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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8 and 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.
Claim 1: unclear where from ” acquiring a solution containing glycomacropeptide” is acquired, the concentrate or the permeate, in the membrane process.
Claim 3: is the “a glycomacropeptide-containing composition” acquired as a permeate same as or different from the solution containing GMP in claim 1? Antecedents unclear.
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) 1, 3, 4, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamaki et al (US 2021/0017243) in view of Eriksen et al (US 2014/0377439).
Tamaki teaches a process for making GMP as permeate in high concentration (28% or more) with respect to the total solids (working examples). Membrane – see [0070]. Molecular weight cut-off 30,000-100,000, which meets the claim requirements. The process is diafiltration (see the figure and [0127]). The source materials are raw milk [0056] and whey proteins (examples.) Tamaki fails to teach the d50 particle size of the microparticulated whey, and the heat and shear treatment for microparticulation.
However, it is observed that applicant’s claimed invention is disclosed as producing GMP from “MP whey,” and that while GMP is known to be produced from whey [0003] – [0005], “… any technique of separating GMP from the MP whey has not been reported so far.” That is, applicant is essentially applying known methods of making GMP from whey, wherein the whey is micropartiulated.
In a similar art of making GMP product using membrane process etc., Eriksen teaches microparticulating whey protein using heat and controlled shear to obtain the particle sizes as claimed ([0088]-[0090] and the figures. In [0087]-[0090], Eriksen also teaches whey should be subjected to microparticulation to denature the protein and make it ideal for use. Also, Eriksen in [0087] implies that micropaticluated whey is a commonly available source for whey. Therefore, using such whey for producing GMP would have been prima facie obvious.
Removing lactose, minerals, etc. as claimed – see [0087] of Tamaki.
Food additive – [0004].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISHNAN S MENON whose telephone number is (571)272-1143. The examiner can normally be reached Flexible, but generally Monday-Friday: 8:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/KRISHNAN S MENON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777