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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 10/13/25. Claims 1,3,4,6-7 are amended and claims 8-10 are added. Claims 1-10 are pending.
The previous 112 second paragraph is withdrawn due to the amendment. The amendment necessitates new 112 second paragraph rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 8,10 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.
In claim 8, the term “ particularly” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Also, the recitation of “ the peel, the pulp” does not have proper antecedent basis because claim 1 does not set forth any peel or pulp.
In claim 10, the recitation of “ or a mixture thereof” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is intended. If a Markush group is intended the proper language is “ selected from the group consisting of a, b … and c”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp2004519220.
For claims 1,7, Jp220 discloses a pectin hydrolysate. The pectin hydrolysate is obtained from a pectin-containing, particularly of a botanical substance that is treated with enzymes such as pectin lyase and endopolygalacuronase. The pectin hydrolysate contains a mixture of POS including at least 60% galacturonide content, at least 10% galacturonic acid. The plant material is not pretreated chemically. The galacturonide and galacturonic acid is considered a POS because it’s obtained from a pectin containing source. The pectin hydrolysate is a carbohydrate composition and comprising the prebiotic POS. The substrate is treated as described in example 4 ( see paragraphs 0009-0011,0020,0023)
For claims 2,8, Jp220 discloses the plant material includes citrus fruit such as orange peel. ( see paragraph 0025)
For claims 3,6 ,9,10, Jp220 discloses the pectin hydrolysate contains trace amounts of glucose and mannose in addition to mainly monosaccharides of galactose (70%) and arabinose ( 23%). ( see paragraph 0059)
For claim 4, Jp220 discloses the hydrolysate comprises at least 60% of galacturonide content having a degree of polymerization of 2-10. ( see paragraph 0024
Jp220 does not disclose the content of POS, the phenol content and the caloric load as in claim 1, the DP3 content as in claim 4, the phenol content and caloric load as in claim 5 and the POS content as in claim 7.
Jp220 discloses to treat pectin substrate with enzyme as in the instant specification. Thus, it’s obviously inherent phenol, POS , DP3 are formed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate varying content of phenol, DP3 and POS depending on the type of saccharide composition desired. The extent of the content would affect the caloric load and this can vary by varying the reaction time with the enzyme. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to obtain the most optimum composition for different intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues that the starting material in JP 220 structurally differs from the starting material of the invention. The examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no structural parameter defining the plant material other than “ no chemical pretreatment for pectin purification”. Jp220 does not disclose chemical treatment to purify the pectin. The pectin is not isolated from the plant material to be used for the enzyme hydrolysis. Jp 220 discloses pectin or pectin-containing ( paragraph 0009). Example 4 discloses treating dried orange peel with nitric acid but the pectin is not purified from the treatment. The solution containing the peel treated with acid is subjected to the enzyme treatment. Applicant argues the treatment causes over-degradation, formation of monomers and very small fragment. This argument is not supported by factual evidence. Also, even if some fragmented products are present, the claims do not exclude such products.
Applicant further argues that the JP220 method is not expected to contain polyphenols or other antioxidant compounds because using citric pectin typically means that the pectin has been isolated and using orange peel including treatment with acid results in degradation of polyphenols. This argument is not persuasive because it’s not supported by factual evidence. Jp 220 is not limited to just citric pectin. Applicant states that any phenolic compounds formed during acid hydrolysis will preferentially remain in the alcohol phase. This indicates that phenol is present in the peel and Jp 220 does not disclose any precipitation of the pectin when orange peel is used. The instant specification also discloses treatment with high temperature in temperature range of 70-90 degree C for as long as needed. This disclosure clearly indicates that treatment with heat does not affect the polyphenol. Applicant argues the bleaching is performed in a plant material with a reduced particle size but it does not occur in powdered material as in Jp220 and does not occur while acidic hydrolysis but enzymatic hydrolysis occurs afterwards. This argument is not persuasive. The rationale on the reduced particle size is not understood because powder is a reduced particle size. Pages 4-5 of the instant specification discloses the plant material is reduced to particle size of between .1 and 1mm in size, or less than or equal to 1mm or until a powder-like crushed plant material is obtained. Example 4 of Jp discloses particle of about 1-5mm. The plant material disclosed in the specification is even more of a powder material than that disclosed in Jp220. The enzyme treatment in Jp220 is not carried out during the acid treatment. Example 4 discloses that after the acid treatment, the solution is cooled and the pH value is increased by adding NaOH before adding the enzyme.
Applicant further argues that the use of both enzymes suggested by Jp220 will result in pectin fragments of lower molecular weight than if only EPG was used. This resulting molecular structures change both the pectin hydrolysis product composition and their functionalities. This argument is not persuasive. Even if different products such as unsaturated galacturonic acid are generated, the claims do not exclude such product. Jp220 discloses pectinoligosaccharides and galaturonic acid which meet the claimed ingredients.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
December 17, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights