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
Claims 25-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/18/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 11/6/25 and 12/22/23 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because they do not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification lacks section headings such as “Background of the Invention”.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 17-24 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 1 recites “A process for producing plant seed material” in the preamble, but does not specify which processing step results in the claimed “plant seed material”. It is not clear what processing steps are used to create the claimed “plant seed material’. It is not clear if additional steps are required, or not.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the total protein content of the plant seed material produced in relation to its dry matter is at least 85% of the total protein content of the at least partially deoiled plant seeds provided in relation to their dry matter”. It is not clear what “it” is. It is not clear which two material are being compared. It is not clear if the limitation simply requires retention of at least 85% of the protein, or not.
Claims 17-24 are rejected based off of their dependency of a rejected cl aim.
Claim 24 recites “the total benzaldehyde content of the plant seed material produced in relation to its dry matter is at least 5%, at least 10%, at least 15%, at least 20% or at least 25% of the content of amygdalin and prunasin in the plant seed material produced in relation to its dry matter”. It is not clear what “it” is. It is not clear which two material are being compared. It is not clear if this limitation simply requires the amount of benzaldehyde to be at least 5% of the amount of amygdalin and prunasin, or not. It is not clear which processing step(s) would achieve this property.
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.
Claims 1, 17-19, 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wimmer et al [US 2024/0268412A1].
Wimmer et al teach a method for making a protein preparation from almond seeds (title) by comminuting the almond seeds (paragraph 0024), pressing the comminuted almond seeds to partially de-oil them and form press cake (paragraph 0025), grinding the press cake (paragraph 0029), further solvent extraction of oil with solvent at 30-75C (paragraph 0033, 0036), removing the solvent and drying the seed material under vacuum conditions with two stages of decreasing pressure (paragraph 0043), the drying using temperatures above 100C or 212F (paragraph 0043), the process removing dangerous cyanogenic compounds (paragraph 0046), and the end product having at least 80% by mass protein and less than 95% (paragraph 0049).
Although not explicitly mentioned. the product of Wimmer et al would also inherently possess a total protein content at least 85%, or at least 90%, of the de-oiled plant seeds as it used the same starting materials and processing steps as those claimed by applicant.
Although not explicitly mentioned. the product of Wimmer et al would also inherently possess at least 5% benzaldehyde compared to the amygdalin and prunasin content, as it used the same starting materials and processing steps (particularly grinding/comminution) as those claimed by applicant.
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.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wimmer et al as applied above, and further in view of Franke [US 6,248,910B1].
Wimmer et al teach the above mentioned concepts. Wimmer et al do not explicitly recite the first vacuum stage using a lower temperature (claim 20), and mixing (claim 21). Franke et al teach a method for extracting oil from oil-bearing organic material (title) by use of a moving-bed mixing vessel with a screw (column 6, lines 48-53), oil extraction at temperatures between ambient and 140F (column 7, line 50) and pressures as low as -15” Hg (column 8, line 4), and removal of solvent at vacuum pressures of 0 psig (column 10, line 54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed mixing and lower first temperature into the invention of Wimmer et al, in view of Franke, since both are directed to methods of extracting oil from plant material, since Wimmer et al already included a solvent extraction stage followed by vacuum drying and removal of solvent, since oil extraction systems commonly included a first vacuum extraction stage followed by a second vacuum stage for solvent removal (column 7, line 50; column 8, line 4; column 10, line 54) as shown by Franke, since Wimmer already included vacuum treatment but simply did not mention specific vessels, since Franke also disclosed using a moving-bed mixing vessel with a screw (column 6, lines 48-53), since mixing would have provided better interaction between the solvent and seed material in the system of Wimmer et al, and since the claimed vacuum stage conditions would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the type, quantity, and form of the plant seed material, the desired degree of drying, and/or the type and amount of solvent used in the system of Wimmer et al, in view of Franke.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Weidgenant, Green, Eisner teach methods of processing oil seed material.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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 at 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792