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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-14 and 18-23 are currently pending and the claims filed on 04/20/2026 are acknowledged.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the Reply filed on 04/20/2026 is acknowledged. By way of applicant’s election, claims 10-14 and 18-23 have been withdrawn from further consideration. Therefore, claims 1-9 are examined on the merits to which the following grounds of rejections are applicable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that ISR found unity of invention across the claims, and the instant application is a national stage application submitted under 35 USC 371, and thus restriction requirement should be withdrawn; and examining all the inexorably linked inventions I-IV would not raise additional search burden.
The Examiner would like to have applicant’s attention to MPEP1893(d): “The examiner may make a lack of unity requirement in a national stage application even if no such requirement was made by the ISA or IPEA”, and that is, the US national phase examination is not bound by ISR determination on unity, and rather it is independent; and thus, examiner needs to make its own search in addition to reviewing ISR. In light of the foregoing, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the Restriction is made Final.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/12/2024 was filed before the mailing date of the instant first action on the merits. The submission thereof is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. It is noted that the foreign references have only been considered to the extent that an English language abstract, translation or statement of relevance has been provided to the examiner. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner, and signed and initialed copy is enclosed herewith.
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 1-9 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.
Claim 1 recites “a) --- h), or i), j)”. However, it is not clear whether the extract is obtained after any of the recited steps a)-h), or whether the applicant intends the method to include either step h) or j) as an alternative final step in addition to steps a)-g) and j). Clarification is requested.
If the applicant intends the latter case, it would be better to rewrite steps h)-j) as follows:
“h) cooling the heated second liquid from step g) to a temperature of 60C or lower, so that a precipitate is formed, or h-1) removing water from the second liquid obtained in step f), so that a precipitate is formed, and
i) removing the precipitation from step h) or h-1), so that a third liquid is obtained.”
In this case, step k) of claim 2 will have to be changed to step j).”
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller K et al. “Functional properties and chemical composition of fractionated brown and yellow linseed meal (Linum usitatassimum L)”, Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 99, no. 4, June 2020, pp. 453-460 (IDS of 04/12/2024).
Applicant claims the below claim 1 filed on 04/20/2026:
PNG
media_image1.png
1021
892
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01);
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02); and Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
Mueller discloses a process for fractionation of defatted linseed meal comprising brown and yellow linseed meal (linum usitatissmum L.) wherein the linseed meal is defatted by cold oil pressing and hexane de-oiling (page 454, left column, first para. and the below Fig. 2 on page 455) which reads on the claimed step a) (instant claim 1 a); the defatted linseed meal was extracted under acidic condition at pH 4.0 and temperature of 15C (the below Fig. 2) which reads on the claimed step c) to obtain a first extraction having first liquid and solid, and the pH 4.0 and 15C overlap the instant range of pH lower than 6 and temperature of 0-20C, and pH was adjusted with HCl. Although this prior art discloses HCl, acidic pH can be adjusted with other types of acetic acid, etc. to lower or adjust pH and the claimed acids are obvious variation. Further, please note that acidic/basic extraction of Mueller implicitly requires water because pH of the acid/base is used/measured in an aqueous solution (instant claim 1 c) and instant claim 3); then centrifuged (the below Fig. 2) which separates the liquid and the solid (the below Fig. 2) which reads on the claimed step d) (instant claim 1 d) and instant claim 5); and then alkaline treatment using NaOH at pH 8.0 and 35C is performed (the below Fig. 2 and page 454, section 2.4). Although temperature 35C of Mueller which exceeds 20C, it would be optimized because 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. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A), and thus, which may read on the claimed step e) to obtain a second extraction having second liquid and solid and the said pH 8.0 overlaps pH higher than 7 (instant claim step e) and instant claim 4); then centrifuged that separates the liquid and the solid (Fig. 2)(instant claim step f) and instant claim 6); then heated at 90C that reads on the claimed heating step and the temperature 90C overlaps the instant range of 80C or higher (Fig. 2)(instant claim 1 g)); then precipitated at 35C which reads on the cooling step h)(Fig. 2)(instant claim 1 h)); or dried by convection oven that reads on the claimed removing water (Fig. 2)(instant claim 1 i)); and then centrifuged (Fig. 2) that removes suspended precipitates from a liquid, which reads on the claimed step j)(instant claim 1 j)); and then spray dried (Fig. 2) which would produces a solid with no or less water (instant claims 2 and 8).
PNG
media_image2.png
791
1045
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In light of the foregoing, instant claims 1-6 and 8 are obvious over Mueller.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller K et al. “Functional properties and chemical composition of fractionated brown and yellow linseed meal (Linum usitatassimum L)”, Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 99, no. 4, June 2020, pp. 453-460 (IDS of 04/12/2024) in view of RU2437552C1 (IDS of 04/12/2024, hereinafter RU ‘552).
However, Mueller does not expressly teach distillation column to perform step 7) of instant claim 7. The deficiency is cured by RU ‘552.
RU ‘552 discloses distillation apparatus for removing water from a solution of flaxseed mucus and wash water mixture wherein the water is removed from distillate column (e.g., page 5 of translation).
It would have been obvious to modify the process of Mueller with removing water from liquid mixture as taught by RU ‘552 because distillation column is useful to separate water from liquid mixture.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mueller K et al. “Functional properties and chemical composition of fractionated brown and yellow linseed meal (Linum usitatassimum L)”, Journal of Food Engineering, vol. 99, no. 4, June 2020, pp. 453-460 (IDS of 04/12/2024) in view of Dzuvor et al., “Bioprocessing of functional ingredients from flaxseed”, Molecules, 2018 Sep 24; 23(10):2444, pages 1-18.
However, Mueller in view of RU ‘552 does not expressly teach the amount of water of instant claim 9. The deficiency is cured by Dzuvor.
Dzuvor discloses water extraction of flaxseed wherein the ratio of water to defatted flaxseed is 10:1 to 20:1 (section 3.2.1 on page 7) which overlaps the instant range of 5 to 20 times (instant clam 9). MPEP 2144.05. Further, such water amount could be optimized depending on the process condition unless there is criticality evidence of the claimed water ranges.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the combined teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the combined references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
All examined claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYUNG S CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Yong (Brian-Yong) S Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/KYUNG S CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYUNG S CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Yong (Brian-Yong) S Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/KYUNG S CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights