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 1,3-14 in the reply filed on 7/16/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-43 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected invention.
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 1,3-14 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.
In claim 1: step b is vague and indefinite. The step recites “ removing ethanol from the canola seed protein-concentrate and water”. However, step a does not set forth that the protein concentrate is extracted. While step a recites “ extracting”, there is no recitation of what is being extracted. Step a is also vague and indefinite in that there is no defining of what is being extracted. Step c is vague and indefinite for the same reason as step b because step a does not set forth that protein concentrate is extracted. Step c is further vague and indefinite in the recitation of “ diluting the sunflower protein concentrate”; it’s no clear what sunflower protein the step is referring to. Step d is vague and indefinite for the same reason at step b. The recitation of “ the wet canola protein concentrate” does not have antecedent basis. In step e, the recitation of “ the wet canola flour protein concentrate” does not have proper antecedent basis and the step has the same problem as step b.
In claim 3, the limitation “ ( hulls separated and removed)” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is intended by the parentheses. Feature in parentheses is not considered part of the claim.
In claim 7, the recitation of “ the protein content” does not have proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 has the same problem as claim 7.
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) 1,3-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickardt et al ( WO 2010096943) in view of Theil ( 2015/0250852) and Wanasundara et al ( CA 2688464).
For claim 1, Pickardt discloses a method of preparing canola protein concentrate. The method comprises the steps of extracting de-oiled, de-solvent canola seed meal with an aqueous alcohol having a content between 60-95 v/v , removing the alcohol and drying the obtained protein. The extraction is carried out at room temperature for 1 hour with stirring and separation of the extract through a filter cloth. Ethanol can be used as the alcohol for extraction. ( see page 5 and the examples)
For claims 3,5, Pickhardt discloses the shells are removed and the canola seed residue is pressed to form canola seed meal. The separation of fractions is obtained through sieving. ( see page 5)
For claims 7-8, Pickhardt discloses in the first example on page 10 that the rapeseed protein concentrate thus obtained has a protein content of more than 55% and the protein can range from 40-70% dry matter. Thus, it’s obvious the de-oiled and desolvent that the canola seed meal used to obtain the protein concentrate has protein content in the same range. ( see pages 10, 8)
For claim 9, the canola seed meal used for the extraction has an oil content of less than 6%. ( see page 5)
Pickardt does not disclose the temperature, pH, the moisture content and using Nutsche filter as in claim 1, the particle size as in claim 4, the use of air classification as in claim 6, the parameters as in claims 10-12,14 and the drying device as in claim 13.
Wanasundara discloses a process of aqueous protein extraction from Brassicaceae oilseeds such as canola. The extraction is carried out at pH of from about 2.5-5. ( see abstract).
Theil teaches to use Nutsche filter to separate liquid fraction of ground plant material/extraction buffer using a Nutsche filter. ( see paragraph 0118)
Pickardt discloses the extraction is done with stirring and separation of the extract through a filter cloth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do the extraction in the Pickardt process in a Nutsche filter as taught in Theil to filter out the desirable protein as an obvious matter of using a known alternative device to carry out the same function. One would have been motivated to use Nutsche filter because it’s a closed system which would prevent cross contamination which would enhance the quality of the product. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to follow the guideline of Wanasundara for the pH to use for the extraction of the protein and to optimize through routine experimentation. Pickardt discloses extracting at room temperature which would have readily suggested to one skilled in the art to perform the process at low temperature because Pickardt wants to avoid denaturation of the protein. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to determine the optimum temperature through routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to vary the extraction time depending on the extent of extract and temperature used. It would have been obvious to one to determine the optimum particle size of the canola meal to give the most efficient extraction and processing. Pickardt discloses drying. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use any known drying device. All the claimed drying techniques are known in the art. It would have been obvious to dry to a moisture content that would give shelf stability to the product. Such parameter can readily be determined by one skilled in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
July 31, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
