion into a beaker, adjusting the pH to 3.8 to precipitate crude protein, after which the precipitate was centrifuged and the supernatant decanted and the crude protein was washed with water and dried to obtain karanja/pongamia protein isolate having a protein content of 22-41% (Page 1, preferred method). The alkali insoluble portion meets the limitation of the insoluble wet cake fraction in light of Chakrabarti teaching the starting material is a deoiled cake. The method steps of washing, neutralizing and/or pasteurizing are optional, therefore not required by the claim, although Chakrabarti does teach washing of the protein to make it free of acids before drying (Page 1, preferred method).
Chakrabarti in view of Feedipedia teach a soluble protein portion but do not specifically teach the method steps of adjusting the pH of the slurry to a pH between 6 and 10 and passing the protein liquid fraction through a membrane system to obtain a retentate comprising pongamia protein, followed by drying.
Vinay teaches of pongamia/karanja meal and teaches that protein solubility is the most important functional property because it influences other functional properties (Page 80, Column 2, “3.3 Functional characteristics”). Vinay teaches that the karanja seed proteins were found to vary in solubility with pH change, with the maximum solubility at pH 10.0 and whereas isoelectric precipitation at pH 4.0 (Page 80, Column 2, “3.3 Functional characteristics”). Therefore, it would appear that there are two main ways of providing protein enriched compositions, one is to adjust the pH of the protein containing solution to a pH at the isoelectric point of 4.0 to precipitate the protein, such as taught in the method of Chakrabarti, or to adjust the pH of the aqueous protein solution to a pH where the pongamia proteins have maximum solubility, thereby maintaining an aqueous protein solution.
In addition, Jaramillo teaches of a method to prepare protein compositions from oilseeds (Paragraph 2) starting from at least partially defatted oilseeds (Paragraph 37) and teaches concentrating a protein solution by employing a selective membrane to permit the desired degree of concentration of the aqueous protein solution as the aqueous protein solution passes through the membranes (Paragraphs 80-81), wherein the aqueous protein solution passing through the membrane would then be a concentrated protein solution, therefore meeting the limitation of the retentate comprising the protein. Jaramillo does teach washing steps of the aqueous protein solution, followed by drying (Paragraphs 84-88).
Therefore, in light of the above teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the protein-enriched pongamia ingredient to have made with an alternate method of adjusting the pH of the protein solution to maximum solubility at pH 10.0 and then subjected the protein solution to a concentrating step by passing the soluble protein solution through a membrane in order to provide a protein composition having a higher protein content. Given the teachings of the prior art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected a reasonable degree of success in choosing either mode of protein manipulation in order to provide pongamia protein enriched ingredients.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti et al. (IN 201102763 I1), Derwent abstract made of record by the Examiner, in view of Feedipedia, 2018 and Shen et al. (USPA 2005/0233052).
Regarding Claim 40, Chakrabarti teaches a method of producing a protein-enriched pongamia composition comprising preparing an aqueous slurry of pongamia meal, as Chakrabarti teaches combining deoiled karanja cake with aqueous sodium hydroxide solution and stirring them together using a mechanical stirrer (Derwent abstract, “Preferred Method”, where the mixture of the components by stirring with a mechanical stirrer is reasonably expected to from an aqueous slurry. The taught deoiled karanja cake meets the limitation of the pongamia meal as Feedipedia teaches synonyms for karanja include pongamia (Page 1, Paragraph 1), and teaches that the pongamia tree has seeds that are oil rich, and that oil extraction yields a press cake (Page 1, Paragraph 8). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the seeds to be pressed into a cake to release the oil, thereby leaving behind the deoiled cake or meal of the pressed seeds. Chakrabarti teaches separating an alkali insoluble portion from an alkali soluble portion which was decanted into a beaker, adjusting the pH to 3.8, but also teaches a more general pH range for adjustment of 2.5 to 4.5 (Page 3, under “Claims”), to precipitate crude protein, thereby obtaining pongamia protein solids as claimed, after which the precipitate was centrifuged and the supernatant decanted and the crude protein was washed with water to make it free of acids, and then drying the pongamia protein to obtain karanja/pongamia protein isolate having a protein content of 22-41% (Page 1, preferred method). The teaching of a protein isolate or crude protein being precipitated meets the limitation of “purified protein solids”. Since Chakrabarti teaches the essential claimed method steps, and teaches the karanja/pongamia protein isolate having a protein content of 22-41%, the method of providing a protein-enriched pongamia composition is deemed to be met. Chakrabarti teaches the washing step to make the protein free of acids, as set forth above, but does not specifically teach the neutralizing and pasteurizing steps.
Regarding the neutralizing and pasteurizing steps, Shen teaches preparing vegetable protein compositions and teaches that the separated protein may be washed with water to remove residual soluble carbohydrates and ash from the protein material and the residual acid can be neutralized to a pH of from about 4 to about 6 by the addition of a basic reagent, after which the aqueous protein solutions can be optionally pasteurized before drying to kill any microorganisms that may be present (Paragraph 91). Therefore, from the teachings of Shen, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have added known method steps of washing, neutralizing and pasteurizing the protein material, for the art recognized reasons set forth by Shen and the known use of neutralizing as a way of removing residual acid and pasteurizing as a way of preparing protein compositions that are free of microorganisms.
Examiner’s Comments on Allowable Subject Matter Identified
The Examiner has indicated a number of claims allowable over prior art, and has indicated one dependent claim allowable if converted into an independent claim. Applicant’s allowed claims recite methods of producing a protein-enriched pongamia composition or ingredient, comprising various method steps in order to arrive at the protein enriched pongamia composition or ingredient. The extensive prior art cited by Applicant and a prior art search performed by the Examiner show that prior art is replete with the knowledge that pongamia seed cake or meal is a potential feed source but its use is severely limited and restricted by the presence of well-known antinutritional components of karanjin and pongamol, among others, that are naturally present in the pongamia seed cake or meal. The prior art fails to teach or motivate the claimed method steps of Claims 23-25 and 28 of requiring the pongamia meal to be treated to remove the known antinutritional components, and then proceeding with the balance of the method claims. In the case of allowable subject matter recited in Claim 35, the prior art teaches and renders obvious the method steps of independent Claim 34 but fails to teach or motivate where the protein-enriched pongamia ingredients comprises at least 70% of pongamia proteins on a dry weight basis, as recited in Claim 35. While the prior art may teach attempts at debittering and reducing antinutritional content of the pongamia meal (Vinay, 2008), the detoxification process has been shown to have a negative impact on protein content in the detoxified meal, as Vinay 2008 shows that protein content decreased during the antinutrient process from 33% in the control meal to 22-23% in the meals obtained from various treatments (Page 81, Second Column to First Column of Page 82). Vinay does not teach any protein enrichment processes following the detoxification. Vinay also showed potential decreases in the nutritional quality of the proteins as a result of the detoxification process (Page 82, First Column). Therefore, taking the teachings of Vinay into consideration as well as the balance of the prior art, the Examiner submits that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have detoxified the pongamia meal to remove the antinutritional components followed by protein enrichment methods, as the detoxification methods themselves were shown to decrease protein content in the meal and potentially damage the protein quality, all of which would demotivate further protein enrichment method steps. Therefore, the above identified claims are free of the prior art and deemed allowable by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA A WATTS whose telephone number is (571)270-7368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 9am-4:30pm.
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.
JENNA A. WATTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1791
/JENNA A WATTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791 12/9/2025