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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment After Final Office Action filed 7 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-20
Withdrawn claims: 11-13 and 15-16
Previously canceled claims: None
Newly canceled claims: None
Amended claims: 1 and 14
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-10, 14, and 17-20
Currently rejected claims: 1-10, 14, and 17-20
Allowed claims: None
Claim Objections - Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickardt et al. (US 2012/0009287 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 25 July 2025).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Pickardt teaches a process for producing a protein concentrate from oilseeds, said process comprising the successive steps of:
a) providing a press cake from oilseeds, said oilseeds being seeds from a plant of the genus Helianthus, said oilseeds being at least partially dehulled before being pressed – Pickardt teaches a method of obtaining protein preparations from sunflower (i.e., genus Helianthus) seeds with at least the steps of dehulling of the sunflower seeds to a residual hull content of 5% by weight or provision of sunflower seeds with a residual hull content of ≤5% by weight ([0015] – [0018]; see also claim 1). Pickardt teaches mechanical partial deoiling of the dehulled sunflower seeds through pressing to a fat or oil content of the dehulled sunflower seeds in a range between 10 and 35% by weight ([0017]; see also claim 1). The mechanical deoiling is preferably carried out so that a mechanically stable oil cake (i.e., press cake) is obtained ([0020]).
wherein said oilseeds are not extracted with hexane – Although further extraction with hexane may be conducted, Pickardt teaches scCO2 or alcohol as alternatives to hexane ([0033]). Therefore, Pickardt teaches embodiments wherein the oilseeds are not extracted with hexane.
b) washing said press cake by mixing it with a first acidic aqueous solution to obtain an aqueous-washed solid oilseed meal – Pickardt teaches carrying out one or more extraction steps with at least one solvent, through which a defatted flour containing protein is obtained as a protein preparation, whereby at least one of the extraction steps brings about further deoiling of the partially deoiled dehulled sunflower seeds ([0018]; see also claim 1). “Preferably the extraction is carried out with a solvent or a solvent mixture in several extraction stages comprising a combination of at least one lipophilic extraction stage with a lipophilic solvent or solvent mixture and at least one hydrophilic extraction stage with a hydrophilic solvent or solvent mixture” ([0022]). Further regarding the one or more extraction steps, Pickardt teaches:
Preferably further extraction takes place though a combination of at least two extraction solvents of different polarity in such a way that obtained hydrophilic secondary substances are extracted before, with or after the oil. Below, all pure fluids and solutions (e.g. organic solvent or water and aqueous solutions or supercritical gases) and fluid mixtures which can be used for extraction are designated as extraction solvents. At least two changes in polarity are set through the succession of the extraction solvents. This can be set to occur suddenly or continuously through the previously present extraction solvent being mixed with or displaced by the following one. All solvents and mixtures therefore approved in accordance with food legislation can be considered, more particularly water, acids, alcohols, esters, ketones, e.g. acetone, ethers, alkanes such as n-hexane and iso-hexane, the polarity or solubility in water decrease in said sequence (from hydrophilic to lipophilic), as well as supercritical fluids and gases, e.g. scCO.sub.2 (supercritical CO.sub.2), which at the most critical point tends to be lipophilic and the polarity of which can be changed further by further increasing the pressure in the direction of hydrophilic as well as increasing the temperature. ([0044])
Therefore, Pickardt teaches that the extraction may be carried out using aqueous solutions, including acids. Although Pickardt does not provide a specific example wherein the sunflower seed press cake is washed with an acidic aqueous solution, MPEP § 2144.07 states, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support[s] a prima facie obviousness determination”. Since Pickardt discloses extraction of the press cake using solvents including water and acids, it would have been prima facie obvious to select an aqueous acid as the hydrophilic solvent of Pickardt, and thereby achieve washing said press cake by mixing it with a first acidic aqueous solution to obtain an aqueous-washed oilseed meal as claimed.
c) washing said aqueous-washed solid oilseed meal by mixing it with a first alcohol solvent, to obtain a first alcohol-washed solid oilseed meal, wherein said first alcohol solvent is a hydrous or a non-hydrous alcohol and has an alcohol concentration which is above 75% w/w – As indicated by Pickardt in paragraph [0044], the residual oil may be extracted after the extraction of hydrophilic secondary substances, and alcohols are indicated as suitable, more lipophilic solvents than water and acids. Additionally, Pickardt teaches extraction of lipophilic components with a lipophilic solvent up to complete deoiling to a residual oil content of at most 5% using ≥95% alcohol ([0047]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select an alcohol having a concentration ≥95% as the second extraction solvent based on its disclosure as being suitable for the intended purpose of extracting lipophilic components from the sunflower seed meal. In doing so, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive at the claimed step of washing said aqueous-washed solid oilseed meal by mixing it with a first alcohol solvent to obtain a first alcohol-washed solid oilseed meal, wherein said first alcohol solvent is a hydrous or a non-hydrous alcohol and has an alcohol concentration which is above 75% w/w.
d) separating said alcohol-washed solid oilseed meal from said solvent to obtain said protein concentrate – Pickardt teaches, “In addition, the concentration of the extraction solvent in the last extraction stage is preferably increased to such an extent that subsequent drying can take place in a particularly simple and gentle manner.” ([0022]). Where Pickardt teaches subsequent drying, the solvent is necessarily separated from the alcohol-washed solid oilseed meal, as claimed.
Therefore, claims 1 and 6 are rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Pickardt teaches that said oilseeds are kernels in that dehulled sunflower seeds as disclosed in paragraph [0015] and claim 1 are understood to be sunflower seed kernels.
Claim 2 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Pickardt teaches the process of claim 1.
It is noted that the claim language, “wherein said press cake is obtained by cold pressing said oilseeds” does not recite a positive method step, and instead refers to the treatment of the oilseeds during a separate pressing process, the press cake of which is used as the starting material in the claimed method. As such, the recited claim language is a product-by-process limitation.
MPEP § 2113(I) states, “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. ‘[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”, and “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979).”
The claimed method requires providing a press cake from oilseeds. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain whether or not the oilseeds in the press cake had been cold pressed.
Therefore, this feature cannot be given patentable weight in the method as claimed.
Nonetheless, Pickardt teaches, “Pressing the sunflower seeds with a low residual hull content through screw presses, controlling the temperature/cooling to under 80 °C., preferably under 60°, more preferably under 50 °C. In this way Maillard reactions and other protein modifications are reduced, as are reactions of other secondary substances with proteins, e.g. polyphenols.” [0039]. As such, Pickardt teaches that the press cake is obtained by cold pressing the dehulled sunflower seeds.
Claim 3 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Pickardt teaches that step b) of said process is conducted only once, but that the first extraction may be repeated after the second extraction if required ([0048]). Pickardt does not require that the extractions are repeated, but that repetition is optional.
Claim 5 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 7, 19, and 20, Pickardt teaches process of claim 1.
Pickardt further teaches extraction of the press cake with ethanol to produce a protein concentrate ([0165], Table 3-1, No. 5). Pickardt teaches that the aqueous azeotrope (re: claim 19) of ethanol (i.e., 96% w/w) (re: claims 7 and 20) is used in the ethanol extraction of sunflower seed press cake ([0055]). Regarding extraction with ethanol, paragraph [0055] of Pickardt states:
When using aqueous alcohol extraction using the extraction solvent is carried out in several extraction steps, whereby at least in the last transition from one to the next extraction step the alcohol content in the extraction solvent is increased to a maximum, i.e. up to the concentration of the aqueous azeotroph, e.g. 96% (v/v) in the case of ethanol, so that the alcohol concentration in the extraction mixture increases to over 90% (v/v). This allows particularly gentle subsequent drying due to the reduction in the proportion of residual water to be removed, which evaporates more slowly and at a higher temperature than alcohol.
As evidenced by the instant specification, the aqueous azeotrope of ethanol is 96% w/w (p. 9, line 31).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the azeotrope of ethanol (i.e., 96% w/w) as the alcohol solvent in order to facilitate gentle drying of the resulting protein product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention because Pickardt teaches using the claimed ethanol concentration.
Claims 7, 19, and 20 are therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Pickardt teaches that step c) of said process is repeated no more than once in that that Pickardt does not require repeating washing the aqueous-washed solid oilseed meal by mixing it with a first alcohol solvent. Regarding extraction with alcohol, paragraph [0055] of Pickardt states:
When using aqueous alcohol extraction using the extraction solvent is carried out in several extraction steps, whereby at least in the last transition from one to the next extraction step the alcohol content in the extraction solvent is increased to a maximum, i.e. up to the concentration of the aqueous azeotroph, e.g. 96% (v/v) in the case of ethanol, so that the alcohol concentration in the extraction mixture increases to over 90% (v/v). This allows particularly gentle subsequent drying due to the reduction in the proportion of residual water to be removed, which evaporates more slowly and at a higher temperature than alcohol.
Therefore, Pickardt does not require using the same alcohol solvent more than once, and teaches increasing the amount of alcohol when using several alcohol extraction steps.
Claim 8 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Pickardt teaches that said separating step comprises a drying step – As discussed regarding claim 1, Pickardt teaches, “In addition, the concentration of the extraction solvent in the last extraction stage is preferably increased to such an extent that subsequent drying can take place in a particularly simple and gentle manner.” ([0022]).
Pickardt therefore discloses a drying step.
Claim 10 is therefore also rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Pickardt teaches that the oilseeds are from sunflower ([0015]). Pickardt further discloses, “As a starting point preferably edible type sunflower seeds or those that have a light-coloured hull are selected. However, normal and high oleic type sunflower seeds can also be used.” ([0034]). As provided by the instant specification, Heliathus annuus L. is the common sunflower, and almost all of the sunflower oilseed production is from common sunflower (p. 4, lines 22-30). The “normal” sunflower disclosed by Pickardt is considered to be the common sunflower, Heliathus annuus L.
MPEP § 2144.07 states, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support[s] a prima facie obviousness determination”. Since Pickardt discloses that the claimed normal/common sunflower, Heliathus annuus L., is a suitable sunflower species for use in the method, and also discloses that the method can accommodate other types of sunflower seeds, it would have been prima facie obvious to select seeds from a plant of Heliathus annuus L. as claimed.
Claim 17 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Pickardt teaches the process of claim 3.
It is noted that the claim language, “wherein the temperature of the oilseeds during the cold pressing shall be maintained as of 80°C or less” does not recite a positive method step, and instead refers to the treatment of the oilseeds during a separate pressing process, the press cake of which is used as the starting material in the claimed method. As such, the recited claim language is a product-by-process limitation.
MPEP § 2113(I) states, “Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. ‘[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.’ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted).”, and “The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. See, e.g., In re Garnero, 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979).”
The claimed method requires providing a press cake from oilseeds. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain whether or not the oilseeds in the press cake had been cold pressed at 80°C or less.
Therefore, this feature cannot be given patentable weight in the method as claimed.
Nonetheless, Pickardt teaches, “Pressing the sunflower seeds with a low residual hull content through screw presses, controlling the temperature/cooling to under 80 °C, preferably under 60°, more preferably under 50 °C. In this way Maillard reactions and other protein modifications are reduced, as are reactions of other secondary substances with proteins, e.g. polyphenols.” [0039]. As such, Pickardt teaches that “the temperature of the oilseeds during the cold pressing shall be maintained as of 80°C or less” as claimed.
Claim 18 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickardt et al. (US 2012/0009287 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 25 July 2025) in view of van Koningsveld et al. (WO 2002/060273 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 15 March 2023).
Regarding claim 4, Pickardt teaches the process of claim 1.
Pickardt also teaches that the prepared raw material is extracted successively in an extractor with different solvents under such conditions that no or only very little protein is dissolved, which minimizes protein losses ([0035]). Pickardt states, “Surprisingly, in spite of its high proportion of non-protein substances, the protein preparation exhibits properties which are similar to the known protein isolates produced from these raw materials or are even more versatile than these.” ([0024]). Pickardt teaches that the protein preparation preferably has a low fat content ([0028]) and a low content of phytinic ([sic], read phytic) acid, oligosaccharides, and/or phenolic acids ([0029]). Thus, Pickardt teaches that the protein preparations contain residual material from the sunflower press cake after extraction of fat, phytic acid, oligosaccharides, and phenolic compounds, and that to obtain such protein preparations, the protein should not be substantially dissolved/solubilized. Pickardt teaches that the method in accordance with the invention allows gentle production of the preparation in that denaturing of the proteins is permitted in a defined way ([0021]).
Pickardt does not discuss that the pH of acidic wash of step b) is adjusted to range from 4.4 to 5.2.
However, as related to separating phenolic compounds from oilseed proteins, van Koningsveld teaches a method of preparing a protein preparation that is substantially free from phenolic compounds comprising precipitating the protein by bringing the protein source into a mixture of an aqueous medium and at least a water-miscible organic solvent, such that substantially no denaturation of the protein occurs, while the pH of the mixture deviates at most 1 pH value from the isoelectric point of the protein to be isolated (p. 3, lines 4-21). Preferably, the pH of the mixture is as close to the isoelectric point of the proteins to be isolated as possible (p. 4, lines 3-16). For sunflower proteins, van Koningsveld uses a pH of 5 (p. 11, lines 7-9).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Pickardt with the teachings of van Koningsveld to adjust the pH of the acidic wash step to pH 5. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to remove substantially all phenolic compounds from the protein preparation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention in doing so because Pickardt teaches extracting sunflower press cake with an acidic aqueous solution, and van Koningsveld teaches that sunflower protein preparations can be prepared by treating a composition comprising sunflower proteins and phenolic compounds with an acidic aqueous solution at pH 5.
Claim 5 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickardt et al. (US 2012/0009287 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 25 July 2025) in view of Shi et al. (CN 10132695 A, cited on the IDS filed on 15 March 2023).
Regarding claim 9, Pickardt teaches the process of claim 1.
Pickardt teaches that the protein preparation preferably has a low content of phytinic ([sic], read phytic) acid, oligosaccharides, and/or phenolic acids ([0029]). Pickardt teaches that the compositions comprise preferably under 0.5% phenolic acids, determined as chlorogenic acid ([0104]).
Pickardt teaches the required wash with an alcohol solvent of step c) as described regarding claim 1.
Pickardt does not discuss that step c) is carried out at a pH of 6.5 ± 0.2 (i.e., pH 6.3-6.7).
However, Shi teaches removing chlorogenic acid from a sunflower protein solution comprising intermediate liquid to edible alcohol at a ratio of 1:40 and a pH of 3-7 (p. 2, ¶ 6).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Pickardt with the teachings of Shi to adjust the pH of the lipohilic extraction (alcohol wash) step to pH 3-7. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to remove chlorogenic acid from the protein preparation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention in doing so because Pickardt teaches extracting sunflower press cake with an alcohol solution, and Shi teaches that chlorogenic acid can be removed from sunflower protein preparations by treatment with alcohol at a pH of from 3-7. The claimed range of pH 6.3-6.7 lies inside the disclosed range of pH 3-7. In a 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(I).
Claim 9 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickardt et al. (US 2012/0009287 A1, cited on the IDS filed on 25 July 2025) as evidenced by Pickardt 2011 (Pickardt, C., Hager, T., Eisner, P., Carle, R., & Kammerer, D. R. (2011). Isoelectric protein precipitation from mild-acidic extracts of de-oiled sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) press cake. European Food Research and Technology, 233(1), 31-44. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s00217-011-1489-6)
Regarding claim 14, Pickardt teaches a process for producing a protein concentrate from oilseeds, said process comprising the successive steps of:
Providing a press cake from oilseeds, said oilseeds being seeds from a plant of the genus Helianthus, said oilseeds being at least partially dehulled before being pressed – Pickardt teaches a method of obtaining protein preparations from sunflower (i.e., genus Helianthus) seeds with at least the steps of dehulling of the sunflower seeds to a residual hull content of 5% by weight or provision of sunflower seeds with a residual hull content of ≤5% by weight ([0015] – [0018]; see also claim 1). Pickardt teaches mechanical partial deoiling of the dehulled sunflower seeds through pressing to a fat or oil content of the dehulled sunflower seeds in a range between 10 and 35% by weight ([0017]; see also claim 1). The mechanical deoiling is preferably carried out so that a mechanically stable oil cake (i.e., press cake) is obtained ([0020]).
wherein said oilseeds are not extracted with hexane – Although further extraction with hexane may be conducted, Pickardt teaches scCO2 or alcohol as alternatives to hexane ([0033]). Therefore, Pickardt teaches embodiments wherein the oilseeds are not extracted with hexane.
washing said press cake by mixing it with a first solvent to obtain a first solvent-washed solid oilseed meal – Pickardt teaches carrying out one or more extraction steps with at least one solvent, through which a defatted flour containing protein is obtained as a protein preparation, whereby at least one of the extraction steps brings about further deoiling of the partially deoiled dehulled sunflower seeds ([0018]; see also claim 1). In paragraphs [0045] – [0046], Pickardt teaches:
Thus, for example, the following steps can be carried out, whereby the sequence of the hydrophilic and lipophilic steps is preferably selected in such a way that that the overall extraction produces a maximum yield (i.e. at least 90% of the yield achievable with the pure solvent). Extraction of moderately hydrophilic secondary substances, more particularly phenolic acids and aroma substances through alcohol, preferably isopropanol, ethanol or methanol, in a concentration at which the proteins are not dissolved or only to small extent. For this an alcohol concentration of more than 60%, preferably between 60 and 80% is set (v/v concentration of the alcohol in the extraction solvent).
Thus, Pickardt teaches washing said press cake by mixing it with a first solvent (e.g., 60-80% v/v alcohol) to obtain a first solvent-washed solid oilseed meal as claimed. It is noted that Pickardt further discloses a suitable array of solvents of increasing polarity in paragraph [0044].
wherein the phytic acid content thereof is reduced by at least 40% dry matter w/w compared to the one of said press cake, and wherein the total content of phenolic compounds thereof is reduced by at least 30% dry matter w/w compared to the one of said press cake – Pickardt teaches that secondary substances, particularly phenolic acids and aroma substances (i.e. phenolic compounds) are extracted ([0046]). Pickardt also teaches that the final composition comprises preferably under 1% total solids of phytinic ([sic], read phytic) acid ([0102]) and preferably under 0.5% total solids of phenolic acid ([0104]) as undesirable, antinutritive substances ([0101]).
Pickardt does not discuss the amount of phytic acid or phenolic compounds in the press cake.
As evidenced by Pickardt 2011, Phytic acids may be found in sunflower meal in concentrations above 3% (p. 32, col. 1, ¶ 3), and sunflower seeds contain between 1 and 4% phenolic compounds (p. 31, col. 2, ¶ 2). Lacking oil to make up the whole of the seed, the press cake would therefore have greater than 1 – 4% phenolic compounds.
While Pickardt does not provide the amount of phytic acid or phenolic compounds in the press cake, Pickardt does identify these components as undesirable and expresses that the end composition should comprise under 1% phytic acid and under 0.5% phenolic acid. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reduce the amounts of phytic acid and phenolic compounds as much as possible with the solvent wash to levels within the disclosed ranges provided by Pickardt. Given that Pickardt 2011 provides evidence that sunflower meal can comprise above 3% phytic acid and greater than 1-4% phenolic compounds, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in reducing the phytic acid content by at least 40% w/w dry matter (e.g., 3% reduced to 1% is a 67% reduction [((3-1)/3) x 100%]) and the total phenolic compounds by at least 30% w/w dry matter (e.g., 1% reduced to 0.5% is a 50% reduction).
This limitation is therefore rendered obvious.
washing said first solvent-washed solid oilseed meal by mixing it with a second solvent, to obtain a second solvent-washed solid oilseed meal – Continuing the process from paragraphs [0045] – [0046], Pickardt teaches, “Extraction of lipophilic components with a lipophilic solvent up to complete deoiling to a residual oil content of at most 5% (Buchi method according to Caviezel). For example hexane, pure alcohol (≥95%) or scCO2 can be used as lipophilic solvents…” ([0047). Thus, Pickardt teaches washing the washed solid oilseed meal with a second solvent as claimed.
wherein the protein content thereof is increased by at least 15% dry matter w/w compared to the one of the press cake – Pickardt teaches that sunflower seed oil cake pressed using a 5 mm nozzle comprises 37.9 % dry mass (TS) of protein ([0145], Table 2-1). Pickardt teaches that the final composition typically comprises between 50 and 70 % dry mass (TS) of protein ([0097]). At 50% protein, the increase in protein content compared to the protein content of the press cake would be ((50-37.9)/37.9) x 100% = 31.9% dry mass increase in protein content. This amount lies inside the claimed range of at least 15% dry matter.
and wherein the fat content thereof is reduced by at least 50% dry matter w/w compared to the one of the press cake – Pickardt teaches that sunflower seed oil cake pressed using a 5 mm nozzle comprises 35.3 % dry mass (TS) of fat ([0145], Table 2-1). Pickardt teaches that the final composition typically comprises between less than 3% dry mass (TS) of fat ([0099]). At 3% fat, the decrease in fat content compared to the fat content of the press cake would be ((35.3-3)/35.3) x 100% = 91.5% dry mass decrease in fat content. This amount lies inside the claimed range of at least 50% dry matter.
d) separating said alcohol-washed solid oilseed meal from said solvent to obtain said protein concentrate – Pickardt teaches, “In addition, the concentration of the extraction solvent in the last extraction stage is preferably increased to such an extent that subsequent drying can take place in a particularly simple and gentle manner.” ([0022]). Where Pickardt teaches subsequent drying, the solvent is necessarily separated from the alcohol-washed solid oilseed meal, as claimed.
Claim 14 is therefore rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 6, filed 7 July 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-10 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration in light of the interview conducted on 30 June 2026, new grounds of rejection are made as presented hereinabove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights