DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
When there are drawings, there shall be a “brief description of the several views of the drawings” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.74.).
The section heading “brief description of the several views of the drawings” as set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.74 is missing. Please correct.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The language in the Abstract is not concise and is written as if it is a claim which is exemplified by the reference to mixtures I and II.
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 1-9 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.
The phrase “degreased meal powder” in claim 1, line 4 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the powder has 0% fat/oil or can the powder have 35% or 30% or 10% or 1% fat/oil, just as long as the fat/oil content is less than the raw material. Flaxseed has a relatively high fat/oil content, and the removal of fat/oil can be by expellers and solvent in multiple stages. Thus, the expellers could reduce the fat/oil to 35% or 30% or the expellers and solvent could reduce the fat/oil to less than 1% but not likely 0% as this would be very difficult and costly with no apparent purpose.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bio-enzyme" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "bio-enzyme".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "flaxseed" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the flaxseed".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "above step (2)" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (2)".
The term “rich” in claim 1, line 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rich” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret an amount of fatty acid as rich while another could interpret the same amount as not rich.
The term “high” in claim 1, line 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret a pressure as high while another could interpret the same pressure as not high.
The term “rich” in claim 1, line 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rich” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret an amount of fatty acid as rich while another could interpret the same amount as not rich.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "above step (2)" in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (2)".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the water bath" in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "water bath".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "above step (2)" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (2)".
The term “highly” in claim 1, line 26 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret a protein as highly soluble while another could interpret the same protein as not highly soluble.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the precipitate" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "precipitate".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "above step (2)" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (2)".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the same volume" in line 29. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "same volume".
The phrase “the pH” in Claim 1, line 30 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear what the pH is of.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the alkali extraction solution" in line 31. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "alkali extraction solution".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the high-pressure microfluidization" in lines 37-38. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "high-pressure microfluidization".
The term “high” in claim 1, line 37 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret a pressure as high while another could interpret the same pressure as not high.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the high-pressure microfluidization" in lines 40-41. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "high-pressure microfluidization".
The term “high” in claim 1, line 40 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret a pressure as high while another could interpret the same pressure as not high.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "above step (2)" in line 42. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (2)".
Claim 2 recites the limitation "step (1)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (1)".
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the sieve mesh" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "the sieve mesh".
Claim 3 recites the limitation "step (2)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (2)".
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "temperature".
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the stirring" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the magnetic stirring".
Claim 4 recites the limitation "step (3)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (3)".
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the pressure" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "pressure".
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the air inlet temperature" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "air inlet temperature".
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the spray drying" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "spray drying".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "step (3)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (3)".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the preparation process of the foam" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "preparation process of the foam".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the mass-to-volume ratio" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “mass-to-volume ratio".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "temperature".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the heating" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "heating".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "step (4)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (4)".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the time" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "time".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the power" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "power".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the time" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "time".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "temperature".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "step (5)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (5)".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the preparation process" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "preparation process".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the mass-to-volume ratio" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “mass-to-volume ratio".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the shear rate" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “shear rate".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the pressure" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "pressure".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "step (5)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (5)".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the preparation process" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "preparation process".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the mass-to-volume ratio" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “mass-to-volume ratio".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the shear rate" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “shear rate".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the pressure" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "pressure".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the time" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "time".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "temperature".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the time" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "time".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "step (5)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (5)".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the preparation process" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "preparation process".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the weight parts" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "weight parts".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the raw materials" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "raw materials".
Clarification and/or correction required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 November 2, 2025