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 .
FOREIGN APPLICATIONS
BRAZIL 102022013691-2 07/08/2022
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on December 22, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden on the examiner to examine all the groups together. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are classified separately. This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. See MPEP 808.02.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 22, 2025.
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 1-21 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.
Claim 1, step 3.1 states “the vegetable water that is recovered from the process, coming from a water tank, is inserted into the mixture obtained in step 3).” Claim 1 does not earlier mention a vegetable water or which process the vegetable water was obtained by, so there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim is not clear because the claim does not recite obtaining a vegetable water from a process. Claims 2-21 all depend ultimately from claim 1 and incorporate the same limitation by reference, and also do not provide clarification of the limitation.
Claim 1, step 3.3 recites separating the flavonoids, vegetable water, and NPK fertilizer. Claim 1 does not earlier describe the vegetable water and NPK fertilizer, so there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, step 6) recites “recover the fiber functional polysaccharide-containing.” The claim appears to be incomplete because nothing follows “containing.”
Claim 10 recites the process “according to wherein.” The claim is incomplete because it does not state which claim it depends from. For the purpose of examination, claim 10 will be treated as if it depends from claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “the separation of the mixture.” Claim 10 is treated as though it depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites more than one mixture, so it is unclear which mixture is the mixture recited in claim 10.
Claim 14 recites that the solvent is selected from ethyl, propyl, butyl, or their mixtures. The claim is unclear because ethyl, propyl, and butyl are not solvents. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated as though it recites ethyl, propyl, and butyl alcohols.
Claim 14 recites that the solvent is at a concentration ranging from 40% to 60% by weight. This limitation is unclear because the claim does not state what the 40-60% is compared to.
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and recites further comprising mixing a complexing compound, an acid compound, and at least one solvent recovered from the process step 4). It is unclear whether this recitation is intended to further limit the conditions of step 4), or if the recitation is intended to include an additional step. If it is an additional step, it is unclear at which point in the process the additional step must occur.
Claim 18 recites that the solvent is selected from ethyl, propyl, butyl, or their mixtures. The claim is unclear because ethyl, propyl, and butyl are not solvents. For the purpose of examination, the claim will be treated as though it recites ethyl, propyl, and butyl alcohols.
Claim 21 recites a stage of “dehydration of the solid mass.” Claim 1 recites several steps which result in a solid mass, so it is not clear which solid mass must be dehydrated.
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.
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) 1-3, 7-8, 11-12and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 106699920A, 2017, machine translation) in view of You (CN108912242B, 2021, machine translation).
Zhou teaches a method of extracting compounds from citrus peel. Citrus peel is crushed and passed through 10-30 mesh sieves. (10 to 30 mesh corresponds to about 0.6 to 2 mm). Citrus peel residue is added to an HCl solution pH 1.7 (the solvent is water) and extracted at 86°C, then the solids are separated from the liquids. This corresponds to claimed steps 1-3.2. This step is repeated at least twice, combining the supernatant each time, corresponding to claimed step 4. Ethanol is added to precipitate pectin, and then ethanol is removed by distillation to provide raffinate A (corresponds to steps 3.3 and 4.1 -4.2). Remaining citrus peel residue is treated in 3.5% sodium hydroxide solution followed by separating a filter cake. The filter cake is neutralized at room temperature and separated to give dietary fiber (corresponds to steps 5-6). See pages 6-7. The citrus peel is navel orange. Page 4.
Zhou does not include a complexing agent.
You teaches a process for extracting pectin from citrus (pomelo) peel. The citrus peel is extracted in HCl solution at pH 2 with EDTA. See abstract. Addition of EDTA reduces extraction time, improves pectin yield, and ensures that pectin is not degraded. Page 4. The addition amount of EDTA is 0.24-0.26%, and too much EDTA causes problems. Page 5.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include EDTA in Zhou’s process. The skilled artisan would have added EDTA because addition of EDTA reduces extraction time and improves the yield and quality of pectin.
Zhou uses sodium hydroxide for neutralization, not potassium hydroxide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to substitute potassium hydroxide for sodium hydroxide because both are alkali hydroxides. Simple substitution of one alkali metal for another would have resulted in the claimed invention, and the results would have been predictable because both are alkali metal hydroxides, so they would have been expected to behave similarly.
The claimed granulometry 2 to 20mm overlaps with the claimed range of about 0.6-2.0 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the neutralization step at pH 6.5 because neutralization is generally known to provide a pH around 7.0, which is very close to 6.5. MPEP 2144.05 states that a a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. The pH ranges are so close that the skilled artisan would have expected the compositions to have the same properties.
The skilled artisan would have carried out the distillation of ethanol at a temperature ranging from 70 to 92oC because the boiling point of ethanol is about 78oC. The skilled artisan would have optimized the Brix value using routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 6, 9-10, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (CN 106699920A, 2017, machine translation) in view of You (CN108912242B, 2021, machine translation) as applied to claims 1-3, 7-8, 17-19, and 21 above, and further in view of Wu (CN1044608C, 1999, machine translation).
Zhou and You teach as set forth above, pectin extraction at a pH of 1.7 or 2.
Zhou and You do not teach treatment at pH 2.5 to 4.5 and do not teach a sieve and press step.
Wu teaches method of extracting pectin from lemon peel under acidic conditions, at a pH of 2.5-4.0. See abstract. The pH was 3 in Embodiment 3. Page 3. Wu’s process includes passing through a nylon mesh press. Page 3.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the above process at a pH of 2.4-4.0 or 3.0 because Wu teaches that is an appropriate pH range for extracting pectin from citrus peel and Zhou and You are also concerned with extracting pectin from citrus peel under acidic conditions. The skilled artisan would have mixed the starting materials at a temperature ranging from 20 to 35°C because 25°C is room temperature, and Zhou or You do not teach that the mixing takes place as elevated temperature. It would have been obvious to incorporate a sieve and press step in order to remove excess solvent because Wu teaches that a sieve and press is one way to remove excess solvent.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Claim 4 was not included in the above prior art rejections because the prior art concentration of EDTA is much lower than claimed, and You teaches away from increasing the amount.
Claims 5 and 14 were not included in the above prior art rejections because the prior art of record does not suggest extraction in an alcohol. Chandel is a review article published in 2022, around the time of filing, and Chandel teaches that water is used to extract pectin and an alcohol is used to precipitate pectin. Page 8.
Claim 13 is not included in this rejection because Zhou does not teach isolation of flavonoids in that stage of the process. Zhou teaches isolation of flavonoids before extraction of pectin, and Zhou teaches that the order of steps should not be changed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAYLA D BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-9572. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00 CST, 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/LAYLA D BERRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693