DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated June 10, 2026 (preliminary amendment) amending claims 1-4 has been entered. Claims 1-3 as filed with the amendment have been examined. In view of the amendment, all outstanding claim objections have been withdrawn. Claim 4 is withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected species of invention.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, at line 8 after “while also having a” replace [[unform]] with --uniform--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101209112 A to Liu (Liu), as evidenced by JP2008008600 A to Goino (Goino), of record.
All references to Liu and Goino refer to the Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which was provided with an earlier Office action.
Regarding instant claim 1, Liu at Abstract on page 1 discloses a method for obtaining calcium oxide from cleaned waste eggshells comprising taking washed eggshell (“a) collecting previously used eggshells with or without egg residues inside”). Liu discloses that the calcium oxide suppress Escherichia coli, has excellent sterilizing and freshness-keeping effects and can remove pesticide and sulfur dioxide left on vegetable, fruit, or foodstuff. Liu discloses methods at the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 comprising calcining, the eggshell at 800 or 1200° C for a first time period of 60 minutes. Further, Liu at page 2, 1st full paragraph and the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 discloses that the calcining results in a dust (“b) crushing the eggshells in such a way that they can be piled up one on top of the other without regard to whether the shells maintain their form, and in such a way as to take advantage of all the space of the oven, while also having a uniform calcination process” and “c) placing eggshells inside the oven”), followed by cooling the calcined eggshell to room temperature (“allowing the product to cool until it is manageable”) and crushing the calcined egg shell powder (“f) transferring the eggshells after cooling to a crushing facilitator and grinding to the desired particle size”).
Further regarding instant claim 1, Liu does not disclose a cooling period, or cooling the calcined eggshells for a second time period of 1 to 5 hours inside the oven. However, the Office considers the method of e) allowing the product to cool inside the oven until it is manageable for a range of 1 hour to 5 hours to include the method disclosed in Liu because the method of cooling to room temperature disclosed in Liu is not continuous and thus requires the handling of its calcium oxide product and because the cooling continues until the product reaches room temperature disclosed in Liu at page 2, 1st full paragraph appears to be identical to the claimed method. Further, Goino at page 2 “BACKGROUND ART”, 2nd paragraph discloses that it in a non-continuous method such as Liu, one allows a calcium oxide shell powder rest in the oven to cool. The ordinary skilled artisan in Liu would have desired to cool its hot calcium oxide in an oven prior to handling rather than attempt to handle it hot and risk burning or scalding and would have readily let the calcined product cool for as long as need to reach room temperature or a manageable handling temperature, including the claimed 1 to 5 hours.
Regarding instant claim 2, Liu at the paragraph bridging pages 2-3 discloses making a solution of 72.80 meq/g of calcined eggshells in water which is about a 1/14th molal concentration of a divalent CaO, or the equivalent of 2 g CaO per liter of water or a 0.02 wt% solution, thereby making an aqueous calcium hydroxide solution or alkaline solution using calcined eggshells made at various temperatures and having a pH of 11.5 and 13.2. The Liu disclosed 0.02 wt% solution of calcined eggshells comprises about 2 grams of calcined eggshells (XAM) per liter of water, which the claimed 5 to 100 g CaO in 0.5 to 10 liters of water overlaps. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Liu would have desired to make an alkaline solution having the claimed pH and CaO concentration because Liu discloses that the claimed alkaline solution concentration is suitable for use on fruit, vegetable and food substrates.
The Office considers the claimed “”h)”mixing the alkaline solution to be homogeneous and totally mixed to include the making of the alkaline solution in Liu.
Further regarding instant claim 2, the Office considers the recited alkaline solution useful in a great variety of foods by cold or hot maceration as including the Liu solution for treating foodstuffs.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN101209112 A to Liu (Liu), as evidenced by JP2008008600 A to Goino (Goino) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of CN111481133 A to Ning et al.
All references to Liu, Ning and Goino refer to the Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which was provided in an earlier Office action
As applied to claim 1, Liu at Abstract and at the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 discloses methods comprising calcining and crushing eggshells at 800 or 1200° C for a first time period of 30 minutes to 6 hours, cooling for a second time period of 1 to 5 hours and grinding the calcined eggshells to a desired particle size, followed by forming a homogeneous alkaline solution having a pH of from 9 to 15 for use maceration with a food.
Further, at claim 8 Liu discloses using its aqueous solution containing said eggshell calcium oxide powder (“alkaline solution”) to soak and wash fruits, vegetables, and foodstuff. Still further, Liu at page 4, 2nd full paragraph (starting with “longitudinal”) discloses cleaning in an immersion method (“i) placing the alkaline solution in a deep, heat-resistant container that can hold the desired food” and “j) immersing the food, with or without shell, making sure that it is completely covered with the alkaline solution liquid”) by soaking for 30 minutes at 37 °C (“k) raising the heat to a range that is selected from low, medium-low, medium, medium-high and high”) (“l) leaving the food inside the solution, wherein the food is subjected to heat” and “m) leaving soaking at the end of the heat maceration time depending on the thickness of the calcium pectate film to be created and also on the hardness of the food”), followed by m) removing the food from the alkaline solution and washing it to remove any residue of XAM or calcined eggshells, and, if necessary washing it several times.
Further regarding instant claim 3 and the claim language in the preamble and steps l) and m), the Office considers the recited process of “hot maceration wherein the alkaline solution is used to subject different animal proteins, vegetables, cereals, fruits and/or vegetables to an alkaline maceration in heat so as to alter the external and/or internal texture of the food” by “l) leaving the food in the alkaline solution for a time period of between 15 minutes to 10 hours depending on the desired thickness of the calcium pectate film” and “depending on the result to be obtained and that takes into account the hardness of the food” and the recited “m) leaving soaking the food in the alkaline solution at the end of the heat maceration time, with the fire off, for a maceration period of 10 minutes to 24 hours” to include the method disclosed in Liu at page 4, 2nd full paragraph.
Regarding the claim term in claim 3 n) “if necessary, washing it (the food) several times” the Office considers optional claim limitations; however, the claims themselves do not require them.
Still further regarding instant claim 3, Liu does not disclose “o) placing the macerated food in a container and reserve it according to its biochemical needs.”
Ning discloses at Abstract on page 1 soaking and washing fruits and vegetables, such as soybeans to prepare for subsequent processing, wherein at the bottom of page 2, Ning discloses the soaking temperature of from 20 to 60 °C for from 1 to 15 hours and discloses at the first 2 paragraphs of page 3 immersing the fruit and vegetables during soaking and washing wherein the fruits and vegetables are placed in a basket. In Embodiment III on page 6, the soybeans are soaked in alkaline solution and washed and drained in a basket (“container”).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Ning for Liu to soak its fruit or vegetables in a basket that allows for drainage and transport for further processing and to include worm or hot and cool or room temperatures in so doing. Both references disclose methods for soaking and washing fresh fruit, vegetables and legumes to remove impurities. The ordinary skilled artisan in Liu would have desired to use a basket as in Ning to hold its fruit, vegetables or legumes to enable ease of drying and transport them to a downstream process like packing or shipping.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated June 10, 2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn as moot:
The rejections of claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in regard to the term “very large quantity” in claim 1; the limitation "the calcination process" in claim 1; the limitation "the oven" in claim 1; the limitation "the product of previous incineration" in claim 2; the recited “a) making a calcium hydroxide solution is to be made, using calcined eggshells to have a alkaline solution with a pH of 9 to 15” and the recited “b) placing a container a quantity of water between 500 milliliters up to 10 liters and adding a quantity of previously calcined eggshell (XAM), between 5 grams to 100 grams” in claim 2; the limitation "the alkaline solution" in claim 3; the limitation "the calcium pectate film" in claim 3; and, the limitation "XAM" in claim 3.
