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 Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-10
Claims currently under consideration:
1-10
Currently rejected claims:
1-10
Allowed claims:
None
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 6, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, (S1-2), amend “a daily relative humidity of 80-90%, but 55-65% maintained within 12 hours after each spraying of a chemical agent” to state “maintaining at a relative humidity of 80-90% except for 12 hours after each spraying of a chemical agent, wherein the relative humidity for 12 hours after each spraying of a chemical agent is maintained at 55-65%”;
Claim 1, (S1-3), “keeping a post-ripening process for 15-30 days” should state “keeping the post-ripening process for 15-30 days”;
Claim 1, (S3-1), change “taking an appropriate amount of the mogroside from step (S2) and dissolving same” to “dissolving an appropriate amount of the mogroside from step (S2)”;
Claim 1, (S3-1), change “as an adhesive” to “to obtain an adhesive”;
Claim 6, line 8, “BV” should be “bed volume (BV)”; and
Claim 8, “mogroside V” should be “mogroside”.
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 1-10 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 the limitation “standing the fructus momordicae” in (S1-2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Step (S1-1) recites both harvested and sorted fructus momordicae. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that step (S1-2) is referring to the sorted fructus momordicae.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a relative humidity of 70-80% when reaching the target temperature” in (S1-3). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill would not be appraised to the scope of the claim. One of ordinary skill would not know if the humidity should be maintained a certain period before reaching the target temperature, or if it should be maintained only after reaching the target temperature. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the humidity is 70-80% after the target temperature is achieved.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “extracting the same” in (S2-1). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill would not be appraised to the scope of the claim. It is unclear what “same” is referring to. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the claim states “contacting the crushed, saccharified, and ripened fructus momordicae with water to obtain an extract”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “subjecting a ceramic membrane clear solution” in (S2-3). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the clear solution is the result of step (S2-2) or if it is a different solution. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that (S2-2) recites “subjecting the extract to ceramic membrane microfiltration to obtain a ceramic membrane clear solution” and (S2-3) recites “the ceramic membrane clear solution”.
Claim 1 is recites the limitation “and drying same” in (S3-2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill would not be appraised to the scope of the claim. It is unclear what is subjected to drying. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the claim recites “drying the boiled solution”.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “combining same”, “concentrating same”, and “fermenting same” in (S4-1). These render the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill would not be appraised of the scope of the claim. It’s unclear whether “same” refers to the same composition each time, or if each recitation is merely referring to the result of the previous process step. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that each use of “same” is referring to the resulting solution of the previous process step.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a complete set of nanofiltration membrane equipment”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be appraised to the scope of the claim. It is unclear what is meant by “a complete set”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “subjecting the ceramic membrane clear solution to nanofiltration” in (S5-2). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because both steps (S2-2) and (S5-1) recite a ceramic membrane clear solution. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that claim 1, (S5-2) recites “subjecting the ceramic membrane clear solution of step (S5-2) to nanofiltration”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “while hot” in step (S5-3). This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not specify that the discolored solution would be hot. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the discolored solution is heated prior to adding ethanol.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 6 recites “rinsing same”, desorbing same”, and “feeding same”. It is unclear whether “same” is referring to the same composition each time, or if each recitation of the word “same” is used to refer to the composition obtained in the previous step. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that “same” is used to refer to the composition obtained in the previous step.
Claim 7 is rejected due to dependency on claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “and the like” in line 2. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill would not be appraised to the scope of the claim. It is unclear what resins would be included in “and the like”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the sealed fermentation" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The process of step (S4-1) does not recite that the fermentation is sealed. For the purpose of examination, it is presumed that claim 9 further recites that the fermentation is sealed.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a complete set of nanofiltration membrane equipment”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be appraised to the scope of the claim. It is unclear what is meant by “a complete set”. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the limitation “a complete set” is enough equipment to perform a nanofiltration.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “while hot” in line 4-5. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because the claim does not specify that the discolored solution would be hot. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the discolored solution is heated prior to adding ethanol.
Claim 10 recites “the mother liquor”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the mother liquor”. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that “the mother liquid” refers to the liquid separated from the first crystals.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites “the storage condition is a temperature of 2-6°C and a daily relative humidity of 80-90% but 55-65% maintained within 12 hours after each spraying of chemical agent”, which is already recited in claim 1, (S1-2). Therefore, claim 3 fails to further to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which is depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action. Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) set forth in this office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement for the reason for allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 recites a method for industrially producing mogroside, fructus momordicae sugar/wine and mannitol from fresh fructus momordicae that is distinguished from the prior art.
A close prior art to claim 1 is Long (US 2021/0177022 A1). Long teaches a natural sweetener including mogroside V which includes dissolution, filtration, concentration, and sterilization (Abstract) where the preparation process for mogroside V specifically includes crushing Fructus momordicae, subjecting the crushed Fructus momordicae to extraction with water, performing separation by nanofiltration membrane, decoloration with cation and anion resins, and concentrating with vacuum concentration ([0020]). Long differs from the claimed method because Long does not disclose the freshness-preserving and post-ripening step, preparation of fructus momordicae sugar, preparation of fructus momordicae wine, or preparation of mannitol as recited in claim 1. Further, regarding the preparation of mogroside as claimed, Long does not teach ceramic membrane nanofiltration or spray-drying the concentrated solution.
Another close prior art to claim 1 is Zhang (US 2017/0150745 A1). Zhang teaches a method of purifying mogroside (Abstract). Zhang teaches washing and mashing Siraitia grosvenori (i.e., fructus momordicae), extracting the matter, filtering and concentrating the extract, and eluting the extract through a series of columns backed with microporous resins ([0028]) and that they final product may be spray dried ([0106]). Zhang fails to teach or suggest the freshness-preserving and post-ripening step, preparation of fructus momordicae sugar, preparation of fructus momordicae wine, or preparation of mannitol as recited in claim 1. Additionally, Zhang fails to teach water extracting with water to obtain the extract.
Another close prior art to claim 1 is Li (CN109320400A)(IDS Reference filed 01/18/2024). Li teaches a method for extracting mannitol from mogroside waste comprising nanofiltration of waste liquid, decoloration using a decoloration column, concentration, cooling, and crystalizing, (Abstract). Li fails to teach or suggest the freshness-preserving and post-ripening step, preparation of mogroside, preparation of fructus momordicae sugar, or preparation of fructus momordicae wine as recited in claim 1. Additionally, Li does not teach or suggest that the filtration is microfiltration through a ceramic membrane or adding ethanol while hot to the decolorized solution.
Therefore, in light of the current teachings of the prior art, it would not have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the presently claimed invention. Specifically, the combined requirements of the claimed method – S1, freshness preserving and ripening; S2, preparation of mogroside; S3, preparation of fructus momordicae sugar; S4, preparation of fructus momordicae wine; and S5, preparation of mannitol – cause the claimed method to be non-obvious over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Generally available M-Th 8:00a-5:00p, F 8:00-2:00.
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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793