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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-7 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/29/2026.
Priority
The instant application claims benefit to PCT Application No. PCT/CN2023/072281 (filed on 01/16/2023) and CN202211191416.7 (filed 09/28/2022) and is acknowledged. The instant claims herein are examined using the effective filing date of 09/28/2022 for the basis of any prior art rejections.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04/09/2024 was properly filed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) was considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification refers to the drawings as “Figure’ instead of “FIG.” .
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings recite “Figure” instead of “FIG.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite, inter alia, “Vc”. The term “Vc” should be recited in fully expanded form in the first recitation in the claims before an abbreviation is used (i.e., “vitamin C (VC)”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim interpretation
The claims recite, inter alia, “performing enzymatic hydrolysis treatment. . . to obtain an enzymatic hydrolysis product; performing grinding treatment. . . to obtain a grinding slurry; performing ultrasonic treatment on the grinding slurry to obtain an ultrasonic treatment product; performing centrifugation treatment on the ultrasonic treatment product and collecting the supernatant; performing, using a ceramic membrane, ultrafiltration treatment on the supernatant to obtain a first permeate and a first retentate, the first retentate containing the polysaccharides of Rosa roxburghii Tratt; treating the first permeate with a macroporous adsorption resin to obtain a deastringent liquid of Rosa roxburghii Tratt and a used macroporous adsorption resin; performing, using ethanol solution, elution treatment on the used macroporous adsorption resin, and evaporating and concentrating the eluate, to obtain the polyphenols of Rosa roxburghii Tratt; performing, using a spiral-wound membrane, ultrafiltration treatment on the deastringent liquid of Rosa roxburghii Tratt to obtain a second permeate and a second retentate, the second retentate containing the SOD of Rosa roxburghii Tratt; and performing reverse osmosis treatment on the second permeate to collect a third retentate, the third retentate containing the Vc.” (emphasis added). These limitations have been interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation to encompass an intended result of the positively-recited method steps (see MPEP 2111.04).
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.
First rejection
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (CN 109232487 A; published 01/18/2019; cited in Applicant’s IDS) in view of Zhou et al (CN 108822230 B; published 08/25/2020), Bengbu Dongli Chemical Co. ("Macroporous adsorptive resins" available online 09 Jul 2021, retrieved 17 July 2026 https://www.dongli-chem.com/macroporous-adsorptive-resins-product/), Alfa Laval ("Spiral membranes" retrieved online 17 July 2026; available online sept 10, 2015 https://www.alfalaval.us/products/separation/membranes/spiral-membranes/), and Beuzelin-Ollivier et al (US 20100248315 A1).
Yang teaches an ascorbic method to extract chemical components from Rosa roxburghii rich in polysaccharides, vitamin C, flavones (i.e., polyphenols), and superoxide dismutase (see abstract, paragraph 1, claim 1). Yang teaches enzymatic hydrolysis/digestion, grinding, centrifugation, and ultrafiltration using an ultrafiltration membrane to obtain concentrates and freeze drying at -20 to -40 degrees Celsius (see claims, see also pg. 4).
Yang does not explicitly teach the extraction is from Rosa roxburghii pomace, ultrasonic treatment on the grinding slurry, or elution using an ethanol solution.
However, Zhou teaches polysaccharide extraction from Rosa roxburghii pomace (see abstract, claims). Zhou teaches using 1:15-1:25 g/mL of water is added to the pomace for leaching for 30-40min, the power is 100W, and the extraction temperature is 50-60°C before removal of lipids and proteins, and alcohol precipitation using absolute ethanol to the filtrate and stirring, before collecting the precipitate (see abstract, claim 1, pg. 2-3). Zhou further teaches the method of ultrasonic extraction of prickly pear pomace advantageously allows polysaccharide to be extracted from natural resources, especially active ingredients, which can not only improve the comprehensive utilization of fruit and vegetable resources, but also provide food additives for the development of food additives (see pg. 2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the method of extracting chemical components from Rosa roxburghii of Yang by using Rosa roxburghii pomace as the starting material and including the additional processing steps as taught by Zhou to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Zhou teaches successful extraction of polysaccharides from R. roxburghii pomace to advantageously improve the comprehensive utilization of fruit and vegetable resources, but also provide food additives for the development of food additives.
Neither reference teaches treating with a macroporous adsorption resin to obtain a deastringent liquid.
However, Dongli teaches macroporous adsorptive resins (see title), which are synthetic spherical beads with defined structure, polymer chemistry and high surface area used for purification and selective extraction of target molecules in aqueous solutions (see pg. 1). Dongli teaches the membranes are widely used in environmental protection, food, medicine, and other fields and can selectively adsorb organic matter through physical adsorption (pg. 3). Dongli further teaches the particle size of the resin is 20-60 mesh and the selection of adsorption and desorption conditions directly affects the quality of the adsorption process of macroporous adsorption resin, so various factors should be considered in the whole process to determine the best adsorption and desorption conditions. There are many factors affecting resin adsorption, such as the properties (polarity and molecular size), the properties of loading solvent (solubility of solvent to components, salt concentration and pH value), the concentration loading solution and adsorption water flow rate (see pg. 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the method of extracting chemical components from Rosa roxburghii by including the macroporous adsorptive resin of Dongli to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Dongli explicitly teaches macroporous adsorptive resins can successfully be used in purification and selective extraction of target molecules in aqueous solutions.
None of the reference teach using spiral-wound membrane ultrafiltration to obtain a second permeate and retentate.
However, Alfa Laval teaches spiral membranes can be used to efficiently recover, purify, fractionate or concentrate products in industries such as food, beverage, dairy, biotech/biobased chemicals and pharma (see pg. 1, paragraph 1). Alfa Laval teaches spiral membranes cover a broad spectrum of pore sizes for different separation properties. They are based on a unique construction of polypropylene or polyester support material in a sanitary full-fit design that provides optimum cleaning conditions, are cost-effective, and have excellent chemical and thermal stability (see pg. 2-5).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the method of extracting chemical components from Rosa roxburghii by including the spiral membrane as taught by Alfa Laval to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Alfa Laval explicitly teaches that spiral membranes advantageously can be used to efficiently recover, purify, fractionate or concentrate products in industries such as food, beverage, dairy, biotech/biobased chemicals and pharma with excellent chemical and thermal stability.
None of the reference teach performing reverse osmosis treatment to collect a retentate containing vitamin C.
However, Beuzelin-Ollivier (in a similar field of endeavor) teaches production and isolation of vitamin C from microorganism fermentation products (see title, abstract). Beuzelin-Ollivier teaches various downstream separation and purification methods to harvest vitamin C, including reverse osmosis (see paragraph 0051) that constitutes a convenient means for isolating and purifying vitamin C (see paragraph 0051-52).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the method of extracting chemical components from Rosa roxburghii by including reverse osmosis treatment as taught by Beuzelin-Ollivier to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Beuzelin-Ollivier explicitly teaches reverse osmosis can be advantageously utilized as a convenient means to isolate and purify vitamin C.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou teaches the ultrasonic extraction using a power of 100W for 40 min (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou teaches centrifuging for 20min at 4000r/min (see claim 1).
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Second rejection
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Zhou, Dongli, Alfa Laval and Beuzelin-Ollivier as applied to claim 1 and 4 above, and further in view of Qiu (CN 105061621 B).
As discussed above, the claims were prima facie obvious in view of the combined teachings of the references.
As further discussed above, Yang teaches the use of cellulase for the enzymatic digestion/hydrolysis (see pg. 2, last paragraph, see pg. 3, embodiment 1).
None of the references explicitly teach using pectinase, the hydrolysis solution has a concentration ranging from 0.1% by volume to 0.5%, a solid-liquid ratio of pomace to hydrolysis solution from 1:40 mg/mL to 1:50 mg/mL and soaking is performed at a temperature of 30-40 degrees Celsius for 10-30 minutes.
However, Qiu teaches extraction of polysaccharides from Rosa roxburghii (title, abstract). Qiu teaches using cellulase and pectinase solutions to digest Rosa roxburghii slurry at 50-70 degrees for 30-50 minutes (see claim 1) before ultrasonic treatment, centrifugation, ultrafiltration, alcohol precipitation, and drying (see claim 1, throughout). Qiu teaches the dosage of the enzymes is 0.03-0.04% (see claim 1). Qiu teaches that the recovery rate of Polysaccharides from Rosa roxburghii is 94.1% (see pg. 4, last paragraph). Please note that Qiu does not teach the concentration of hydrolysis solution or the solid-liquid ratio of pomace to hydrolysis solution. However, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP 2144.05).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the method of extracting chemical components from Rosa roxburghii by using the enzymatic hydrolysis solution of Qiu to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Qiu explicitly teaches the use of cellulase and pectinase enzymatic hydrolysis solutions can advantageously effective extraction of polysaccharides from Rosa roxburghii, and significantly improves yield and antioxidant activity of the polysaccharide (see abstract).
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Third rejection
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Zhou, Dongli, Alfa Laval and Beuzelin-Ollivier as applied to claim 1 and 3-4 above, and further in view of Christ SpeedDry Vacuum Concentrators (available online 05/16/2016; retrieved 18 July 2026 from https://kuhner.com/wAssets/docs/download/Prospekte-labEquip/Gefriertrocknung/RVC/Christ_Brosch_RVC_EN-Web_NEU.pdf).
As discussed above, the claims were prima facie obvious in view of the combined teachings of the references.
As further discussed above, Yang teaches freeze drying at -20 to -40 degrees Celsius, and Zhou teaches, e.g., drying for 18-24h (see claim 2).
None of the references explicitly teach the drying is freeze-drying in a cold trap at a temperature ranging from -65 degrees Celsius to -80 degrees Celsius.
However, Christ teaches SpeedDry vacuum concentrators for evaporation, drying, purification, and concentration (see pg. 2, col 1). Christ teaches the use of efficient, high performance cold traps during freeze drying to reduce evaporation times with large sample volumes and that the cold traps can have individually configurable system components including varying temperatures from -50 degrees Celsius to -85 degrees Celsius (see pg. 4). Christ teaches that the cold traps are easily combinable with freeze drying systems (see pg. 4 and 16).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the method of extracting chemical components from Rosa roxburghii by using the cold traps of Christ to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make the modification because Christ advantageously teaches the use of efficient, high performance cold traps during freeze drying reduces evaporation times with large sample volumes and are easily combinable with freeze drying systems.
Accordingly, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
NO CLAIMS ALLOWED.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen G, Kan J. Ultrasound-assisted extraction, characterization, and antioxidant activity in vitro and in vivo of polysaccharides from Chestnut rose (Rosa roxburghii tratt) fruit. J Food Sci Technol. 2018 Mar;55(3):1083-1092: teaches determining optimum conditions for extracting the polysaccharides from Rosa roxburghii Tratt fruit (RRTPs) using ultrasonic-assisted extraction, and the characterization and antioxidant activities of the RRTPs (see abstract, throughout).
Wang (CN 107535787 A): teaches preparation of Rosa roxburghii food products using extraction and vacuum freeze drying processes (see abstract, throughout).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGIANA C REGLAS whose telephone number is (571)270-0995. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00am-2:00pm.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/G.C.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1651
/MELENIE L GORDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1651
Prosecution Insights