DETAILED ACTION
Background
The preliminary amendment dated March 16, 2023 (preliminary amendment) amending claims 1-4 has been entered. Claims 1-3 as filed with the preliminary amendment have been examined. Claim 4 is withdrawn.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election of the species of hot maceration or maceration in heat, in claims 1-3 in the reply filed on is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 4 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species of invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 10, 2025.
Claim Objections
The status identifier in claim 4 is incorrect, The status identifier should read as “(Withdrawn- currently amended)”. 37 CFR 1.121(c)(2).
Claims 1-3 are objected to as containing informal process step language. The claims do not affirmatively recite any process steps after the step of “collecting” and the steps of the claims need to be rewritten to start each line indicated, as follows:
Change claim 1 to recite the following steps to start each indicated line with, at line 6 --b) crushing the eggshells--; at line 10 --c) placing the eggshells--; at line 11 --d) raising--; at line 13 --e) allowing the product to cool--; and, at line 15 --f) after cooling transferring the calcined eggshells--;
Change claim 2 to recite the following steps to start each indicated line with, at line 4 --a) making a calcium hydroxide solution using water--; at line 7 --b) placing in--; at line 9 --c) mixing--; and, at line 10 --d) optionally, using the --; and,
Change claim 3 to recite the following steps to start each indicated line with, at line 11 --a) placing--; at line 13 --b) immersing--; at line 15 --c) raising--; at line 17 --d) leaving--; at line 20 --e) leaving soaking--; at line 22 --f) removing the food--; and, at line 24 --g) placing--.
Applicants must edits the steps in the objected to claims to insure that the required rewriting of the steps flows in idiomatic English and to remove redundant terms! The corrections indicated below are in addition to the foregoing.
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, at line 4 after “a)” make --collecting-- lowercase, after “eggshells,” insert -- with or--, and after “inside” delete [[but it does not matter if they do]];
at line 9, after “the oven;” delete the rest of the line;
at line 11, after “1,500” insert a space -- --, and after “°C and” replace [[let]] with --letting--; and,
at line 15, after “calcined” replace [[shells]] with --eggshells--, and (at lines 15-16) after “facilitator’ replace [[where they are ground]] with --grinding--;
in claim 2, at line 2 after “according to” replace [[Claim No.]] with --claim--;
at line 5, after “have a” replace [[solution with high alkalinity]] with --alkaline solution-; and,
at line 7, after “liters and” replace [[add a quantity of previously]] with --adding the--; and,
at line 9, after “c) mixing-- replace [[The previous solution]] with --the alkaline solution--;
and, at line 10 after “d) optionally using the” replace [[Once this solution is ready, it can be used]] with -- alkaline solution--.
In claim 3, at line 3 after “wherein” delete [[it can comprise:]], then delete the indent and continue the same line with “maceration in..” from line 4;
at line 4, after “heat” replace [[: the previously prepared solution]] with --the alkaline solution--;
at line 6 after “heat,” delete [[the purpose of this maceration is]];
at line 7, after “texture of” replace [[the]] with --a--, and after “”food” replace [[and food]] with --, which--;
at line 18, after “thickness of the” replace [[Calcium Pectate]] with --calcium pectate--;
at each of lines 20 and 22, before “the end” make --at-- lowercase.
at line 22, before “solution and” insert --alkaline--, and, after “solution and” replace [[wash it]] with--washing the food--;
at line 23 after “residue of” replace [[Xam]] with --XAM-- and after, if necessary” replace [[wash]] with --washing--; and,
at line 24, after “container and” replace [[reserve]] with --reserving--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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 for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “very large quantity” in claim 1 at line 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “very large quantity of eggshells” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One cannot ascertain the scope or limit of a very large quantity of eggshells.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the calcination process" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not earlier recite or define a calcining process
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the oven" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not earlier recite or define any oven.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the product of previous incineration" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim nowhere refers to any incineration. Do applicants intend to refer to calcined eggshells?
In claim 2, the recited “a) making a calcium hydroxide solution is to be made, using calcined eggshells to haye 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”, when read as a whole is confusing and indefinite. Do Applicants intend to make two separate alkaline solutions and blend them, or just one solution? The Office interprets claim 2 as reciting a method of making just one alkaline solution comprising water and calcined eggshells.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the alkaline solution" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 does not recite or refer to any solution.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the calcium pectate film" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims nowhere refer to any pectin containing material and do not anywhere recite or refer to a film. Do Applicants intend to include some pectin, or form a film, or both?
Claim 3 recites the limitation "XAM" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not refer to XAM. Claim 1, from which the claim depends does not refer to XAM.
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 this 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 without egg residues inside”). Liu discloses that the calcium oxide suppress Escherichia coli, has excellent sterilizing, anti-corruption, 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 60 minutes. Further, Liu at page 1, 1st full paragraph 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, trying not to have a very large quantity so that the calcination process is uniform to take advantage of all the space of the oven” and “c) placing eggshells inside the oven used”), followed by cooling the calcined eggshell to room temperature and crushing the calcined egg shell powder (“f) transferring 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 1 to 5 hours inside its 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 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, which 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, 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, including the claimed 1 to 5 hours.
Regarding instant claim 2, Liu at the paragraph bridging pages 2-3 discloses forming 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 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 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.
Further regarding instant claim 2, the Office considers step d) reciting that the “alkaline solution can be used in a great variety of foods in two main ways: cold or hot maceration” as optional. While the Office considers optional claim limitations, the claims themselves do not require them.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20200000790 A to Cha (Cha) in view of JP3556385 B2 to Kubota et al. (Kubota), as evidenced by JP2008008600 A to Goino (Goino), of record.
