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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation "the use" in line 7 should state "a use" as the term “use” is not previously set forth. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “a total fat content" in line 2 should state "the total fat content" as the phrase “total fat content” is previously set forth. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation "step 1)" in lines 1-2 should state "the step 1)" as the phrase “step 1)” is previously set forth. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation "the range" in line 2 should state "a range" as the term “range” is not previously set forth. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-10 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because multiple dependent claims 7-10 depend from other multiple dependent claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
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 5-6 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 “preferably …” in Claim 5, line 3 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether centrifugation is required. Applicant is advised to consider deleting this language.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “40-70”, and the claim also recites “45-70”, “50-65” and “55-60” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Clarification and/or correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jukkola et al., Effect of heat treatment and pH on the efficiency of micro-diafiltration for the separation of native fat globules from cream in butter production, Journal of Membrane Science, Volume 548, 15 February 2018, Pages 99-107.
Regarding claim 1, Jukkola (2018) teaches a method of producing a milk fat globule concentrate (See Abs., p. 100, sections 2.1-2.3.), the method comprising the following steps: 1) providing a milk fat globule-containing dairy liquid (mfl) which is a cream having a total fat content in the range of 10-50% w/w (See p. 100, section 2.1, 40.5 %.), 2) subjecting the mfl to microfiltration (MF) to concentrate the mfl to a total fat content (See p. 100, section 2.2.) wherein the microfiltration involves the use of a ceramic microfiltration membrane, wherein the microfiltration membrane has a pore size in the range of 0.05-1.5 micron (See p. 100, section 2.2, 1.4 microns.), and inherently teaches wherein the microfiltration (MF) to concentrate is in the range of 60-85% w/w since Jukkola’s (2018) starting material with total fat content is the same as claimed and the same microfiltration step with the same pore size is used to concentrate the material to form the same general product that the microfiltration concentrate would also be the same.
Regarding claim 5, Jukkola (2018) teaches wherein the mfl is a cream having a total fat content in the range of 10-50% w/w prepared by concentrating milk fat globules from milk, preferably by centrifugation (See p. 100, section 2.1, 40.5%).
Regarding claim 6, Jukkola (2018) teaches wherein the mfl of step 1) has a temperature in the range of 40-70 degrees C (See p. 100, section 2.2, 50-55 degrees C.).
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
March 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights