DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Amendment filed on October 14, 2025, has been received and entered.
Claim Disposition
3. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-16 and 18-20 are pending and are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement filed on September 8, 2025, has been received and entered. The references cited on the PTO-1449 Form have been considered by the examiner and a copy is attached to the instant Office action.
Claim objection
5. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-16 and 18-20 are objected to for the following informalities:
For clarity and precision of claim language it is suggested that claim 1 is amended to read, “…thereby resulting in [[an]] a pectin…” (see claim 1d).
For clarity it is suggested that claim 1 is amended to read, “b) subjecting the first extract [[pectin-containing residue from the first aqueous solution]] to a second extraction………… or d)……….and using[[one or more enzymes that]] pectin methylesterase or pectinesterase to de-esterify [[de-esterifies]] pectin…..”.
The dependent claims hereto are also included.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/091629 (2015, of record in the application) in view of Rolin (1994, of record in the application), Westerng et al. (2008, of record in the application) and HERCULES INC. (WO 0058367A1, October 5, 2000).
The primary reference discloses a two-step process for extracting pectin, comprising: a first extraction of calcium-tolerant pectin from a raw material at pH 2-2.5; and a second extraction of calcium-sensitive pectin from the residue of the first extraction (after a washing step) at pH 4-6 in the presence of a chelating agent. Since the two-step extraction process of the primary reference is identical to that of present application, the result is also the same, for example a first extract comprising also calcium-sensitive pectin, although this is not explicitly disclosed in the primary reference (an inherent feature), and a second extract comprising calcium-sensitive pectin, as explicitly disclosed (see Example 1 and claims 1-4).
The primary reference does not disclose the final step of enzymatic depolymerization. The technical effect is reducing calcium reactivity of the extracted pectin, as disclosed on page 11, lines 12-21 of present description and recited in the preamble of claim 1. The claim is obvious, as enzymatic depolymerization of pectin with, for example, polygalacturonases and/or pectin lyases is known to reduce calcium reactivity, see for example Rolin (abstract) and Westerng et al. (see page 41, col.1, para. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed invention as a whole because the combined teaching of the references render the invention as obvious. The references are construed as analogous, thus motivation exist to combine the teachings of the primary reference with Rolin and Westerng et al. The dependent claims are also obvious of the teachings of the references, as all their additional features are either disclosed in the cited documents or they fall within the customary practice of the skilled person and are conventional in the art. Rolin and Westerng et al. teach enzymatic treatments using polygalacturonase which an ordinary skilled worker would know to use it on the first or second extract based on routine optimization. Furthermore, the art reports that polygalacturonase is known to split the pectin polymer by hydrolytic cleavage of the galacturonic chain. It only attacks non-methylated galacturonic acid residues, which means that the release of mono-galacturomc acid, di-galacturonic acid, and tri-galacturomc acid from a pectin polymer depends on (a) the amount of non-methylated galacturonic acid residues present, and (b) the intramolecular distribution of the non- methylated galacturonic acid residues. The larger the amount of non-methylated galacturonic acid residues present in the pectin, the larger the amount of mono-, di-, and trimer that will be released from the pectin polymer by incubation with PG….” (see HERCULES INC., pages 1-8 and the entire document). Thus the claimed invention is within the skill of the ordinary artisan.
Moreover, the Supreme Court pointed out in KSR, “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. The Court thus reasoned that the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103 "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the “inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 1741. The Court further advised that “[a] person of ordinary skill is…a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation.” Id. at 1742. Therefore, the claimed invention was obvious to make and use at the time the invention was made and was prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s comments have been considered in full. Withdrawn objections/rejections will not be discussed herein as applicant’s comments are moot. Note that the rejections of record under 112, first paragraph and the art rejection remains but have been altered to reflect the changes made to the claims.
Applicant traverses the rejection stating that the cited references do not teach the claimed invention because of procedures in the method and the high extraction yield. This argument is not persuasive because an ordinary skilled worker in the field would know to try the enzymatic process on the first or/and or second extraction step for routine optimization and the newly cited reference by HERCULES INC., provides the newly added limitation regarding de-esterifying pectin. Therefore the rejection remains.
Conclusion
9. No claims are presently allowable.
10. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new/modified ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOPE A ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-0957. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm on Monday to Friday.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached on (408) 918-7584. 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.
/HOPE A ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652