All references to Cha, Kubota and Goino refer to a Clarivate machine translation, copies of which have been provided with this Office action.
The Office interprets claim 2 as reciting a method of making just one alkaline solution comprising water and calcined eggshells.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 2, Cha at Abstract on page 2 discloses the forming of an alkaline solution of calcium oxide for use with food comprising a grain and meat or seafood, and discloses cooking the food in a retort pouch. Cha at page 5, 3rd full paragraph discloses a method for preparing calcium oxide from shells, comprising washing the shell to remove foreign substances (“a) collecting previously used eggshells without egg residues inside”), and then pulverizing (“b) crushing the eggshells in such a way that they can be piled up one on top of the other, trying not to have a very large quantity so that the calcination process is uniform to take advantage of all the space of the oven”) and calcining (“c) placing the eggshells inside an oven”) at 1000 to 1200 °C. for 80 to 150 minutes, followed by fermentation.
Further regarding instant claim 1, Cha does not disclose washing and calcining eggshells; and, further, does not disclose e) allowing the product to cool inside the oven until it is manageable for a range of 1 hours to 5 hours; and, f) after cooling, transferring the calcined eggshells and transferring the calcined eggshells to a crushing facilitator and grinding.
Kubota at [0010] discloses calcined calcium is obtained by calcining natural calcium obtained from eggshells and (at [0011]) discloses, pulverizing a calcined material in a cool state to an average particle diameter of 0.1 to 0.6 µm to enable it to remain suspended or dispersed in liquids used (at [0027]) in food and drink. Further, at [0019] Kubota discloses forming an aqueous calcium containing mixture for use (at [0024]) as a calcium fortifier in a coffee drink.
The Office considers the method of e) allowing a calcined 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 each of Cha and Kubota because the Cha method is not continuous and thus requires the handling of its calcium oxide product. Goino at page 2 “BACKGROUND ART”, 2nd paragraph discloses that it in a non-continuous method, one allows a calcium oxide shell powder rest in the oven to cool. The ordinary skilled artisan would then cool a hot calcium oxide prior to handling for as long as need to reach room temperature, and would have readily let the calcined product cool in an oven rather than attempt to handle it hot and risk burning or scalding.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Kubota for Cha to use eggshells to form its calcium oxide and to transfer the calcined eggshells to a crushing facilitator and grinding. Both references disclose use of shells as a source of calcined calcium (calcium oxide) and their use in water or liquids in foods. The ordinary skilled artisan in Cha would have desired to use eggshells as an readily available shell source as in Kubota and would have desired to grind its calcined eggshells as in Kubota to insure their proper dispersion in water and availability as a nutrient.
Further regarding instant claim 2, Cha at page 4, 4th to last full paragraph discloses mixing CaO (“calcined eggshells”) in the amount of 0.5 to 2.0 wt% in water, thereby making an aqueous alkaline solution. The Cha disclosed 0.5 to 5 wt% solution of calcined eggshells comprises, per liter of water about 5 to 50 grams of calcined eggshells. Further, at page 4, 3rd to last paragraph discloses that its alkaline solution has a pH of about 12.5
Further still regarding instant claim 2, the Office considers step d) reciting that the “alkaline solution can be used in a great variety of foods in two main ways: cold or hot maceration” as optional. While the Office considers optional claim limitations, the claims themselves do not require them.
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 with this 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 60 minutes, cooling and grinding the calcined eggshells to a desired particle size.
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. Further, Liu at page 4, 2nd full paragraph (starting with “longitudinal”) discloses cleaning in an immersion method (“a) placing the alkaline solution in a deep, heat-resistant container that can hold the desired food” and “b) 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 (“c) raising the heat to a range that may include: low, medium-low, medium, medium-high and high”) and containing E coli from a 24 hour culture to kill the bacteria on the food (“d) leaving the food inside the solution subjected to heat and e) 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 removing the food and washing it to remove any residue of XAM or calcined eggshells.
Further regarding instant claim 3 and the claim language in the preamble, reciting processes that “can comprise maceration in heat: the previously prepared solution can be used to subject different animal proteins, vegetables, cereals, fruits and/or vegetables to an alkaline maceration in heat to alter the external and/or internal texture of the food, which can be subjected to an alkaline maceration in heat for a time between 15 minutes to 10 hours, depending on the final result to be obtained and taking into account the hardness of the food” and, further regarding the claim language “e) at the end of the heat maceration time, the food should be left soaking in the solution, with the fire off, for a period of 10 minutes to 24 hours”, each of these limitations is optional. While the Office considers optional claim limitation, the claims themselves do not require them.
Still further regarding instant claim 3, Liu does not disclose g) 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 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 place its fruit or beans or vegetables in a basket that allows for drainage and transport for further processing. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US20030059516 A1 to Brubacher et al (Brubacher) discloses at [0015] masa having enhanced flavor, which can be cooked (at [0018]) with CaO in steam. At [0032], Brubacher discloses cooking 10 weight parts hydrated lime with 30 parts water and 70 parts corn germ, and the mixture is tempered (at [0033]) at 33 to 150 °F for from 1 to 120 minutes. 2) KR102041484 B2 to Jeonsehoon et al. (Jeonsehoon) at page 3, 1st full paragraph discloses a method for obtaining calcium oxide from eggshells comprising taking washed eggshell and primarily sintering, secondarily sintering and tertiarily sintering (“calcining”) the eggshell at 800-950° C for 10-60 minutes and then pulverizing the calcined egg shell powder for use in washing fruits and vegetables.
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