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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 20, 2026 has been entered and considered and an action on the merits follows.
Specification
The proposed amendment filed on January 20, 2026 has been acknowledged and approved. The amendment sufficiently overcomes the disclosure informalities noted in the previous office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, line 10, the limitation, “by spraying or nebulizing said aqueous solution over a period of time of less than 5 minutes before their entry into the press” is new matter. The original specification discloses, “the contact can be made by spraying or nebulizing said aqueous solution over a short period of time, in particular less than 5 minutes (see para. 59 of the specification”. This statement implied that the spraying of aqueous solution is less than 5 minutes, not less than 5 minutes before their entry into the press. Therefore, this limitation constitutes new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5 and 17, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yongxia et al. (hereinafter "Yongxia") (CN 102746943 A).
Regarding claim 5, Yongxia discloses a de-oiled cake of seeds, wherein the cake comprising at most 17% of oil (see para. 32, lines 2-3, which discloses the residual oil of soybean cake is 7%), the percentages being expressed in mass in relation to a total dry mass of the cake.
Regarding claim 17, de-oiled cake of seeds according to claim 5, wherein said cake comprises at most 13% of oil (see para. 32, lines 2-3 of the English translation, which discloses the residual oil of soybean cake is 7%).
As to the de-oiled cake of seeds is obtained by the method according to claim 1, the claims are product by process claims, and the process limitations are not given a significant weight in the determination of the patentability. The process limitations are intended use recitation which do not differentiate the limitations from a prior art. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Response to Arguments
In Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026, Applicant argued that Yongxia does not teach or suggest “wherein said aqueous solution is brought into contact with said seeds or fruits to be pressed, by spraying or nebulizing said aqueous solution over a period of time of less than 5 minutes before their entry into the press” as amended in claim 1. This argument has been fully considered. However, as set forth in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) above, the original disclosure does not provide support for this limitation. Therefore, it is unclear how one would perform the extraction process based on this claimed subject matter.
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 JIMMY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4520. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-5pm.
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, CHRISTOPHER L TEMPLETON can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
JIMMY T. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3725
/JIMMY T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725