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
The Examiner of record for this Application has changed. The new Examiner of record, Janice Silverman, can be reached at (571)272-2038.
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group III (Claims 25-26, 28-29, and 31-32 ), drawn to a method of making a gelling citrus fiber, the fiber comprising a pectin component and a cellulosic component, in the reply filed 06/22/2026, is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claims 2-7, 10-14, 20-21, 24, 27, 30, 33-36, and 39 are cancelled. Claims 1, 8-9, 15-19, 22-23, and 37-38 are withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected subject matter and non-elected species. The claims corresponding to the elected subject matter are Claims 25-26, 28-29, and 31-32 and are herein acted on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted 12/08/2023, 09/11/2024, are 03/10/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner. The IDS submitted 09/12/2025 does not provide dates for the videos obtained from YouTube. See MPEP 609.04 (a), for guidance on IDS formatting, and Example 18 in MPEP 707.05(e) for video examples.
The Examiner determined the dates for the video publications to be Dec. 14, 2018 for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTpzgYcPVes, and Jan. 22, 2019 for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsp7U72uGaw&t=108s. As such, the Examiner considered this IDS.
Claim Objections
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim has grammatical error in the recitation of “a sample obtained during taken during a de-esterification step”. Correction is requested.
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 25-26, 28-29, and 31-32 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 25 is rejected for indefiniteness as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claim 25 is drawn to a method of making a gelling citrus fiber comprising a pectin component and a cellulosic component. The claim recites a step of recording a measured spectrum and evaluating the spectrum but does not relate how the gelling citrus fiber would be made per se. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claims 26, 28-29, and 31-32 which depend from Claim 25 and do not recite additional steps that clarifies the making process are also rejected. The Examiner notes that while Claim 28 refers to measurement during a chemical reaction, the reaction step is not an active step and therefore does not cure the deficiency of Claim 25. For compact prosecution and prior art search, the Examiner will interpret Claim 25 to comprise a reaction step comprising at least a de-esterification step.
Claim 29 recites “The method of Claim 25 at least during a de-esterification step” which is indefinite because it is unclear what is being referred to by “at least during a de-esterification step”. Claim 25 only recites a recording and evaluation of a spectrum and does not refer to any steps involving reactions.
Claim 32 lacks antecedent basis for “the chemical reaction” because neither Claim 32 nor Claim 25 presently recite a chemical reaction, as already noted supra.
Appropriate corrections are requested.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (WO2019/048715 A1), hereinafter Clark, and in view of Winning et al. (Carbohydrate Research 344 (2009) 1833–1841), hereinafter Winning.
Clark discloses methods of expanding an activated pectin-containing biomass composition, wherein the composition contains pectin and cellulosic fiber (Abstract; Claim 1). Clark teaches "activation" or "activated" refers to treating a starting pectin-containing biomass composition to hydrolyze the protopectin to yield a water-soluble pectin within the biomass and to at least partially fibrillate a portion of the cellulosic fibers into fibrils (p. 9, lines 7-14). The activated pectin-containing biomass composition works well in pectin applications inter alia formation of gels (p. 21, lines 17-27; pp. 22-24, Section D.). The pectin component in the composition of Clark contains >50% degree of methoxylation.
Regarding Claim 25, Clark teaches the preparation of the activated pectin-containing biomass composition using fresh orange peel, which was washed with alcohol, dried, comminuted, and treated with an activating solution ultimately converting the protopectin into pectinaceous material (Example 1). A high methoxy pectin is obtained (Example 1). The cellulosic component is maintained and determines the viscosity of the expanded pectin-containing biomass (Example 9; Table 17).
While Clark teaches viscosity measurements, Clark does not teach evaluating spectrum of the composition.
Winning discloses that the gelling properties of pectins are related to the degree of esterification (DE) and the distribution of the ester groups; Winning studied 31 high-methoxy pectin originating from the same mother citrus pectin and de-esterified, remethylated, and de-esterified again; Winning teaches the use of infrared (IR), Raman, and near infrared (NIR) spectroscopies in determining the DE and distribution patterns of methyl ester groups (Abstract; Section 2.1). FTIR spectra were collected in the range of 4000–550 cm-1.
Regarding Claim 25, Winning teaches development of models for predicting the DE, block de-esterification (B), and random de-esterification (R) of pectins using IR, Raman, and NIR spectra of pectin powders and pectin film, specifically in the range of 1800—650 cm-1 for IR and Raman spectra (Section 3.2; Table 2). Winning pointed to the major peak at 970-870 cm-1 in the IR spectrum which corresponds to the C–O–H and CH3 in-plane bending, which correlates to the DE (Figs. 3a and 6; p. 1838, L. Col., 2nd paragraph; Section 3.5).
PNG
media_image1.png
484
932
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the IR signal intensity decreases according to R-B >B > B-R > R > re-methylated pectin (p. 1840, L. Col., 3rd paragraph; Fig. 8). Winning contemplates that the signal at 1420-1250 cm-1 in the IR spectra in Fig 8 is due to ester group changes in the galacturonic acid chain.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Winning with that of Clark and employ spectroscopy to determine the degree of esterification of the pectin-containing composition of Clark, and use the model of Winning which monitors the signal in the IR spectra, specifically in the range of 1800—650 cm-1 to observe C–O–H and CH3 in-plane bending and ester group changes in the galacturonic acid chain. One would have been motivated to do so to be able to manipulate the desired degree of esterification, e.g. high/low methoxy pectin, in the composition comprising pectin and cellulosic material and achieve the desired gelling property.
Regarding Claim 26, Winning has taught IR spectroscopy as discussed supra.
Regarding Claim 28, Winning has taught re-methylation of citrus pectin and de-esterification, which reads on the de-esterification chemical reaction (Section 2.1) Regarding the recitation in the claim of “wherein the spectrum is measured in a reaction vessel”, this limitation is not given patent weight. Where one performs the measurement does not materially affect the method steps unless Applicant shows that the vessel is also an integral part of the claim. See MPEP 2106.07(a).
Regarding Claims 29 and 31, Winning does not indicate that the de-esterification reaction was terminated, e.g. by heat or pH change, and as such, would be taken to mean that the measurements were obtained during de-esterification (Section 2.1).
Regarding Claim 32, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to develop an integrated operation wherein the conditions or parameters for de-esterification conditions is modified depending on the data obtained, including the IR spectral data, which indicates degree of esterification. One would have been motivated to do so to manipulate the gel quality to desired consistency because %DE correlates to gelling quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Caroço, R. F. ("Model-based Monitoring and Optimization of a Bio-based Process." (2019). PhD. Thesis. Technical University of Denmark.) Caroco teaches integrated operation incorporating FT-NIR, relating that after the quality of the product is determined, model-based optimization is performed (p. 153, 1st paragraph; Fig. 8.1). Caroco presents an optimization scenario for pectins for jam and jelly in terms of the effects of %DE on gel quality (Section 6.1.2). The critical attributes of lime peel are predicted with FT-NIR (p. 166, 1st paragraph; Table 8.1). An operational strategy is developed in combination with NIRS, and quality %DE at the end of extraction can be selected with optimized pH and temperature conditions (Section 8.1; p. 164, 2nd paragraph).
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6 EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. 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.
/JANICE Y SILVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights