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. Status of Claims Claims 34-35, 37, 39-42 and 46 are currently pending Claims 1-5, 8-11, 14-17, 20, 22-23 and 27 are currently withdrawn from consideration Claims 6-7, 12-13, 18-19, 21, 24-26, 28-33, 36, 38, 43-45 and 47-49 are currently canceled Claims 37, 39, 41-42 and 46 are currently amended Claims 34-35, 37, 39-42 and 46 are currently rejected Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group III claims 34-35, 37, 39-42 and 46 in the reply filed on 11/21/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restricted inventions are not independent inventions and that examination of both claimed invention together would not present a ser i ous burden on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This is not found persuasive because the issue as to the meaning and intent regarding “independent and distinct” as used in 35 U.S.C 121 and 37 CFR 1.41 has been adequately addressed in MPEP § 802.01. Therein, it is stated that the legislative intent was to maintain the substantive law on the subject of restriction practice prior to enactment of 35 USC 121. Such practice permitted restriction between distinct, albeit dependent inventions. If the intent had been otherwise, then only the term “independent” would have been used. Thus, restriction between the distinct inventions set forth in this ap plication is proper even though these inventions are clearly related. With regard to applicants allegation that joinder of these distinct inventions would not present a serious burden to the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office, such allegations relied on the unsupported assumption that the search and the examination of both the invention would be coextensive. However, the issues raised in the examination of apparatus claims are divergent from those raised in the examination of process claims. Further, while there may be some overlap in the searches of the two inventions, there is no reason to believe that the searches would be identical. Therefore, based on the additional work involved in searching and examining both distinct inventions together, restriction of the distinct inventions is clearly proper. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Specification Abstract Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure. A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art. If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives. Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts. 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 abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should be on a separate page . A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 26 of the original specification filed on 08/25/2023 states “having undergone pretreatment in pretreatment in vessel 16 ” and instead should state “having undergone pretreatment in pretreatment unit 14 ” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 7-8 state “during desolventizing” and instead should state “during the desolventizing” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 3 states “heats that the” and instead should state “heats the” for further clarity . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line s 2-3 state “heating the desolventized extracted soy material a temperature” and instead should state “ heating the desolventized extracted soy material to a temperature ” for further clarity . Appropriate correction is required. Claim 42 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 state s “during desolventizing . ” and instead should state “during the desolventizing . ” for further clarity. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 34-35, 37, 39-42 and 46 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 34 recites the limitation " an extracted soy material stream;” on line 6. It is unclear and confusing whether Applicant is referring to the same ‘an extracted soy material stream’ as recited on line 4 of claim 34, or a different extracted soy material stream? Claims 35, 37, 39-42 and 46 are also rejected since these claims depend on claim 34. 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 . Claims 34-35, 37, 39-42 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson et al. (U.S. 2018/0273876 A1) (hereinafter “Paulson”) in view of Grimsby (U.S. 4,457,869) (hereinafter “Grimsby”). Regarding Claim 34: Paulson t eaches a method (see FIG. 4) (see paragraphs 6, 9-11, 17, 20-21, 34-35, 37, 43 and 46-50) comprising: conveying a soy material (soy materials such as soy beans and/or protein concentrate) in a conveyance direction through an extractor and conveying a solvent comprising alcohol in a countercurrent direction from the conveyance direction through the extractor (see FIG. 4, an extractor 60) (see paragraphs 46-50 further describing conveying soy materials in one direction through an extractor, and also conveying a solvent comprising alcohol (ethanol, hexane and/or other solvent products) in a countercurrent direction through the extractor ) , thereby generating an extracted soy material stream and a miscella stream (see paragraphs 46-50 further teaching an extractor 60 can contact the received material with a solvent (organic solvent) to generate a miscella stream containing solvent and components extracted from the feed-stock being processed by the extractor ) ; separating the solvent from the miscella stream (see paragraphs 46-50 further teaching an extractor 60 can contact the received material with a solvent (organic solvent) to generate a miscella stream containing solvent and components extracted from the feed-stock being processed by the extractor) , thereby forming an extracted oil stream and an extracted soy material stream (see paragraphs 46-50 further teaching an extractor 60 can contact the received material with a solvent (organic solvent) to generate a miscella stream containing solvent and components extracted from the feed-stock being processed by the extractor) , desolventizing the extracted soy material stream in an absence of added moisture during desolventizing (see FIG. 4, a desolventizer-toaster 62) , thereby forming a recovered solvent stream and a desolventized extracted soy material (see FIG. 4, a desolventizer-toaster 62 further producing a gaseous stream (not illustrated) and a dried product stream 68 which is further fed to dryer-cooler 64, thereby producing a dried and cooled product stream along with a gaseous stream 30 ) (see paragraphs 46-50) ; and deactivating a material in the desolventized extracted soy material (see FIG. 4, a desolventizer-toaster 62 further producing a gaseous stream (not illustrated) and a dried product stream 68 which is further fed to dryer-cooler 64, thereby producing a dried and cooled product stream along with a gaseous stream 30) (see paragraphs 46-50) . Paulson does not explicitly teach deactivating a trypsin inhibitor in the desolventized extracted soy material , as recited in independent claim 34. Grimsby further teaches a similar liquid-solvent extraction system and method including deactivating/reducing a trypsin inhibitor in a desolventized extracted soy material (see Grimsby col. 6 lines 41-68 ). Paulson and Grimsby are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a liquid-solvent extraction system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the extraction system and method of Paulson to further deactivate/reduce a trypsin inhibitor in a desolventized extracted soy material , as taught by Grimsby, in order to further remove any unwanted contaminants in the feed material and for optimization purpose s (see Grimsby col. 6 lines 41-68). Regarding Claim 35: The combination of Paulson in view of Grimsby teaches t he method of claim 34, wherein Paulson further teaches desolventizing the extracted soy material stream comprises desolventizing the extracted soy material stream in a desolventizer that indirectly heats that the extracted soy material stream (see Paulson FIG. 4, a desolventizer-toaster 62 further producing a gaseous stream (not illustrated) and a dried product stream 68 which is further fed to dryer-cooler 64, thereby producing a dried and cooled product stream along with a gaseous stream 30) (see Paulson paragraphs 46-50) . Regarding Claim 37: The combination of Paulson in view of Grimsby teaches t he method of claim 34, wherein Paulson further teaches the extracted soy material stream has a moisture content of less than 2.5 weight percent (see Paulson paragraphs 20-22, 28 and 31) , and desolventizing the extracted soy material stream comprises heating the extracted soy material stream to a temperature greater than 60 degrees Celsius (see Paulson paragraphs 23, 27, 31, 40 and 43) . Regarding Claim 39: The combination of Paulson in view of Grimsby teaches t he method of claim 34, wherein Grimsby further teaches deactivating the trypsin inhibitor in the desolventized extracted soy material comprises heating the desolventized extracted soy material under controlled humidity (see Grimsby col. 6 lines 41-68). Paulson and Grimsby are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a liquid-solvent extraction system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the extraction system and method of Paulson to further deactivate/reduce a trypsin inhibitor in a desolventized extracted soy material , as taught by Grimsby, in order to further remove any unwanted contaminants in the feed material and for optimization purposes (see Grimsby col. 6 lines 41-68). Regarding Claim 40: The combination of Paulson in view of Grimsby teaches t he method of claim 39, wherein Paulson further teaches a humidity ranging from 0.05 grams of water per gram of dry air to 1.0 grams of water per gram of dry air humidity (see Paulson paragraph 31), and Grimsby further teaches deactivating the trypsin inhibitor in the desolventized extracted soy material comprises heating the desolventized extracted soy material to a temperature ranging from 70 degrees Celsius to 125 degrees Celsius for a period of at least 30 minutes (see Grimsby col. 5 lines 7-23) (see Grimsby col. 6 lines 41-68). Paulson and Grimsby are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a liquid-solvent extraction system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the extraction system and method of Paulson to further deactivate/reduce a trypsin inhibitor in a desolventized extracted soy material , as taught by Grimsby, in order to further remove any unwanted contaminants in the feed material and for optimization purposes (see Grimsby col. 5 lines 7-23) (see Grimsby col. 6 lines 41-68). Regarding Claim 41: The combination of Paulson in view of Grimsby teaches t he method of claim 39, wherein Grimsby further teaches deactivating the trypsin inhibitor in the desolventized extracted soy material comprises introducing steam into the desolventized extracted soy material (see Grimsby col. 5 lines 7-23) (see Grimsby col. 6 lines 41-68). Paulson and Grimsby are analogous inventions in the art of teaching a liquid-solvent extraction system and method. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the extraction system and method of Paulson to further deactivate/reduce a trypsin inhibitor in a desolventized extracted soy material , as taught by Grimsby, in order to further remove any unwanted contaminants in the feed material and for optimization purposes (see Grimsby col. 5 lines 7-23) (see Grimsby col. 6 lines 41-68). Regarding Claim 42: The combination of Paulson in view of Grimsby teaches t he method of claim 39, wherein Paulson further teaches heating the desolventized extracted soy material comprises heating the desolventized extracted soy material to a temperature higher than a temperature to which the extracted soy material stream is heated during the desolventizing (see Paulson paragraphs 6, 10, 18, 23, 27, 31, 40, 43 and 49). Regarding Claim 46: The combination of Paulson in view of Grimsby teaches t he method of claim 34, wherein Paulson further teaches the alcohol comprises ethanol (see Paulson FIG. 4, an extractor 60) (see Paulson paragraphs 46-50 further describing conveying soy materials in one direction through an extractor, and also conveying a solvent comprising alcohol (ethanol, hexane and/or other solvent products) in a countercurrent direction through the extractor) . Other Reference Considered Oberg (U.S. 4,075,361) (hereinafter “Oberg”) teaches a process for preparing stable full fat oilseed extract. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AKASH K VARMA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9627 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9-5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7872 . 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. /AKASH K VARMA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773