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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12, 14 – 21, and 25 – 27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/21/2025. Claims 1 – 11, 13, and 22 – 24 have been considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/22/2023 and 8/21/20258 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “delipidation unit, comprising a first reservoir,” “first filter,” “pressure valve,” “output,” “protein-enrichment unit, wherein the protein-enrichment unit comprises: a second reservoir … and a second filter,” “tube connector between the delipidation unit and the protein-enrichment unit,” “second pressure valve,” “second output,” and “third reservoir” must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 2, 4 – 6, 8, and 22 recite the term “about” with a numerical value or range. Applicant’s specification recites the following with regard to the term “about:” “Reference to "about" a value or parameter herein includes (and describes) embodiments that are directed to that value or parameter per se. For example, description referring to "about X" includes description of "X". In some embodiments, the term "about" when used in association with a measurement, or used to modify a value, a unit, a constant, or a range of values, refers to variations of +/- 10%, 5%, 2% or 1%” [page 30, lines 11-15 of Applicant’s specification filed 9/22/2023]. The term “about” is being interpreted to indicate a variation of +/- 10% of the value or range.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,152,058. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,152,058 is obvious over instant claim 1. The table below compares the claims.
Instant application 18/220,728
U.S. Patent No. 12,152,058
Claim 1. A device for protein enrichment of human breast milk, comprising:
a delipidation unit, comprising a first reservoir configured to receive breast milk, wherein the first reservoir is connected to a first filter; a first filter, wherein the first filter is in fluid connection with the first reservoir, wherein the first filter is configured to receive breast milk from the first reservoir and configured to provide a fat-enriched retentate and a fat-reduced filtrate from the breast milk;
a pressure valve, wherein the pressure valve is in fluid connection with the first reservoir and the first filter, and wherein the pressure valve is configured to provide positive air pressure to the delipidation unit; and
an output wherein the output is configured to deliver the fat-reduced filtrate provided by the first filter; a protein-enrichment unit, wherein the protein-enrichment unit comprises: a second reservoir configured to receive the fat-reduced filtrate from the output of the delipidation unit; and
a second filter, wherein the second filter is configured to provide a protein-enriched retentate and a protein-reduced filtrate.
wherein the first filter has a pore size of less than or equal to 1 µm,
Claim 1. A vertically integrated device for on-site obtaining protein-enriched fractions from human or animal breast milk, comprising:
a first reservoir having a volume of 1.5 L or less; a delipidating unit for reducing a lipid content in the human or animal breast milk to obtain delipidated milk, wherein the delipidating unit comprises a single-usage first filter, wherein the first reservoir is connected to the single-usage first filter,
wherein a valve is arranged in a flow line between the first reservoir and the single-usage first filter;
a second reservoir having a volume of 0.5 L, configured to receive an output of the single-usage first filter;
a filtering unit for increasing a protein concentration of the delipidated milk to obtain the protein-enriched fraction, comprising a single-usage second filter having a membrane and having a nominal molecular weight limit of 2 kDa or more, ….
Claim 3. The device of claim 1, wherein the single-usage first filter of the delipidating unit has a pore size of less than 0.5 µm.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,152,058 does not expressly disclose wherein the second filter has a nominal molecular weight limit of less than or equal to 100 kDa.
However, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,152,058 discloses wherein the second filter has “a nominal molecular weight limit of 2 kDa or more.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the second filter has a nominal molecular weight limit of less than or equal to 100 kDa, because where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 – 11, 13, and 22 – 24 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 recites, “a delipidation unit, comprising a first reservoir configured to receive breast milk,” and then recites additional elements (a first filter, a pressure valve, and an output), wherein the format of the claim suggests that these additional elements are not part of the delipidation unit. However, Applicant’s specification recites, “[i]n some embodiments, the delipidation unit comprises a first reservoir, a first filter, a pressure valve, and an output” (filed specification at page 3, lines 16-17). Therefore, it is unclear which elements are part of the delipidation unit. Examiner is interpreting the delipidation unit to comprise a first reservoir, a first filter, a pressure valve, and an output. Claims 2 – 11, 13, and 22 – 24 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 9 recites, “wherein the pressure valve and/or the second pressure value ….” Claim 9 depends from claim 1, but claim 1 does not recite a second pressure valve. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the second pressure valve” in claim 9. Claim 9 can be amended to depend from either claim 7 or claim 8 to establish proper antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 recites, “wherein the pressure valve and/or the second pressure value is configured to provide air pressure.” Claim 9 depends from claim 1, and claim 1 already recites, “wherein the pressure valve is configured to provide positive air pressure.” Additionally, if claim 9 is intended to depend from claim 7 or claim 8 (which depends from claim 7), these claims already require “wherein the second pressure valve is configured to provide positive air pressure.” Therefore claim 9 does not further limit the claim(s) from which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 9 – 11, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Metzger (US 2018/0343880).
Regarding claim 1, Metzger discloses a device for protein enrichment of human breast milk (“Embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to the manufacture of MCC via the fractionation of skim milk into casein-rich retentate (i.e., MCC), and whey protein rich permeate using membrane microfiltration (MF) and/or diafiltration (DF)” [0019]; the device is capable of being utilized with human breast milk), comprising:
a delipidation unit, comprising a first reservoir (Fig. 1B, “milk source 102 (e.g., one or more milk tanks)” [0024]) configured to receive breast milk, wherein the first reservoir is connected to a first filter (Fig. 1B, “first filter unit 104” [0024]);
a first filter (Fig. 1B, “first filter unit 104” [0024]), wherein the first filter has a pore size of less than or equal to 1 µm (“the microfiltration membrane of the first filter unit 104 may include, but is not limited to, a polymeric spiral-wound filtration membrane having a pore size between 0.1 and 1.00 μm” [0031]), wherein the first filter is in fluid connection with the first reservoir (Fig. 1B, “the first filter unit 104 may be placed in fluidic communication with the milk source 102 via the processing line 118. In this regard, the MF unit 104 may receive the milk and apply a first filtration process” [0030]), wherein the first filter is configured to receive breast milk from the first reservoir (Fig. 1B);
a pressure valve, wherein the pressure valve is in fluid connection with the first reservoir and the first filter, and wherein the pressure valve is configured to provide positive air pressure to the delipidation unit (Fig. 1B, “valve unit 123” [0072] supplies air pressure from “carbon dioxide supply unit 120” [0073]; “system 100 includes one or more valve units 123. The one or more valve units 123 may serve to selectively fluidically couple two or more of the sub-systems or components of system 100. For example, one or more valve units 123 may be placed between two or more of the milk source 102, the first filter unit 104, the first holding tank 110, the additional filter unit 112, the heat exchanger 106, the second holding tank 116, and the carbon dioxide supply unit 120); and
an output wherein the output is configured to deliver the fat-reduced filtrate provided by the first filter (Fig. 1B, output is located between valve 123 and first holding tank 110);
a protein-enrichment unit, wherein the protein-enrichment unit comprises:
a second reservoir (Fig. 1B, “first holding tank 110” [0073]) configured to receive the fat-reduced filtrate from the output of the delipidation unit (Fig. 1B); and
a second filter (Fig. 1B, “filter unit 112” [0024]), wherein the second filter has a nominal molecular weight limit of less than or equal to 100 kDa (“ filter unit 112 includes an ultrafiltration membrane” [0059]; “ the ultrafiltration membrane may include, but is not limited to, an ultrafiltration membrane having a molecular weight cutoff between 1 kDa and 30 kDa. More specifically, the ultrafiltration membrane may include, but is not limited to, an ultrafiltration membrane having a molecular weight cutoff between 5 kDa and 20 kDa” [0059]), and wherein the second filter is configured to provide a protein-enriched retentate and a protein-reduced filtrate (“the term “ultrafiltration (UF)” is generally defined by a filtration process that fractionates a mixture of casein, lactose, and minerals into a casein-rich retentate (i.e., a mineral-reduced MCC)” [0058]; casein is a protein).
In addition to structural limitations, claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: wherein the first filter is “configured to provide a fat-enriched retentate and a fat-reduced filtrate from the breast milk.” When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). MPEP § 2114.
PNG
media_image1.png
465
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1B of Metzger
Regarding claim 7, Metzger discloses wherein the device comprises a second pressure valve, wherein the second pressure valve is in fluid connection with the second reservoir and the second filter, wherein the second pressure valve is configured to provide positive air pressure to the protein enrichment unit (Fig. 1B, “valve unit 123” [0072] supplies air pressure from “carbon dioxide supply unit 120” [0073]; “system 100 includes one or more valve units 123. The one or more valve units 123 may serve to selectively fluidically couple two or more of the sub-systems or components of system 100. For example, one or more valve units 123 may be placed between two or more of the milk source 102, the first filter unit 104, the first holding tank 110, the additional filter unit 112, the heat exchanger 106, the second holding tank 116, and the carbon dioxide supply unit 120).
Regarding claim 9, Metzger discloses wherein the pressure valve and/or the second pressure value is configured to provide air pressure (Fig. 1B, “valve unit 123” [0072] supplies air pressure from “carbon dioxide supply unit 120” [0073]).
Regarding claim 10, Metzger discloses wherein the protein enrichment unit further comprises a second output and a third reservoir, wherein the second output is configured to deliver the protein-reduced filtrate to the third reservoir (Fig. 1B, second output is located downstream of filter unit 112; third reservoir is “second holding tank 116” [0070]).
Regarding claim 11, Metzger discloses wherein the delipidation unit is configured to agitate and/or stir breast milk in the first reservoir and/or wherein the protein enrichment unit is configured to agitate and/or stir breast milk in the second reservoir (“the CO2-treated MCC may be stirred for a selected time (e.g., 0.5 to 4 hours) to reach equilibrium” [0045]).
Regarding claim 22, Metzger discloses wherein the first filter has a pore size of between about 0.1 and about 1 µm (“the microfiltration membrane of the first filter unit 104 may include, but is not limited to, a polymeric spiral-wound filtration membrane having a pore size between 0.1 and 1.00 μm” [0031]).
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 2 – 6, 8, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (US 2018/0343880).
Regarding claim 2, Metzger does not expressly disclose wherein the device is configured to maintain a temperature of between about 4 and about 10 degrees Celsius.
However, Metzger discloses wherein the device is configured to maintain a temperature of between about 1.0 and about 7.2 degrees Celsius (“milk source 102 may maintain the milk at a temperature between 1.0° C. and 7.2° C” [0027]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the device is configured to maintain a temperature of between about 4 and about 10 degrees Celsius, because in the case where the claimed ranges “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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 3, Metzger discloses wherein there is a connector between the delipidation unit and the protein-enrichment unit (Fig. 1B shows wherein valve 123 of the delipidation unit is connected to filter 110 of the protein-enrichment unit).
Metzger does not expressly disclose wherein the connecter is a tube connector.
However, the connector being a tube connector describes a particular shape of the connector. The courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B.
Regarding claim 4, Metzger does not expressly disclose wherein the first reservoir has a capacity of less than or equal to about 2 L.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first reservoir has a capacity of less than or equal to about 2 L, because the courts have held the following: In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) ("mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled." 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.). In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP § 2144.04-IV-A.
Regarding claim 5, Metzger does not expressly disclose wherein the pressure valve is configured to supply between about 0.5 bar and about 4 bar of absolute pressure to the first reservoir and first filter.
However, Metzger discloses wherein the pressure valve is configured to supply pressure as follows: “CO2 may be injected into the MCC at a selected pressure. For example, CO2 may be injected into flowing MCC in the processing line 118 (or into the first holding tank 110) at a pressure between 10 kPa and 800 kPa” [0044]; a pressure between 10 kPa and 800 kPa corresponds to a pressure between 0.1 bar and 8 bar.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the pressure valve is configured to supply between about 0.5 bar and about 4 bar of absolute pressure to the first reservoir and first filter, because where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 6, Metzger does not expressly disclose wherein the pressure valve is configured to supply between about 0.1 bar and about 4 bar of absolute pressure to the second reservoir and second filter.
However, Metzger discloses wherein the pressure valve is configured to supply pressure as follows: “CO2 may be injected into the MCC at a selected pressure. For example, CO2 may be injected into flowing MCC in the processing line 118 (or into the first holding tank 110) at a pressure between 10 kPa and 800 kPa” [0044]; a pressure between 10 kPa and 800 kPa corresponds to a pressure between 0.1 bar and 8 bar.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the pressure valve is configured to supply between about 0.1 bar and about 4 bar of absolute pressure to the second reservoir and second filter, because where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 8, Metzger does not expressly disclose wherein the second pressure valve is configured to supply between about 0.5 and about 4 bar of absolute pressure to the second reservoir and second filter.
However, Metzger discloses wherein the pressure valve is configured to supply pressure as follows: “CO2 may be injected into the MCC at a selected pressure. For example, CO2 may be injected into flowing MCC in the processing line 118 (or into the first holding tank 110) at a pressure between 10 kPa and 800 kPa” [0044]; a pressure between 10 kPa and 800 kPa corresponds to a pressure between 0.1 bar and 8 bar.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the second pressure valve is configured to supply between about 0.5 and about 4 bar of absolute pressure to the second reservoir and second filter, because where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 23, Metzger does not expressly disclose wherein the second filter has a nominal molecular weight limit of less than or equal to 10 kDa.
However, Metzger discloses the following regarding the second filter: “filter unit 112 includes an ultrafiltration membrane” [0059]; “the ultrafiltration membrane may include, but is not limited to, an ultrafiltration membrane having a molecular weight cutoff between 1 kDa and 30 kDa. More specifically, the ultrafiltration membrane may include, but is not limited to, an ultrafiltration membrane having a molecular weight cutoff between 5 kDa and 20 kDa” [0059]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the second filter has a nominal molecular weight limit of less than or equal to 10 kDa, because where the claimed ranges “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). MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Claims 13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzger (US 2018/0343880) in view of Fournell et al. (US 2013/0059050).
Regarding claim 13, Metzger does not expressly disclose wherein the first filter is a cellulose filter.
Fournell is directed to microfiltration of human milk [Title]. Fournell discloses wherein a cellulose filter is utilized in the processing of human milk (“Diatomaceous earth comprises fossilized remains of diatoms, a type of hard-shelled algae. These fossilized remains are highly permeable and porous, and accordingly, are suitable for filtration applications. However, synthetically produced materials may also be employed (e.g., polymeric materials, etc.) provided they do not chemically modify or react with the milk in an undesired fashion. Examples of useful filter aids may include silica, wood cellulose and perlite” [0091]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first filter is a cellulose filter. This is the simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, Metzger does not expressly disclose wherein the first filter is a cellulose filter with a pore size of 0.2-0.4 µm.
However, Metzger discloses the following regarding the first filter: “the microfiltration membrane of the first filter unit 104 may include, but is not limited to, a polymeric spiral-wound filtration membrane having a pore size between 0.1 and 1.00 μm” [0031]. Additionally, Fournell discloses wherein a cellulose filter is utilized in the processing of human milk (“Diatomaceous earth comprises fossilized remains of diatoms, a type of hard-shelled algae. These fossilized remains are highly permeable and porous, and accordingly, are suitable for filtration applications. However, synthetically produced materials may also be employed (e.g., polymeric materials, etc.) provided they do not chemically modify or react with the milk in an undesired fashion. Examples of useful filter aids may include silica, wood cellulose and perlite” [0091]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first filter is a cellulose filter with a pore size of 0.2-0.4 µm. The use of a cellulose filter is the simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results. Additionally, in the case where the claimed ranges “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) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2021/0371456 is directed to a method and apparatus for processing dairy proteins. US 2014/0308417 is directed to a device for producing skim milk.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761