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 .
The claims sets filed October 20, 2023 are acknowledged. Claims 16-34 are pending in the application. Claims 27-31 and 34 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-15 have been cancelled.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 16-26 and 32-33, in the reply filed on November 18, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 27-31 and 34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 22 at line 1, it is suggested to delete “(7)” after “product” and before “is”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-26 and 32-33 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.
Independent claim 16 recites “the steps” at line 4. This recitation lacks antecedent basis as steps have not been previously recited in the claim. Therefore, the scope of claim 16 is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “comprising the steps of” at line 4 of claim 16 (emphasis added) is interpreted as “comprises” (emphasis added), and the recitation of “wherein the step (a)” at line 10 of claim 16 (emphasis added) is interpreted as “wherein step (a)”.
Claim 17 recites “said vegetable waste material” at line 3, and this claim depends upon claim 16. This recitation lacks antecedent basis since vegetable waste material has not been previously recited. Therefore, the scope of claim 17 is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “said vegetable waste material” at line 3 of claim 17 (emphasis added) is interpreted as “said vegetal waste material” (emphasis added) (see line 1 of claim 17).
Claim 18 is not specifically discussed but is rejected due to its dependence on claim 16.
Claim 19 recites “other residuals” at line 4. It is unclear what is encompassed by this phrase and what this claim language entails. Therefore, the scope of claim 19 is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “lignin and other residuals” at line 4 of claim 19 (emphasis added) is interpreted as “lignin, pectins, and starch” (emphasis added) (see P16, L37 of the instant specification).
Claims 20-26 and 32-33 are not specifically discussed but are rejected due to their dependence on claim 16.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-26 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. US 20160002483 (hereinafter “Zhao”) in view of Szymanska-Chargot et al. PL233125 (hereinafter “Szymanska-Chargot”).
With respect to claim 16, Zhao teaches a method of coating fresh produce (fruits and vegetables) (Abstract; paragraphs [0002], [0006], and [0013]-[0014]).
Regarding the recitation of “for coating a perishable food product, wherein the perishable food product is a fresh fruit, a fresh vegetable, or a combination thereof” in the preamble of claim 16, it is noted that this recitation is a statement of intended use or field of use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding the claim language of wherein the method comprises: (a) providing a coating composition, and (b) coating said perishable food product with said coating composition to obtain a coated food product, and (c) optionally further assembling said coated food product to obtain a trading unit of said coated food product in claim 16, Zhao teaches providing a coating composition and coating the fresh fruits and/or vegetables with the coating composition (paragraph [0196]).
Regarding the claim language of wherein step (a) comprises: (a.1) providing an agricultural waste material, (a.2) converting said waste material to pomace, (a.3) optionally washing said pomace to obtain a purified pomace, (a.4) bleaching said pomace of (a.2) or (a.3) to obtain bleached pomace, (a.5) fibrillating said bleached pomace to obtain a cellulose nanofiber (CNF) suspension, (a.6) optionally adjusting a viscosity of said CNF suspension, and/or adding an additional additive, to obtain the coating composition in claim 16, Zhao teaches the coating composition comprises a cellulose nanomaterial, such as cellulose nanofiber, suspension and the cellulose nanomaterial suspension can be prepared by fibrillation of plant fiber with or without chemical pretreatment. Zhao also teaches the properties of the composition, such as viscosity, can be optimized in some embodiments, and an additive can optionally be added (paragraphs [0010], [0151], [0196], and [0230]).
However, Zhao does not expressly disclose providing an agricultural waste material, converting the waste material to a pomace, optionally washing the pomace, bleaching the pomace, and fibrillating the bleached pomace.
Szymanska-Chargot relates to obtaining nanocellulose fibers from fruit and vegetable waste material. The waste material is converted to pomace. The pomace may be washed. The pomace is bleached and fibrillated to obtain a cellulose nanofibrillar suspension (P2, middle; P3, 3rd-4th paragraphs; P4, 1st, 2nd, and 9th paragraphs; and P5, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Szymanska-Chargot, to select providing fruit or vegetable waste material, converting the waste material to a pomace, optionally washing the pomace, bleaching the pomace, and fibrillating the bleached pomace in the method of Zhao with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional coating composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to so because Zhao and Szymanska-Chargot similarly teach preparing cellulose nanofiber suspensions from plant material, Szymanska-Chargot teaches the nanocellulose composition can be used a as packaging membrane material (P2, middle, P4, 1st paragraph; P5, bottom; and P6, bottom), Zhao teaches the cellulose nanomaterial may be prepared using typical methods known in the art, such as by fibrillation of plant fiber with or without chemical pretreatment (paragraph [0151]), and said combination would amount to the use of a known steps for their intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With respect to claim 17, modified Zhao is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 16 as addressed above.
Regarding the claim language of wherein said waste material is vegetal waste material selected from the group consisting of carrots, apples, broccoli and a combination thereof, said vegetal waste material being from fresh or stale and being a whole vegetable or parts thereof in claim 17, modified Zhao teaches this limitation since Zhao as modified by Szymanska-Chargot is relied upon for the teaching of the vegetal waste material as addressed above in claim 16, and Szymanska-Chargot teaches waste left over from processing fruit and vegetables, such as apple waste from juice preparation or carrots, may be used (P3, 3rd and 6th paragraphs; P4, 2nd paragraph; and P5, 2nd paragraph).
With respect to claim 18, modified Zhao is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 16 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein said pomace of (a.2) has a particulate size between 10 and 5000 micrometers; and/or a water content between 25 and 75% in claim 18, Zhao as modified by Szymanska-Chargot does not expressly disclose this limitation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the size and/or water content of the pomace in the method of Zhao as modified by Szymanska-Chargot through routine experimentation with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional coating composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Szymanska-Chargot teaches the obtained nanocellulose material has properties allowing it to easily obtain a membrane with improved properties (P3, 1st paragraph; P4, 1st paragraph; P5, bottom; and P6, bottom), Zhao teaches the cellulose nanomaterial of the coating composition is selected to have suitable structure and suitable chemical properties for use in the coating composition and the cellulose nanomaterial may be prepared using typical methods known in the art (paragraph [0151]), such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component, and it is understood that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
With respect to claim 19, modified Zhao is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 16 as addressed above.
Regarding the claim language of wherein said bleached pomace obtained in (a.4) contains at most 50% of colorants, dyes, pigments, or a combination thereof, when compared to non-bleached pomace; and / or contains at most 50% of lignin, pectins, and starch when compared to non-bleached pomace in claim 19, Zhao as modified by Szymanska-Chargot does not expressly disclose this limitation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the quantity of colorants, dyes, and/or pigments as well as the lignin, pectins, and starch contents in the pomace in the method of Zhao as modified by Szymanska-Chargot through routine experimentation with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional coating composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Szymanska-Chargot teaches the pectin and lignin are removed from the waste material, bleaching of the pomace may be repeated as necessary, and the obtained nanocellulose material has properties allowing it to easily obtain a membrane with improved properties (P3, 1st paragraph; P4, 1st and 2nd paragraphs; P5, 2nd paragraph and bottom; and P6, bottom), Zhao teaches the cellulose nanomaterial of the coating composition is selected to have suitable structure and suitable chemical properties for use in the coating composition and the cellulose nanomaterial may be prepared using typical methods known in the art (paragraph [0151]), and it is understood that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
With respect to claim 20, modified Zhao is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 16 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein said CNF suspension of (a.5) comprises as dispersed phase cellulose nanofibers with diameter between 1-100 nm and an aspect ratio >50 in claim 20, modified Zhao teaches this limitation since Zhao teaches the nanofibers have a width of from about 3 nm to about 300 nm, which overlaps with the presently claimed range, and an aspect ratio greater than 50 (paragraphs [0151] and [0210]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 21, modified Zhao is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 16 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein said coating composition in (a.6) comprises between 0.1 and 3 wt% CNF fibers; and/or has a viscosity between 1 and 200 cP when measured at 25°C using double-gap cylinder geometry in claim 21, Zhao teaches the coating composition comprises from about 0.1 wt% to about 3 wt% of cellulose nanomaterial (paragraph [0071]).
Modified Zhao does not expressly disclose the viscosity of the coating composition. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the viscosity of the coating composition in the method of modified Zhao through routine experimentation with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional coating composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Szymanska-Chargot teaches the obtained nanocellulose material has properties allowing it to easily obtain a membrane with improved properties (P3, 1st paragraph; P4, 1st paragraph; P5, bottom; and P6, bottom) and Zhao teaches the properties of the coating composition, such as viscosity, can be optimized depending upon the application method used (paragraphs [0151] and [0196]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
With respect to claim 22, modified Zhao is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 16 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein said perishable food product is selected from the group consisting of banana, cucumber, salad, mushroom, zucchini, carrot, pepper, and potato in claim 22, modified Zhao teaches this limitation since Zhao teaches fresh produce (fruits and vegetables), such as bananas, may be coated (paragraphs [0002], [0006], [0013]-[0014], and [0196]; and P17, Table 1).
With respect to claim 23, modified Zhao is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 16 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein said step (a.4) is chlorine bleaching, peroxide bleaching, ozone / UV radiation bleaching, enzymatic bleaching process, or a combination thereof in claim 23, modified Zhao teaches this limitation since Zhao as modified by Szymanska-Chargot is relied upon for the teaching of step (a.4) as addressed above in claim 16, and Szymanska-Chargot teaches a chlorine bleaching process (P4, 2nd paragraph; and P5, 2nd paragraph).
With respect to claim 24, modified Zhao is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 16 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein said step (a.5) is homogenization or grinding in claim 24, modified Zhao teaches this limitation since Zhao as modified by Szymanska-Chargot is relied upon for the teaching of step (a.5) as addressed above in claim 16, and Szymanska-Chargot teaches the fibrillating step is homogenization or grinding (P4, 2nd and 4th paragraphs; and P5, 2nd paragraph).
With respect to claim 25, modified Zhao is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 16 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein said step (b) is spray coating, dip coating, casting, or a combination thereof in claim 25, modified Zhao teaches this limitation since Zhao teaches coating the produce by spray coating, dipping, casting, or combinations thereof (paragraphs [0077], [0181], [0196], and [0223]).
With respect to claim 26, modified Zhao is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 16 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein said step (c) comprises grouping together a multitude of coated food products in a package or bundle of predetermined size and/or weight in claim 26, modified Zhao teaches this claim language since claim 26 depends upon claim 16 and step c is optional in claim 16, and Zhao teaches grouping together multiple coated food products in a package of predetermined size and/or weight in some embodiments (paragraphs [0019], [0048], [0049], [0052], [0053], [0060], [0182], [0204], and [0296]; and Figs. 3B, 3C, 3D, 32, 33, 36B, 36C, 37, and 44A).
With respect to claim 32, modified Zhao is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 20 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein said CNF suspension of (a.5) comprises as dispersed phase cellulose nanofibers with diameter between 4-100 nm and an aspect ratio >100 in claim 32, modified Zhao teaches this limitation since Zhao teaches the nanofibers have a width of from about 3 nm to about 300 nm and an aspect ratio greater than 50 (paragraphs [0151] and [0210]). The ranges of Zhao encompass the presently claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 33, modified Zhao is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 32 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein said step (b) is spray coating in claim 33, modified Zhao teaches this limitation since Zhao teaches this limitation since Zhao teaches coating the produce by spray coating (paragraphs [0077], [0181], and [0196]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYNESHA L. MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 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.
/T.L.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793