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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-4, 12-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/5/26.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the tooth #59 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5-11 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 5 recites “a perforated screen” as well as “at least one perforated screen”. It is not clear if these are the same element or not. It is not clear how many screens are required.
Claim 10 recites “it”. It is not clear what “it” is.
Claim 11 recites “kelp cake comprising 45%-50% iodine”. It is not clear if the cake must be made up of 45-50% iodine (ie a huge increase in iodine content), or whether the cake must simply have 45-50% of the iodine of the starting material (ie a reduction in iodine content).
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.
Claims 5-7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al [US 4,323,007] in view of Koch et al [US 4,475,452].
Hunt et al teach a method for juice extraction (title) by providing kelp (column 2, line 41), adding the kelp to a chamber (Figure 1, #32), moving the kelp inside a perforated screen (Figure 1, #42), pressing the kelp with a thread, shaft, and the screen (Figure 1, #24, 20, 26, 42), and collecting a cake and liquor (Figure 1, #53-54, B, C).
Hunt et al do not explicitly recite a tooth (claim 5), and the cake comprising 45-50% iodine (claim 11).
Koch et al teach a bark processing machine (title) comprising a screw press with teeth which build pressure and press out liquid (Figure 1, #6; column 2, lines 31-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed tooth into the invention of Hunt et al, in view of Koch et al, since both are directed to liquid extraction systems, since Hunt et al already included a screw press, since screw press systems commonly included teeth as shown by Koch et al, since the teeth of Koch et al prevented the material rotating with the screw (column 1, lines 10-13) as shown by Koch et al, and since prevention of material rotation and an increase in pressure would have enabled improved liquid extraction in the system of Hunt et al, in view of Koch et al.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combined system of Hunt et al, in view of Koch et al, would have provided the claimed iodine content in the cake since the combined system of Hunt et al, in view of Koch et al, used the same processing elements as those claimed by applicant, since the separated liquor would be expected to include at least a portion of the iodine content of the initial kelp material, and since the amount of retained iodine in the cake of Hunt et al, in view of Koch et al, would have been achieved during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures based upon factors such as the length of the screw press, the type and form of the initial kelp material, and/or the amount of time and pressure under which the screw press was operated in the combined system of Hunt et al, in view of Koch et al.
In conclusion, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al, in view of Koch et al, as applied above, and further in view of Granstrom et al [US 2024/0225050A1].
Hunt et al and Koch et al teach the abovementioned concepts. Hunt et al do not explicitly recite shredding (claim 8). Granstrom et al teach a method for refining microalgae (title) by pretreatment followed by separation into a liquid and solid phase (Figure 1, Step a-b), and the mechanical pretreatment including shredding (paragraph 0022) to provide better separation (paragraph 0021). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed shredding into the invention of Hunt et al, in view of Granstrom et al, since both are directed to liquid extraction systems, since Hunt et al already included a screw press for kelp, since liquid extraction systems commonly included shredding (paragraph 0022) to provide better separation (paragraph 0021) as shown by Granstrom et al, and since shredding would have enabled better separation of the solids and liquids of the kelp of Hunt et al, in view of Granstrom et al.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al, in view of Koch et al, as applied above, and further in view of Williams [US 4,901,635] and Granstrom et al.
Hunt et al and Koch et al teach the abovementioned concepts. Hunt et al do not explicitly recite steam injection (claim 9), and at least partial cooking (claim 10). Williams teaches a method for separating solids and liquids by use of a screw press with steam injection ports (Figure 1, #3). Granstrom et al further teach a method for refining microalgae (title) by pretreatment followed by separation into a liquid and solid phase (Figure 1, Step a-b), the separation occurring at a temperature up to 80C (paragraph 0028).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed steam injection and partial cooking into the invention of Hunt et al, in view of Granstrom et al and Williams, since all are directed to separation systems, since Hunt et al already included a screw press device for separation of kelp into cake and liquor, since kelp was a common type of algae, since microalgae was commonly separated into cake and liquor at a temperature of up to 80C as shown by Granstrom et al, since a material temperature of 80C would naturally result in at least partial cooking of edible material, since screw press devices commonly included steam injection ports (Figure 1, #3) as shown by Williams, and since the claimed steam injection and partial cooking would enabled better preservation of the cake of Hunt et al by eliminating any bacteria and pathogens present in the kelp.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smaple, Kemper, Schumacher, Burner, Schroder, Bigikocin et al, Whitaker etach methods of separating materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792