The following rejections have been withdrawn solely to promote compact prosecution without any position taken as to their propriety:
The rejections of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20200000790 A to Cha in view of JP3556385 B2 to Kubota et al., as evidenced by JP2008008600 A to Goino.
Regarding the positions taken in the Reply with respect to Cha and Kubota, the positions have been considered but are moot because the rejection does not rely on Kubota for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated June 10, 2026 (Reply) have been fully considered but are respectfully not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding the position taken in the Reply that Liu has a different purpose and process than the claimed application and discloses a more complex, two-step batch process at two different temperatures and that Liu heats the eggshells regardless of the presence of residue in a heating step, respectfully Liu at the Abstract and claim 8 clearly discloses making a CaO powder and then an alkaline solution thereof for soaking and washing fruits and vegetables. The claimed raising the temperature to 800 to 1500 °C and letting the eggshells remain there for a first time period of 30 minutes to 6 hours includes the calcining disclosed in Liu at the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 and claim 5. Further, the claimed method is open-ended and includes extra steps.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at page 8 that Liu does not disclose e) allowing the product to cool inside the oven until it is manageable for a range of 1 hour to 5 hours and that one would not cool a product in the oven, respectfully the Office considers the recited e) allowing the product to cool inside the oven until it is manageable for a range of 1 hour to 5 hours to include the method disclosed in Liu because as Applicants’ admits, Liu discloses a batch process. Because the method of cooling to room temperature disclosed in Liu is not continuous, it thus requires the handling of its calcium oxide product. And because the cooling continues until the product reaches room temperature, the method disclosed in Liu at the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2 and page 2, 1st full paragraph appears to be identical to the claimed method. Accordingly, it remains Applicants burden to show that the claims are unobvious over the art. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply that Giono discloses a continuous process and cannot be combined with a batch process of Liu, respectfully the rejection does not combine the method of Liu with any process in Goino. Rather, the rejection reasonably cites the background “Conventionally” on page 2 of Goino, in a part that discloses conventional handling of CaO as evidence of what Liu already discloses.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply that Goino teaches away from Liu by disclosing a continuous process and that Goino cannot be combined with Liu, and that disclosing a thing as “conventional” or in a Background discourages it, respectfully the rejection uses Goino only for evidence of what Liu already discloses, i.e. it is used like a dictionary. In addition, the position fails to read Goino as a whole. Prior art must be considered as a whole, including any parts that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02.VI. Goino in its Background discloses that “conventionally,… after heating the furnace lid is opened and the inside of the furnace is cooled to take out the fired product”. Further, Liu by disclosing “leaving” its product to cool at page 2, 1st full paragraph suggests not removing the material from the oven after calcining. Thus, Goino merely provides evidence of the cooling to room temperature that Liu already discloses in the paragraph bridging pages 1 and 2; and, Liu cannot teach away from itself.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at pages 8 and 13 and nixtamalization of corn, respectfully the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the positions taken in the Reply at page 12-13 regarding Liu and Goino, the positions merely repeat arguments already addressed and is taken as a general allegation of patentability. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) that Liu fails to disclose or cannot be combined to disclose the claimed.
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at page 13 that Ning does not anticipate the instant claims or disclose making CaO, respectfully one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding the position taken in the Reply at page 13 that Liu cannot be combined with Ning or that the combination is based on improper hindsight, respectfully the position alleging that Lu which soaks fruits and vegetables and Ning does not disclose soaking fruits and vegetables, and calls (at Abstract) soaking vegetables and fruit dishwashing is not found persuasive. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. And so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Liu and Ning broadly disclose soaking and washing fruits and vegetables, including in alkaline solutions (see Embodiment III on page 6 of Ning) to clean and disinfect or preserve them. By combing the references one is merely using the same alkaline solution in the same way by soaking and washing to obtain the same cleaned or preserved food. Such soaking and washing is routine in the art.
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 ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
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 H 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.
/ANDREW E MERRIAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights