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 .
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sohling et al (20130047980).
Sohling teaches a method for purification of crude sugar juices.
Sohling, paragraph 17 of the PGPUB, teaches crude sugar juices obtained by extraction of sugar-containing plants is provided wherein:
a crude sugar juice is provided;
to the crude sugar juice is added an adsorbent, comprising a combination of:
an acid-activated clay, and
an aluminum salt;
to obtain a mixture;
the pH of the mixture is adjusted within a range of 6.0 to 8.0.
Sohling, paragraph 48 of the PGPUB, teaches a bentonite containing clay is used as the starting clay.
Sohling paragraph 75 of the PGPUB, teaches usually, the amount of adsorbent added to the mixture is selected within a range of 0.001 wt % to 3 wt %, based on the crude sugar juice.
Sohling, paragraph 70 of the PGPUB, teaches the amount of aluminum, calculated as Al2O3, added to the acid-activated clay to obtain the adsorbent is preferably selected within a range of 1 to 8 wt.-% , based on the weight of the dry clay.
Therefore, the mixture comprises clay in the amount of .00099-2.76 wt% based on the sugar juice and an aluminum, calculated as Al2O3, in the amount of .00001-.24 wt% based on the sugar juice.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Acid-activated bentonite reads on an adsorbing compound as claimed in claim 1.
An aluminum salt as taught by Sohling reads on an inorganic coagulating agent as claimed in claim 1.
Crude sugar juice reads on a plant extract comprising sugar and water as claimed in claim 1.
A mixture of crude sugar juice, aluminum salt and acid activated bentonite as taught by Sohling reads on an aqueous sugar containing composition as claimed in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Sohling, paragraph 35 of the PGPUB, teaches acid-activated clay and the aluminum salt are first combined to obtain an adsorbent and the adsorbent is then added to a crude sugar juice
Regarding claims 4-5, Sohling, paragraph 57 of the PGPUB, teaches particularly preferred are used polyaluminum chlorides.
Regarding claim 7, Sohling paragraph 75 of the PGPUB, teaches usually, the amount of adsorbent added to the mixture is selected within a range of 0.001 wt % to 3 wt %, based on the crude sugar juice.
Sohling, paragraph 70 of the PGPUB, teaches the amount of aluminum, calculated as Al2O3, added to the acid-activated clay to obtain the adsorbent is preferably selected within a range of 1 to 8 wt.-% , based on the weight of the dry clay.
Therefore, the mixture comprises clay in the amount of .00099-2.76 wt% based on the sugar juice and an aluminum, calculated as Al2O3, in the amount of .00001-.24 wt% based on the sugar juice.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
.00099-2.76 wt% as taught by Sohling overlaps with about .01 wt% to about .6wt% as claimed in claim 7.
.00001-.24 wt% overlaps with about .4wt% to about 1 wt% as claimed in claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/29/25, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sohling.
Applicant argues In this instance, would a person of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings prepare a composition with the claimed amounts of chemicals and achieve the desired effects. At the very least claim 7, teaches away from the amount of adsorbing compound disclosed in Sohling.
Examiner respectfully traverses.
It is unclear what desired effects the claimed composition is trying to achieve.
As stated above, the composition of Sohling reads on the composition of claim 1.
Further, as stated above As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Further, the data is not commensurate in scope with the scope of the claims.
The data shows:
A specific sugar composition comprising a specific adsorbing compound in a specific amount, a specific inorganic coagulating agent in a specific amount, a specific plant extract comprising a specific sugar and water while
The instant claims claim ANY aqueous sugar containing composition comprising ANY adsorbing compound from the list of claim 1 in ANY amount from .03 wt% to 1 wt% ANY aluminum salt coagulating agent in ANY amount from .08 wt% to 1 wt%.
Additionally, the data does not show using the amount of the adsorbing compound at the lower end value and at the upper end value (i.e., .03 wt.% ; 1 wt%), and the amount of inorganic coagulating agent at the lower end value and at the upper end value (i.e., .08 wt.% ; 1 wt%).
As set forth in MPEP 716.02(d), whether unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support”. In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occurred over the entire claimed range, In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980). Applicants have not provided data to show that the unexpected results do in fact occur over the entire claimed range of .03 wt.% ; 1 wt% and .08 wt.% ; 1 wt%.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US5110363 teaches a composition for clarifying sugar bearing juices.
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 STEFANIE J COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5836. The examiner can normally be reached 10am- 6pm M-F.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/STEFANIE J COHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1732 11/21/25
Prosecution Insights