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 § 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) 1-9, 11, and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (US 10,364,446) in view of da Silva et al. (Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 2009) . The claims are drawn to a process for purifying a fermentation must obtained via a biotechnological process, comprising biomass and vanillin, or derivatives thereof, in aqueous solution, for the preparation of a crystallized vanillin or derivative thereof, 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 (stabilizing step) , followed by reverse osmosis; the concentrate is then adjusted to pH 5-6 and allowed to cool for crystallization (col. 5, lines 6 to 42). Zhao et al. do not expressly teach a cut-off limit of less than or equal to 100 Da for reverse osmosis, or less than or equal to 400 Da for nanofiltration; however, 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, 3 rd paragraph). da Silva et al. also teach that optimal membrane cut-off used to recover vanillin from lignin/vanillin mixture is dependent on the purity of vanillin in the permeate and the optimal permeate reflux. da Silva et al. teach cut-off values from 1 to 5 kDa , working at 0 to 10 bars (page 1283 to top of 1284 ). In view of the combined reference teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use membrane filters, and selecting the cut-off value or the filter based on the purity of vanillin in the permeate and the optimal permeate reflux, as suggested by da Silva et al. Claim(s) 10, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. in view of da Silva et al. as applied to claim s 1-9, 11, and 13-16 above, and further in view of Gayet et al . (US 10,017,444). The instant claims further limit the process of the present invention, such that the vanillin or derivatives thereof have a color in ethanolic solution at 10% by weight of less than or equal to 150 Hazen . Neither Zhao et al. nor da Silva et al. teach the Hazen color value of the purified vanillin. 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 teach that natural vanillin is typically purified by extraction followed by crystallization . More specifically, the reference 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). Low color vanillin ensures purity, stability, and aesthetic consistency across a wide range of applications. In view of the combined reference teachings, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art using the methods for purifying vanillin taught by Zhao et al. and/or da Silva et al., to provide a vanillin having a low Hazen color value, since, as taught by Gayet et al., 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 is desirable, as it ensures purity, stability, and aesthetic consistency of the purified vanillin product. Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 13-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/550,941 in view of Zhao et al and da Silva et al. Both sets of claims are drawn to a process for purifying a fermentation must to obtain vanillin. The instant claims include nanofiltration or reverse osmosis steps, as well as crystallization. The instant claims do not expressly teach the liquid-liquid extraction or distillation steps recited in the claims of the ‘941 application. However, da Silva et al. teach selecting the cut-off value or the filter based on the purity of vanillin in the permeate and the optimal permeate reflux , and that it is known that vanillin may be separated from a reactant medium by liquid-liquid extraction with suitable solvents. Zhao et al. teach that 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 (stabilizing step), followed by reverse osmosis; the concentrate is then adjusted to pH 5-6 and allowed to cool for crystallization . Therefore, the instant claims are rendered obvious over the claims of the ‘941 application, in view of Zhao et al. and da Silva et al. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SIKARL A WITHERSPOON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0649 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Scarlett Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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