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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/110797 (Gray) in view of WO 2021/126409 (Cabas-Rodriguez) and further in view of CN 102960464 (Zou).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4, Gray teaches a method of extracting naturally occurring oil bodies (olesome) and forming a powder. The material containing the oil bodies include algae, microalgae, sunflower seeds, soybeans, almonds, rapeseed, rice, and linseeds. The process includes providing a wet preparation of the oleosome material by combining the material with water. By adding the seeds to water, they are considered to have been cleaned (impurity removal). Gray teaches recovering oil bodies from the material containing the oil in the wet preparation by grinding the material in the water based medium and filtering out the larger material and then recovering the oil body material (pages 5-6). The recovered oil body material may be concentrated oil-in-water emulsion with a solids content of about 35-75% (page 6). Preferably the oil bodies are spray dried and a carrier (wall material) is used in the spray drying process (page 6). In an example, echium seed is combined with water (100g/500ml) for a ratio of 1:5 (page 12) thus meeting the ratio of step (1). The seed/water mixture is put into a blender and then filtered to remove residue (meeting residue removal by filtering). The recovered oil bodies were washed and resuspended in water at a ratio of 1:4 (oil body:water) (page 123). Table 1.1 shows the amount of maltodextrin (wall material) added to each example and a content of the COB (oil bodies). The amount of wall material is considered the dry matter and Figure 2 illustrates an example of 10wt% of maltodextrin and the amount of COB is 7.5wt% giving a ratio of oil to wall material of 0.75 (7.5/10) falling within the range of 0.11-2.
The emulsions prepared for drying (blend of COB and maltodextrin) in Gray were homogenized using a shear mixer for 5 mins at 7500 rpm (page 13). This is considered to meet shear homogenizing of claim 1 and the rotations per minute (rpm) falls within the range of claim 1 (1000-11000 rpm).
Note that Gray teaches grinding the material but does not expressly teach crushing. Cabas-Rodriguez discloses a method for preparing an isolated oleosome composition and states that typically seeds are processed by mechanical pressing, grinding or crushing [0037] and that a liquid phase (water) may be added prior to grinding the seeds (wet-milling). It would have been obvious to crush the seeds in the process taught by Gray as suggested by Cabas-Rodriquez as an alternative to grinding with a reasonable expectation that crushing would successfully process the seeds to remove the desired oleosome. Regarding the step of pulping, the instant specification appears to equate crushing and pulping by stating that crushing of peanuts was accomplished with a pulping machine [0030]. Thus, the crushing of Cabas-Rodriguez is seen to meet both crushing and pulping. Both Gray and Cabas-Rodriguez teach filtering after the crushing/grinding/pulping of the oleosome containing material.
Gray and Cabas-Rodriguez do not expressly teach the use of a pulping machine.
Zou teaches forming a walnut milk including the steps of first prepared by sorting, peeling and grinding walnut kernel to prepare walnut kernel slurry (abstract). Zou teaches first soaking the walnuts in water and then griding using a using a pulping machine to obtain a walnut slurry. Zou also teaches that prior to this step, the walnuts are crushed by sorting, peeling and grinding to prepare a slurry (claims). Zou teaches this is an effective way to prepare the walnuts for processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to crush the walnuts in a similar manner suggested by Zou to prepare the walnut material for further processing based upon a known and useful manner of preparing the nuts. Additionally, it would have been obvious to use a pulping machine as suggested by Zou to form the slurry in Gray as modified by Cabas-Rodriguez as Zou clearly teaches that such a machine is useful to form a slurry and pulp of a walnut material for further processing. Additionally, if Gray is not seen to teach soaking, Zou teaches preparing the raw material by adding water to walnut kernel and pulping [0010] followed by preparing the walnut slurry by grinding/pulping for further processing. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to soak the stock in water as taught by Zou with a reasonable expectation of successfully providing a stock material ready for further processing.
Regarding claim 5, the wall material is supplied as a solution (maltodextrin prepared in dH2O) (page 13).
Regarding claim 8, Table 1.1. of Gray gives examples of inlet and outlet temperatures during spray drying that fall within the claimed ranges. For instance, inlet temperatures of 160 and 180 degrees C and outlet temperatures of 70 and 85 degrees C.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray in view of Cabas-Rodriguez and Zou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2011/0081435 (Guth).
Gray and Cabas-Rodriguez and Zou teach grinding/crushing/pulping the oleosome containing material but do not specifically teach the level of granularity (fineness) achieved. Guth teaches stabilized oleosome preparations and also teaches washing the seeds and grinding in a wet preparation using a colloid mill. The mill was set to achieve a particle size less than 100 microns, falling within the range claimed (less than 0.5mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of the invention to provide a particle size of the oleosome material after grinding/crushing/pulping as taught by Guth in the process of Gray as modified by Cabas-Rodriguez as Guth discloses this granularity as an exemplary level to successfully achieve oleosome preparations from seed materials.
Regarding claim 9, as the method limitations and steps are met by the combined art, one of ordinary skill would reasonably expect the lack of hydrogenated vegetable oil in the powder product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed 09/22/2025, with respect to objections to the specification and claims have been fully considered and overcome the objections of record.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 12, filed 09/22/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 over Gray in view of Cabas-Rodriguez, specifically in regard to the added limitation of a pulping machine, 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 Gray in view of Cabas-Rodriguez and further in view of CN 102960464 (Zou).
Applicant also provides arguments regarding Gray that Gray only discloses the process of the mixture of material and water, rather than the mixture of soaked material (soaked oil stock) and water. As currently worded, the step of adding the oil stock to water followed by grinding as taught by Gray is seen to meet the limitation of “soaking an oil stock… into water to obtain a resultant, then conducting…” even if the seed and water contact occurs just prior to grinding. The claim does not limit the extent to which the oil stock is soaked in water.
Applicant also argues that unpredictable results were yielded in that the oleosome emulsion does not contain hydrogenated oil and an exogenous emulsifier. It is noted that claim 9 requires the powdered oil does not contain hydrogenated vegetable oil, not the emulsion formed as an intermediate. The claims do not exclude an exogenous emulsifier. Applicant also refers to a high content of active oil accompaniments, and embedding rate close to 100 percent, a low production cost, strong storage stability and a certain natural oil stock flavor. These arguments are general and do not indicate what particular feature of the claimed method is related to unpredictable (unexpected?) results. Moreover, the instant specification refers to 12 embodiments but there is no data found other than with relation to embodiment 1 and 2, both of which use peanuts. Thus, the instant claims do not appear to be commensurate with the arguments regarding unexpected results.
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 JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1793
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793