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 § 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 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9 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.
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 the instant claims are replete with recitations of broad range/limitation, and also recite narrower statements of the range/limitation, typically using the word, “preferably” to denote the narrower recitation 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.
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) 1-4 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 8,540,908).
The claims are drawn to a process for producing a carotenoid agent by mixing a suspended organic dispersion phase of a carotenoid crystal with a first organic solvent in a spiral coil of a heat exchanger to form a mixed solution, with the carotenoid crystal in the suspended organic phase of the carotenoid crystal being dissolved in the first organic solvent to obtain an oil phase matrix of the carotenoid dissolution solution, and wherein the temperature inside the spiral coil is from 50 to 70°C.
Further limitations include the presence of an antioxidant in the suspending organic dispersion phase of the carotenoid crystal.
Chen et al. teach a method of preparing nano-dispersed high all trans-carotenoid microcapsules. The carotenoids taught by Chen et al. refer to astaxanthin, canthaxanthin, beta-carotene, or lycopene. The antioxidant is vitamin C, sodium L-ascorbate, isoascorbic acid, or sodium D-isoascorbate. A protective colloid is also used, and is selected from gelatin, fish gelatin, or modified starch.
As an example, crystalized astaxanthin and dichloromethane were milled together to form a 20% astaxanthin suspension. The astaxanthin suspension was supplied to the bottom of a dissolving tank, while simultaneously, dichloromethane was preheated to 50°C by a coil pre-heater, and then also supplied to the bottom of the dissolving tank, wherein the temperature is kept at 40°C and a pressure of 0.3 Mpa. The astaxanthin crystal was completely dissolved, resulting in dichloromethane solution with 1% by concentration of astaxanthin. The solution is then supplied to a crystallization device along with ethanol, and nano-dispersed astaxanthin dispersion was obtain at the outlet of the crystallization device. The solvent was removed from the dispersion and a solid content of about 10% is obtained. The astaxanthin ethanol dispersion is fed into a high gravity rotating beater while at the same time a mixed aqueous solution of gelatin and isoascorbic acid is fed into the beater, thereby obtaining a slurry. The slurry is supplied into a spray dryer for drying, and astaxanthin microcapsules are obtained with a 10.3% astaxanthin and 91.7% all trans-isomer (col. 3, line 17 to col. 4, line 65).
The differences between Chen et al. and the present invention are that the reference does not expressly teach the use of a spiral coil heat exchanger, does not teach the aspect ratio of the spiral coil. However, the reference does teach a coil pre-heater, i.e., heat exchanger. The shape of the coil, e.g., spiral, cylindrical, helical, etc., as well as the aspect ratio of the coil, is viewed as a matter of design choice a person having ordinary skill in the art would select based on the particle space constraints within the reaction device being used, and/or based on the heating goals such a person is trying to meet. Therefore, absent a showing of unexpected results afforded by specifically using a spiral coal heat exchanger, with aspect ratios as recited by the claims, the examiner finds that the instant claims are rendered obvious by Chen et al.
Claims 5, 8, and 18-20 are 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. These claims recite further process limitations, including the use of a second antioxidant, and a small molecular carrier. These limitations are not taught or suggested by the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIKARL A WITHERSPOON whose telephone number is (571)272-0649. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 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
Prosecution Insights