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 examiner has considered the amendment and response filed by applicants on June 2, 2026. The amendment does not place the claims in condition for allowance. Therefore, the following rejection is being maintained and has been updated to reflect the current pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, and 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over da Silva et al. (Chemical Engineering Research and Design), Zhao et al. (US 10,364,446), and Gayet et al. (US 10,017,444), in combination.
The claims are drawn to a process for preparing vanillin or derivatives thereof, obtained by a biotechnological process, comprising at least one step of separating vanillin or derivatives thereof from vanillyl alcohol or derivatives thereof, by crystallization, wherein the crystallization is performed in a water/alcohol mixture, wherein the amount of alcohol is in the range of between 5% and 35% by mass. Further limitations include at least one step of stabilizing a fermentation must comprising vanillin or derivatives thereof; and obtaining vanillin or derivative thereof having a color in an ethanolic solution at 10% by weight or less than or equal to 150 Hazen.
da Silva et al. teach that vanillin obtained by a biotechnological process, e.g., oxidation of kraft lignin, can be purified using multiple crystallization steps from water-methanol solutions. The vanillin obtained from lignin oxidation may be dissolved in a solvent mixture of water and alcohol, e.g., 40% methanol in water, followed by stirring and cooling to 23 to 25°C to crystallize the vanillin (page 1285, 3rd paragraph). da Silva et al. do not expressly teach that the vanillin is separated from a mixture that comprises vanillyl alcohol or derivatives thereof, stabilizing a fermentation must comprising vanillin or derivatives thereof; and obtaining vanillin or derivative thereof having a color in an ethanolic solution at 10% by weight or less than or equal to 150 Hazen.
Gayet et al. teach a process for the purification of natural vanillin, wherein the vanillin may be produced by a biotechnological process, including fermentation of a microorganism. Gayet et al. further teaches that natural vanillin is typically purified by extraction followed by crystallization. More specifically, the reference teaches that streams at the output of producing natural vanillin also comprises vanillyl alcohol (col. 1, lines 14-44). Gayet et al. also teaches the desirability of natural vanillin having a color, in ethanolic solution at 10% by weight, of less than or equal to 200 Hazen, preferably less than or equal to 100 Hazen (abstract).
Zhao et al. teach the production of vanillin from a biotechnological process, specifically from fermentation of a bacterial strain. The vanillin is extracted, i.e., purified by first filtering the fermented medium using a ceramic membrane to remove any biomass present; further treating the filtrate by ultrafiltration (stabilization step), followed by reverse osmosis (concentration step); the concentrate is then adjusted to pH 5-6 and allowed to cool for crystallization (col. 5, lines 6 to 42).
The instant claims are rendered obvious by the combined reference teachings, as Gayet et al. teach that streams comprising vanillin produced by natural, i.e., biotechnological processes, will also comprise vanillyl alcohol, from which the natural vanillin will be separated from. Gayet et al. also teach the desirability of natural vanillin having a color, in ethanolic solution at 10% by weight, of less than or equal to 200 Hazen. Zhao et al. teach that prior to purifying vanillin by crystallization steps, such as that which is taught by da Silva et al., the solution comprising the natural vanillin resulting from the biotechnological process, may be filtered to remove any biomass present, treated to stabilize the solutions, e.g., by ultrafiltration, and then concentrated using reverse osmosis, all in an effort to obtain a high purity vanillin product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant first argues that da Silva is not related to the purification of vanillin or derivatives obtained from a biotechnical process as specified in claim 1, as da Silva is directed to a process that includes separation of vanillin from Kraft lignin.
The examiner does not find this argument to be persuasive. Kraft lignin is a biological material, as it is a natural polymer extracted from wood. There the process taught by da Silver is a biotechnological process.
Applicant’s second argument is that none of the cited references teach or suggests that the crystallization can be performed in a water/alcohol mixture comprising alcohol in an amount from 5% to 35% as required by claim 1 as amended.
To this, the examiner would like to point out that da Silva teaches that vanillin obtained from lignin oxidation may be dissolved in a solvent mixture of water and alcohol, e.g., 40% methanol in water, followed by stirring and cooling to 23 to 25°C to crystallize the vanillin. While this number is outside of the claimed range, as taught by da Silva, crystallization does occur. A person having ordinary skill in the art would know that too much alcohol would dissolve the vanillin before crystals begin to form, and too much water would force vanillin out of solution due to poor water miscibility, causing separation into two phases before crystals form.
The examiner finds that the claimed limitation of having an alcohol content in an amount from 5% to 35% is obvious, absent unexpected results afforded by this specific range, because a person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to adjust the alcohol content of the aqueous alcohol solvent in an effort to find the water/alcohol mixture that affords optimal crystal growth for the vanillin product.
Newly added claims 13-16 recite a vanillin concentration at the start of crystallization of between 5% and 60% by weight. The examiner would like to point out that Gayet teaches a starting composition of from 5% to 35% vanillin, prior to crystallization.
The examiner contends that the rejection of record has been properly made and therefore has been maintained.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SIKARL A WITHERSPOON whose telephone number is (571)272-0649. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-9pm IFP.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/SIKARL A WITHERSPOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights