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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, and 17-19, and species the combination of ethanol and water, in the reply filed on 12/5/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/5/25.
Claims 1-7, and 17-19 are examined on the merits.
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.
(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, 4-7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gomes et al (Gomes et al, Optimized extraction of polyphenolic antioxidant compounds from Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa) cake and evaluation of the polyphenol profile by HPLC. Journal of the science of food and agriculture (2016 Jun) Vol. 96, No. 8, pp. 2805-14) (DS filed on 8/3/23 by Applicant)).
Gomes et al teach the solid residue (cake) of pressed Brazil nut oil (thus the claimed at least partially deoiled press residue of Bertholletia excelsa seed) has high energy value and contains high levels of nutrients and bioactive compounds, such as polyphenols (thus the claimed compounds). However, little is known about these components in this by-product. Extraction is the first step in investigating the phenolic compounds in Brazil nut cake because extraction conditions might impact the yields of phenolic compounds and antioxidant capacity. The aim of this study was to select the best phenolic compound extraction conditions for Brazil nut cake by using factorial experimental design and to characterize the phenolic compounds in the extract. RESULTS: The optimal extraction of antioxidant phenolic compounds from Brazil nut cake was achieved under the following conditions: ethanol-water (40:60; v/v) (thus the claimed hydroalcoholic solvent, thus claims 1, 4-6 are met); 2.5 min homogenization; and 1 h extraction at 60 °C. The phenolic compound profile of the Brazil nut cake extract using the optimized extraction was determined by high-performance liquid chromatography with photodiode array detection. Six phenolic acids (gallic acid, protocatechuic acid, 2,4-dihydroxybenzoic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, p-coumaric acid and sinapic acid) and one flavonoid ((+)-catechin) were identified, and the contents of the phenolic compounds varied from 70.0 to 421 mg kg(-1) (thus at least 1.5% by weight, thus claim 17 is met) (see Abstract), Gomes et al teach the relative high lipid contents (15%) (thus 15-50%, may vary according to the preference of the customer by the pressing process) (thus claims 1 and 7 are met) in Brazil nut cake in the present study might have limited the extractability of polar phenolic compounds (page 2809, 1“ column, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, the reference is deemed to anticipate the instant claim above.
Claim Rejections –35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gomes et al as applied to claims 1, 4-7, and 17 above.
The teachings of Gomes et al are set forth above and applied as before.
The teachings of Gomes et al do not specifically teach the claimed solids content and residual oil content in claims 2, 18, or 19; or using pressed fresh seeds
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use fresh seeds for pressing since fresh seeds contain higher oil content without deterioration, and it is a general practice to do so.
It would also have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the solid content and oil content of the extract according to the preference of the customers. Determining an appropriate amount of the solid content or oil content is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of the ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention.
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIUWEN MI whose telephone number is (571)272-5984. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anand Desai can be reached on 571-272-0947. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qiuwen Mi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655