OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d). All of the CERTIFIED copies of the priority documents have been received in this national stage application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
Information Disclosure Statement
Note the attached PTO-1449 forms submitted with the Information Disclosure Statements.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84 in view of the following deficiencies that require correction:
Figure 2 should apparently be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Applicant should review the specification and drawing Figures to ensure a proper one-to-one correspondence between the specification and drawings in accordance with MPEP 608.01(g) and 37 CFR 1.84(f). The brief description of the drawings and the descriptive portion of the specification may require revision in accordance with any drawing objections listed herein or those noticed by Applicant during said review.
From MPEP 608.01(g): The reference characters must be properly applied, no single reference character being used for two different parts or for a given part and a modification of such part. See 37 CFR 1.84(p). Every feature specified in the claims must be illustrated, but there should be no superfluous illustrations.
INFORMATION ON HOW TO EFFECT DRAWING CHANGES
Replacement Drawing Sheets
Drawing changes must be made by presenting replacement figures which incorporate the desired changes and which comply with 37 CFR 1.84. An explanation of the changes made must be presented either in the drawing amendments, or remarks, section of the amendment. Any replacement drawing sheet must be identified in the top margin as “Replacement Sheet” (37 CFR 1.121(d)) and include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even though only one figure may be amended. The figure or figure number of the amended drawing(s) must not be labeled as “amended.” If the changes to the drawing figure(s) are not accepted by the examiner, applicant will be notified of any required corrective action in the next Office action. No further drawing submission will be required, unless applicant is notified.
Identifying indicia, if provided, should include the title of the invention, inventor’s name, and application number, or docket number (if any) if an application number has not been assigned to the application. If this information is provided, it must be placed on the front of each sheet and centered within the top margin.
Annotated Drawing Sheets
A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, may be submitted or required by the examiner. The annotated drawing sheets must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Marked-up Drawings” and accompany the replacement sheets.
Timing of Corrections
Applicant is required to submit acceptable corrected drawings within the time period set in the Office action. See 37 CFR 1.85(a). Failure to take corrective action within the set period will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
If corrected drawings are required in a Notice of Allowability (PTOL-37), the new drawings MUST be filed within the THREE MONTH shortened statutory period set for reply in the “Notice of Allowability.” Extensions of time may NOT be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 for filing the corrected drawings after the mailing of a Notice of Allowability.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The substitute abstract is acceptable.
The title is acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
NOTE: Per 37 CFR 1.75(c), dependent claims shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. Accordingly, by definition, any claims that depend from a claim that is deemed indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) will also be considered indefinite and identified in the list of rejected claims above, even if such claims are themselves free of indefiniteness under § 112(b).
In regards to claim 1, it is unclear if "the inlet of the high-speed centrifugal separator" is referring to the same element as "an inlet" of the bowl thus detracting from the clarity of the claims and leading to confusion.
In regards to claims 1 and 11, it is unclear if "a liquid light phase" and claim 11 "a heavy phase" are referring to the same substances as "a separated liquid light phase" in claim 1 and "a separated heavy phase" in claim 1 or referring to other substances thus detracting from the clarity of the claims.
In regards to claims 4, 13 and 17 the following terms lack antecedent basis:
"the concentration of the heavy phase in the light phase" (claim 4); "the counter pressure" (claim 4) when this claim does not depend on claim 2; and "the plant-based raw material" in claims 13, 17, 18, 19, and 20 lacks antecedent basis.
In regards to claims 9, 14 and 15 the following elements are defined with an indefinite article, causing a lack of clarity as to whether they are intended to refer to the same elements previously defined in the claims or additional elements thereto:
"plant-based protein" (claim 9); "low fat raw materials" (claim 14); and "high fat raw materials" (claim 15).
Claim 16 is vague and thus indefinite. The claimed subject matter is directed to the desired result rather than to the combination necessary to achieve that result as described in the description. Specifically, "the plant-based protein suspension and/or solids collected from the centrifugation has/have shear thinning behaviour" is directed toward a desired result rather than a particular method step or the “method of recovering” to achieve this behaviour.
Each pending claim should be thoroughly reviewed such that these and any other informalities are corrected so the claims may particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention, as required by 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
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 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.
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.
The instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id.
From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42.
The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre-KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.
When considering the prior art in its entirety, note Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Although modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006) (citation omitted))). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of the 103 guidance above, claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/120366 A1 in view of TANG (US 2009/0286961 A1).
In regards to claim 1, WO 2020/120366 A1 discloses a method of recovering a concentrated suspension wherein a liquid feed mixture is formed by a mixture of the light phase and the heavy phase and the light phase is a liquid and the heavy phase may be a liquid with a higher density than the light phase; the heavy phase may comprise particles suspended in a liquid, e.g. particles suspended in the liquid forming the light phase; the method comprising providing a suspension comprising suspended particles; providing a high-speed centrifugal separator (202, claim 16) which comprises a frame (250), a drive member (40) and a centrifuge bowl (212), wherein the drive member (40) is configured to rotate the centrifuge bowl in relation to the frame (250) around an axis of rotation (20), and wherein the centrifuge bowl (212) encloses a separation space (88) comprising a stack of separation discs (92), and wherein the centrifuge bowl (212) further comprises an inlet (214) for receiving the protein suspension, a liquid light phase outlet (216) for a separated liquid light phase and a heavy phase outlet (218) for a separated heavy phase, and wherein the heavy phase outlet and/or light phase outlet is arranged in fluid connection with a flow influencing means (224, 234); and wherein the method further comprises feeding the suspension to the inlet of the high-speed centrifugal separator (page 4, line 12, claim 16), separating the suspension into a liquid light phase and a heavy phase (page 4, line 14, claim 16), which comprises the concentrated suspension (page 6, line 36), removing the concentrated suspension as the heavy phase flow through the heavy phase outlet by influencing the flow by means of the flow influencing means (page 4, line 18).
WO ‘366 thus teaches all of the features of Claim 1, except that the concentrated suspension is a concentrated plant-based protein suspension. However, TANG discloses a method of recovering a concentrated plant-based protein suspension (paragraph 9) using a disc-stacked centrifuge (paragraph 52) to produce a plant-based protein concentrate material. TANG relates to protein concentrates and protein isolates as well as processes for their production such as a process for removing fiber from an oilseed meal to produce edible protein products, such as an oilseed meal containing such, to produce protein concentrates and protein isolates of high quality. The process can produce a protein concentrate possessing a protein content of about 70% to about 75% is disclosed. Accordingly, TANG discloses a process for the production of a protein concentrate from a defatted or a protein-enriched meal, comprising: forming an extract and a washed defatted or protein-enriched meal and separating the extract from the washed defatted or protein-enriched meal; and optionally desolventizing the washed defatted or protein-enriched meal to form a protein concentrate.
The defatted or protein-enriched meal comprises a canola, rapeseed, mustard seed, broccoli seed, flax seed, cotton seed, hemp seed, safflower seed, sesame seed or soybean meal. In a further embodiment, the protein-enriched meal comprises a canola meal. In an embodiment, the protein-enriched meal comprises a soybean meal. In another embodiment, the protein-enriched meal comprises mustard seed meal. In a further embodiment, the protein-enriched meal comprises flax seed meal. In a further embodiment, the mixture is centrifuged centrifuge at a speed of about 1,400 to about 1,600 rpm. In an embodiment, the mixture is centrifuged using a decanter centrifuge.
In another embodiment, the first protein slurry is centrifuged, optionally using a disc stack centrifuge, to separate the protein solids fraction from the soluble protein fraction. In a further embodiment, the first protein slurry is centrifuged at a speed of about 4,000 rpm to about 8,000 rpm. In a further embodiment, the first protein slurry is centrifuged at a speed of about 6,500 to about 7,500 rpm.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed the concentrated suspension as a concentrated plant-based protein suspension as taught by TANG in the recovery method of WO ‘366 for the purposes of producing a higher volume of plant-protein concentrate while avoiding excess sediment build-up via a disk stack and/or a decanter type centrifuge per at least [0002] - [0019], [0135], [0136].
In regards to claim 2, WO 2020/120366 A1 discloses the step of influencing the flow through the heavy phase outlet comprises adjusting counter pressure of the heavy phase at the heavy phase outlet with respect to the liquid light phase outlet, or vice versa (page 6, line 10), and wherein the flow influencing means is a flow regulating means comprising a valve (page 6, line 5).
In regards to claim 3: wherein the influencing of the flow through the heavy phase outlet 218 comprises passively regulating the flow by a passive flow regulator 234 at the heavy phase outlet.
In regards to claim 4, WO 2020/120366 A1 discloses the method further comprises measuring at least one parameter of the removed heavy phase and/or liquid light phase (page 10, line 4), wherein said parameter is related to the concentration of the heavy phase in the light phase, or vice versa (page 10 line 9); and adjusting the counter pressure of the heavy phase outlet with respect to the liquid light phase outlet, or vice versa, based on the parameter related to the concentration (page 10, line 14).
In regards to claim 5, TANG discloses concentrating the plant-based protein suspension in at least two sequential centrifugal separation steps, wherein one of the two centrifugal separation steps is performed in a decanter centrifuge (see figure 9).
In regards to claim 6, TANG discloses a first step of the centrifugal separation is performed in the high-speed centrifugal separator and a second step is performed in the decanter centrifuge (see figure 20).
In regards to claim 7, TANG discloses a first step of the centrifugal separation is performed in the decanter centrifuge and a second step is performed in the high-speed centrifugal separator (see figure 9).
In regards to claim 8, TANG discloses wherein the plant-based protein suspension is provided by dissolving a plant-based protein (paragraph 37) and by precipitating the dissolved protein to provide the plant-based protein suspension (paragraph 41-43).
In regards to claim 9, TANG discloses plant-based protein is dissolved by adding an alkali to a ground plant-based meal (paragraph 49).
In regards to claim 10 TANG discloses the plant-based protein is precipitated by adding an acid or an organic solvent, such as ethanol, to the dissolved plant-based protein (paragraph 26).
In regards to claim 11, TANG disclose salt as optional (paragraph 9, 111).
In regards to claim 12, WO 2020/120366 A1 discloses the high-speed centrifugal separator in the step of separating is hermetically sealed (page 3, line 31).
In regards to claim 13, TANG discloses the plant-based raw material for the suspension comprising plant-based proteins comprises low-fat or high-fat plant-based raw materials, such as legumes, oilseeds or cereals (paragraph 6).
In regards to claim 14, TANG discloses the plant-based raw material comprises low fat raw materials comprising legumes, such as yellow peas, fava beans, mung beans, lentils, chickpeas, or combinations thereof. (Tables 28, 29 and 30).
In regards to claims 15, 18 and 20, TANG discloses the recited plant-based raw materials in paragraphs 6, 19, 46, 68, 101, 119, 332, 611.
In regards to claim 16, WO 2020/120366 A1 discloses the plant-based protein suspension and/or solids collected from the centrifugation has/have shear thinning behaviour (page 2, lines 9; page 15, lines 19-21).
In regards to claim 17, TANG discloses de-oiling the plant- based raw material before providing the plant-based protein suspension comprising the suspended protein particles (paragraph 4).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the prior art to WO 2020/120366 A1 in view of TANG (US 2009/0286961 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of CN 112024133.
Said prior art does not disclose the recited materials in new claim 19. CN discloses, per the machine translation, bean product production technology field utilizing a high speed centrifuge for producing low purine bean product by fresh bean dregs, comprising a bottom plate; the left and right two sides of the top part of the bottom plate are fixedly connected with a vertical plate; the two vertical plates are fixedly connected with a top plate; the top part of the top plate is fixedly connected with a blanking hopper passing through the top plate and extending to the bottom of the top plate; one side opposite to the two vertical plates is fixedly connected with an electric push rod located at the bottom of the top plate. The high speed centrifuge for producing low purine bean product by fresh bean dregs, solves the problem that the process of preparing low purine bean product needs to firstly add proper water washing and panning the bean dregs and dehydrate by high speed centrifuge. CN ‘133 thus relates to bean product production technology field, specifically to a high speed centrifuge for producing low purine bean product by fresh bean dregs wherein the bean product is soybean, adzuki bean, green bean, pea; broad bean and so on as the main raw material; the processed food; most bean product is bean curd and re-product obtained by solidifying soybean milk; the bean dregs is by-product in the process of producing soybean milk or bean curd; it has protein, fat, calcium, phosphorus, iron and other nutrient substances.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have employed one or more of the recited raw materials of new claim 19 in the method of said prior art as taught by CN ‘133 for the purposes of producing a concentrated plant-based protein suspension based upon peas and/or beans.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art discloses analogous centrifugal methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1774
DATED: 17 JULY 2026
Prosecution Insights