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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes that all 112 rejections are overcome due to claim amendment.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Caulfield et al (US 2017/0183377 A1) and Crombie (US 2004/0220432 1).
Caulfield teaches a method of producing carotenoids (abstract) from a biomass.
The biomass is distiller’s grains, see p 17.
The process includes adding, monitoring, and adjusting the heat, pressure and time for extraction. See p 16. This is done to optimize whatever is wished from the extraction process, see p 28-29. The amount of feedstock used increase the amount of product yield.
The solvents used include water and other solvents such as alcohols, see p 14,20. The product is subject to further refinement such as separation, fractionalization, and centrifugal force. See p 34-38.
Caulfield does not specifically state that the water is supercritical, that is being liquid at a temperature above its atmospheric boiling point.
Crombie teaches a method of extraction of carotenoids using supercritical fluids. See abstract. The fluid includes water, see p 33-34 and example p 57. The carotenoids include zeaxanthin.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the supercritical method as found in Crombie in the invention of Caulfield. Caulfield already calls for varying temperature and increased pressure. This has the advantage of being effective for getting carotenoids from plant material, especially zeaxanthin.
In the alternative Crombie is evidence that an obvious variant of the method of increased temperature and pressure to get carotenoids as taught in Caulfield is supercritical water. Caulfield already teaches water as the solvent, and use of increased temperature and pressure.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Caulfield et al (US 2017/0183377 A1) and Crombie (US 2004/0220432 1) and Englert et al (US 2016/0083766 A1).
To see what Caulfield teaches please see above. Caulfield does not specifically state what carotenoids are present in the distiller grain.
Englert teaches a method of producing Carotenoids from distiller’s grain and/or corn. See abstract and p 25. This includes lutein or zeaxanthin. See abstract and P.7.
Englert is used here to show that an obvious variant of the carotenoids production found in the process of Caulfield when using corn or distillers grain is one with lutein and/or zeaxanthin. The carotenoids are present in such feedstocks and the purpose of both inventions is to obtain carotenoids.
In the alternative it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use to process of Caulfield to produce the carotenoids lutein and/or zeaxanthin as found in Englert. The purpose of the process of Caulfield is to produce said carotenoids, and these carotenoids are found in the used feedstock.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANK C CAMPANELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3165. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/FRANCIS C CAMPANELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1771
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights