DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The Preliminary Amendment filed on February 22, 2024, has been received and entered.
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I on September 29, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claim Disposition
4. Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-7 are under examination. Claim 8 is withdrawn from consideration as directed to a non-elected invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The Information Disclosure Statement filed on February 22, 2024, has been received and entered. The references cited on the PTO-1449 Form have been considered by the examiner and a copy is attached to the instant Office action.
Drawing
6. The drawings filed on September 8, 2023, have been accepted by the examiner.
Specification Objection
7. The specification is objected to for the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following is suggested: "Hemp seed protein Pickering particles and a method for preparing hemp seed Pickering emulsion".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim objection
8. Claims 1-7 are objected to for the following informalities:
For clarity and precision of claim language it is suggested that claim 1 is amended to recite “….comprising [[the following steps]]:
Crushing hemp seeds…….n-hexane solvent extraction, and then performing alkali-soluble acid precipitation treatment on a remaining residue to obtain a hemp seed protein powder………centrifuging the suspension[[obtained in step (2)]], removing……then adjusting [[the]] pH value…..”.The dependent claims hereto are also included.
For clarity it is suggested that claim 2 is amended to read, “……wherein the n-hexane has a ratio to the hemp seeds crushed of [[the ration of n-hexane to the crushed hemp seeds used in step (1) is]]…..”. See claims 3-5 with similar language.
For clarity it is suggested that claims 2-7 are amended to delete “according to” and instead recite “of” (for example, The method of claim 1).
For clarity and precision of claim language it is suggested that claim 7 is amended to read, “A[[The]] hemp seed protein-containing Pickering emulsion prepared by the method of claim 1.”
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.
9. Claims 1-7 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 and the dependent claims hereto are ambiguous, thus indefinite for the recitation of “a method for preparing hemp seed protein-containing Pickering emulsion, comprising…..crushing hemp seed, removing oil from the hemp seeds by n-hexane solvent extraction, and then performing alkali-soluble acid precipitation on a residue to obtain hemp seed protein powder….”, because the claim language can be construed as “residue of an amino acid” since a hemp seed protein or a hemp seed residue or cake resulting from extraction.
Claim 1 lacks clear antecedent basis for ‘the pH value’.
Claims 2 and 4-5 lack clear antecedent basis for the recitation of “the ratio”.
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.
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kostic et al. (Industrial Crops and Products, 2013, vol. 48, pages 133-143) in view of Zhang et al. (Cellulose, 2018, vol. 25, pages 4107-4120) and Duffus et al. (University of Birmingham: J. of Colloid and Interface Science, vol. 473, 2016, pages 9-21).
The claimed invention is directed to a method for preparing hemp seed protein-containing Pickering emulsion by utilizing n-hexane solvent extraction, making protein nanoparticles to obtain protein Pickering particles and obtain Pickering emulsion.
The primary reference teaches optimization of hempseed oil extraction by n-hexane. The reference discloses that hemp is one of few plants that has high yields of seed oil and biomass which enable its multiple applications. The reference also states that hemp is cost effective another reason it is a good choice to utilize. Steps are provided for extraction of seed oil from hemp seeds (with seed cake), see abstract and page 9. The primary reference does not expressly teach Pickering. However, the secondary reference teaches hemp powders for their application in the stabilization of Pickering emulsions. The secondary reference further teaches preparation of hemp seed Pickering emulsions and the need for such a product in the art (particle emulsifiers), see pages 4107-4108 and the third reference emphasizes the need in the art for Pickering emulsion from seed (stable oil in water and water in oil of Pickering emulsions, see abstract and page 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed invention as a whole because the combined teaching of the references renders the claims as obvious. The references are considered to be analogous art, thus motivation to combine exists. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the primary reference to insert the teaches of the second reference to obtain the hemp seed protein-containing Pickering emulsions based on the aforementioned need in the art and benefits of this product.
Moreover, the Supreme Court pointed out in KSR, “a patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the prior art.” KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. The Court thus reasoned that the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103 "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the “inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 1741. The Court further advised that “[a] person of ordinary skill is…a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation.” Id. at 1742. Therefore, the claimed invention was obvious to make and use at the time the invention was made and was prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
12. No claims are presently allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOPE A ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-0957. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5pm on Monday to Friday.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached on (408) 918-7584. 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.
/HOPE A ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652