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 .
The amendment filed 11/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are pending. Claims 1-5 are withdrawn. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
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.
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.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koumans (US 2021/0189287 A1) in view of Engelke (“Case study: using decanters for the clarification of vegetable oil”, https://www.processingmagazine.com/material-handling-dry-wet/filtration-separation/article/21154605/case-study-using-decanters-for-the-clarification-of-vegetable-oil, September 2020)
Regarding Claim 6, Koumans teaches a method for the extraction of e.g. flavonoids [0057], which are antioxidants, from plant material [0056]. The method comprises blending vegetable oil [0096] and an edible emulsifier [0068] with dried natural plant material [0040]. The product is an oil which can be used for food [0096], and is therefore an “antioxidant edible oil” as claimed.
Koumans teaches that the emulsifier is homogeneously dissolved into the oil [0068]. Koumans teaches the addition of plant material and emulsifier but does not specifically address a ratio of plant material to emulsifier as claimed. However, where Koumans speaks to the effects of increased amounts of plant material, e.g., increased concentration of oil-soluble components [0053], and additionally speaks to the effects of the emulsifier, e.g. [0046] extraction of specific compounds, one of ordinary skill would have been able to have adjusted the ratio of plant material to emulsifier to have arrived at ratios as claimed through no more than routine experimentation.
Regarding the limitation(s) of stirring speed and duration, Koumans teaches that the plant material and oil are in contact for 0.5-3 hours [0053] while in relative motion to each other [0048] (i.e. stirred), which lies within the claimed range of time.
Koumans additionally teaches that the emulsifier is homogeneously dissolved into the oil [0068] but does not address a specific speed for mixing. However, stirring speed is known in the art to affect the rate of homogenization when mixing components together. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Note that where Koumans teaches a method comprising blending a vegetable oil and emulsifier according to Step 1, and additionally where it would have been obvious to utilize the claimed mass ratio, stirring speed, and stirring duration, the method of Koumans is interpreted to yield a system “having the self-assembled nano reverse micelle system” as claimed.
Koumans teaches removal of the plant material from the oil [0066] but does not address the use of a centrifuge to remove foreign material.
Engelke teaches that a decanter centrifuge separates fine solids from a suspension and optimally clarifies the liquid (Page 5), such as vegetable oil (Title).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Koumans to utilize a centrifuge to remove plant material, as taught by Engelke. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Engelke teaches that a centrifuge is a good method to remove fine solids from a suspension in oil. Note that Engelke teaches that a clarified oil, or the supernatant, is the desired end product. Engelke therefore teaches “taking the supernatant”.
Koumans teaches that the emulsifier is homogeneously dissolved into the oil [0068] does not specifically each that the emulsifier is uniformly mixed with the oil before plant material is introduced. However, selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Regarding Claim 7, Koumans teaches that the plant material and oil are in relative motion to each other [0048] and the oil is recirculated [0072], which is a description of stirring.
Regarding Claim 9, Koumans teaches the addition of plant material and emulsifier but does not specifically address a ratio of plant material to emulsifier as claimed. However, where Koumans speaks to the effects of increased amounts of plant material, e.g. increased concentration of oil-soluble components [0053], and additionally speaks to the effects of the emulsifier, e.g. [0046] extraction of specific compounds, one of ordinary skill would have been able to have adjusted the ratio of plant material to emulsifier to have arrived at ratios as claimed through no more than routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 10, Koumans teaches that the plant material and oil are in contact for 0.5-3 hours [0053] while in relative motion to each other [0048] (i.e. stirred), which lies within the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that Koumans does not disclose the addition of a specific ratio of oil and emulsifier as a first step, subsequent formation of self-assembled nano-reverse micelle systems, or the capture of both water and oil-soluble antioxidant ingredients (Pages 6-7 of Arguments). Applicant argues that this “implies” that Koumans’ process does not produce a self-assemble nano reverse micelle system.
This argument is not convincing. The features relied upon in the present disclosure to produce the self-assembled nano-reverse micelle system are the same as those taught in the prior art combination of modified Koumans. There is therefore an expectation that the product of Koumans comprise a micelle system, as claimed. Note that 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Applicant additionally argues that the process of Koumans is limited to the extraction of oil-soluble components (Page 6 of Remarks)
This argument is not convincing. Note that Applicant has not claimed that the method of Claim 6 extract both water and oil-soluble components. Regardless, where modified Koumans teaches the limitations of Claim 6, there is therefore an expectation that the product of Koumans comprise a micelle system, as claimed, with the features claimed. Additionally, note that mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. See MPEP 2145 II.
Applicant additionally argues that 420 magazine fails to disclose the self-assembled nano reverse micelle formation resulting from the combination of vegetable emulsifier at a specific mass ratio, and the optimum stirring conditions during the process (Page 7 of Remarks).
This argument is unconvincing. Note that the rejection as amended does not rely upon 420 magazine.
Additionally, note that the comparative examples of the instant Specification differ only in composition [0063 of the instant Specification]. There is therefore no comparative showing of, e.g. stirring speed or duration for criticality. Note that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)II.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new 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 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 DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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.
/D.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791