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.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “the processing method controls viscosity of the kelp”. It is not clear if this is the viscosity of the initial kelp material in relation to the pressed out liquid or the retained solids material, or some other interpretation.
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 5-8, 10-11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al [US 4,323,007] in view of Granstrom et al [US 2024/0225050A1], Williams [US 4,901,635], and Sample [US 2009/0022877A1].
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 threads, a shaft, and the screen (Figure 1, #24, 20, 26, 42), and collecting a cake and liquor (Figure 1, #53-54, B, C). It is further noted that the act of pressing and removing liquid from the kelp material would also naturally control the viscosity of both the liquid and retained solids.
Hunt et al do not explicitly recite steam injection (claim 5), shredding (claim 8), at least partial cooking (claim 10), the cake comprising 45-50% iodine (claim 11).
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), the separation occurring at a temperature up to 80C (paragraph 0028), and the mechanical pretreatment including shredding (paragraph 0022) to provide better separation (paragraph 0021).
Williams teaches a method for separating solids and liquids by use of a screw press with steam injection ports (Figure 1, #3).
Sample teaches a method for extraction of liquid from food material by steam injection (Figure 2, B-1), a screw press (Figure 2, P-1), the steam injection causing rupture of cells to provide better extraction (paragraph 0020), and the combination of steam injection with pressing providing a cake with lower moisture content without the need for toxic chemicals used in conventional dewatering systems (paragraph 0026).
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, Sample, and Williams; since all are directed to food 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, since extraction systems commonly provided steam injection causing rupture of cells to provide better extraction (paragraph 0020) and the combination of steam injection with pressing providing a cake with lower moisture content without the need for toxic chemicals in conventional dewatering systems (paragraph 0026) as shown by Sample, and since the claimed steam injection and partial cooking would have also enabled better preservation of the cake of Hunt et al by eliminating any potentially harmful bacteria and pathogens present in the kelp.
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.
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 Sample, Granstrom et al, and Williams, would have provided the claimed reduced iodine content in the cake since the combined system of Hunt, in view of the secondary references, used the same processing elements and steps 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 the secondary references, would have been achieved during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures based upon factors such as the length and dimensions of the screw press, the type and form of the initial kelp material, and/or the amount of time, temperature, and pressure under which the screw press was operated in the combined system of Hunt et al, in view of Sample, Granstrom et al, and Williams.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunt et al, in view of Sample, Williams, and Granstrom et al; as applied above, and further in view of Osborne [US 4,003,837].
Hunt et al, Sample, Williams, and Granstrom et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Hunt et al do not explicitly recite notches on the threads (claim 20). Osborne teaches a self-cleaning strainer (title) comprising a threaded shaft with teeth/notches (Figure 3, #29, 33, 35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed notches into the invention of Hunt et al, in view of Granstrom et al and Osborne, since all are directed to methods of straining and/or dewatering material, since Hunt et al already included a screw press device, since Granstrom et al already included shredding of the material, since strainer systems commonly included a threaded shaft with teeth/notches (Figure 3, #29, 33, 35) as shown by Osborne, since Osborne also disclosed that the teeth/notches acted to break down and cut through the material (column 2, line 14), and since the claimed notches would have enabled better dewatering of the material of Hunt et al by shredding and tearing the material to release more liquid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., controlling viscosity by steam injection, and using steam injection to remove moisture) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim 10 does not explicitly attribute viscosity control to steam injection. Also, Sample teaches the combination of steam injection with pressing providing a cake with lower moisture content without the need for toxic chemicals in conventional dewatering systems (paragraph 0026).
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 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
Prosecution Insights