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 .
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.
Status of Claims
In response to the correspondence received 2/23/26:
Claims 1 – 9, 13, 14 and 16 - 24 are pending in the application.
Claims 7 – 9 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected inventions.
Claims 19 - 24 are newly added.
Claims 1 – 6, 13 – 14 and 16 - 24 are currently under examination.
Claims 10 - 12 and 15 are cancelled.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) is upheld.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) is upheld.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 and 16 - 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by WO 2017055554 to Morel et al. hereinafter “Morel”.
Morel is directed to compositions based on ground plants and processes for obtaining same and uses thereof (page 1, lines 4 – 6).
Regarding claims 1 – 3 and 18, Morel teaches a process for making ground plant meal where rapeseed meal processed by a hot pressure step of preheating the rapeseed up to 90 C and then followed by grinding the seeds and pressing in a screw press where the temperature reaches up to 120C (Example 1). The plant meal is formed after the grinding step. The ground plant meal is then pressed at 120 C. This was interpreted as a heating step of at least 100C.
The fat containing meal has 12 – 14% residual oil. In the final step of the process the ground plant meal is extracted with organic solvents and then dried to 10 to 12 % moisture and 1 – 2 % residual oil (Example 1).
The ground plant meal (defatted with organic solvent) from Example 1 was used in Example 3. The ground plant meal (ground rapeseed meal) was combined with a urea water solution and mixed (Example 3, page 23) until homogeneous. The quantity of ground plant meal added was 25 % w/w. This homogeneous suspension is then mixed with a urea formaldehyde resin (water soluble reactive prepolymer) and stirred for 2 – 3 minutes to forma an adhesive composition (page 23, lines 15 – 35).
As to claim 4, Morel discloses that the dry plant meal comprises 20 – 26 % by weight of protein (page 5, lines 25 – 30).
Regarding claim 5, the ground plant meal has a D50 of preferably 20 and 40 microns (page 9, lines 15 – 20).
As to claim 16, Morel discloses that the rapeseed meal was obtained by the hot pressure step which involves preheating the rapeseeds up to 90C and then grinding of the seed in a screw-press. Morel does not teach or suggest the use of increased pressure in the grinding step.
Regarding claim 17, Morel teaches that the fat containing meal used in Example 1 has 12 – 14% residual oil. In the final step of the process the ground plant meal is extracted with organic solvents and then dried to 10 to 12 % moisture and 1 – 2 % residual oil (Example 1). This is within the claimed range.
As to claims 19 – 24, in the final step of the process the ground plant meal is extracted with organic solvents forming defatted plant meal (Example 1). Plant meal extracted with organic solvents is equivalent to defatted plant meal. The starting material for Example 1 is rapeseed (seed). The defatted rapeseed meal is used in Example 3. Rapeseed is a used to make rapeseed oil therefore the defatted rapeseed meal is a defatted oilseed meal.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017055554 to Morel et al. hereinafter “Morel”.
For the limitations of the independent claim refer to paragraphs 6 – 8 supra.
Regarding claim 6, Morel is silent as to the exact time the plant meal is dried.
With regard to Applicant’s limitations regarding the drying time for the dry plant meal, it is the position of the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would through routine and normal experimentation determine the optimization of these limitations to provide the best effective variable depending on the results desired. Because, Morel teaches drying the ground plant meal at 120C, the Examiner asserts that the drying time is an art recognized result-effective variable. Thus it would be obvious in the optimization process to optimize the drying time of the ground plant material to achieve the desired moisture content. In addition, merely modifying the process conditions such as temperature and concentration is not a patentable modification absent a showing of criticality, since the applicant does not show any unusual and/or unexpected results for the limitation stated (In re Aller, 220 Fo2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note that the prior art provides the same effect desired by the Applicant, the formation of dry plant meal.
As to claims 13 - 14, Morel is silent as to the exact temperature the plant meal is dried.
With regard to Applicant’s limitations regarding the drying temperature for the dry plant meal, it is the position of the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would through routine and normal experimentation determine the optimization of these limitations to provide the best effective variable depending on the results desired. Because, Morel teaches drying the ground plant meal at 120C, the Examiner asserts that the drying process is an art recognized result-effective variable involving time and temperature. Thus it would be obvious in the optimization process to optimize the drying temperature of the ground plant material to achieve the desired moisture content. In addition, merely modifying the process conditions such as temperature and concentration is not a patentable modification absent a showing of criticality, since the applicant does not show any unusual and/or unexpected results for the limitation stated (In re Aller, 220 Fo2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Note that the prior art provides the same effect desired by the Applicant, the formation of dry plant meal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Morel teaches that the meal is not obtained after grinding but after the pressing step. Morel teaches a process for making ground plant meal where rapeseed is processed by a hot pressure step of preheating the rapeseed up to 90 C and then followed by grinding the seeds and pressing in a screw press where the temperature reaches up to 120C (Example 1). The plant meal is formed after the grinding step. The ground plant meal is then pressed at 120 C. This was interpreted as a heating step of at least 100C.
From page 2, lines 15 – 33, Morel describes the following crushing process.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Morel defines “grinding” as obtaining a powder of plants and plant meal (page 10, lines 1 – 2). The preheated seeds introduced to the rolling operation. The step of rolling listing above grinds the seeds into flakes which is equivalent to plant meal or ground plant meal. The ground plant meal is extracted with solvent or a solvent / water mixture to yield defatted plant meal. The defatted plant meal is then using as a filler in the curable composition of Example 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER A. SALAMON whose telephone number is 571-270-3018. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9AM - 6PM.
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, Duane Smith can be reached on 571-272-1166. 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.
PAS 3/19/25
/PETER A SALAMON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights