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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13, of U.S. Patent No. 12097511.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12097511 teach a process for fractionating a feed mixture having a moisture content from 6% to 8% in U.S. Patent No. 12097511 which falls within the currently claimed range of 0.2 to 11.55% and comprising protein and at least one of starches, soluble fibers and insoluble fibers using a single step, continuous tribo-electrostatic separation process, comprising: a. supplying said feed mixture to a tribo-electrostatic belt separator, said feed mixture comprising pulses, legumes, oilseeds, oilseed meal, fish meal, bone meal, or meat and bone meal (MBM); b. simultaneously charging and separating said feed mixture into at least two subfractions, wherein when said feed mixture comprises pulses, legumes, oilseeds or oilseed meal,
one of the subfractions is enriched in one of protein, starch and fiber and having a composition different than the feed mixture, or wherein when said feed mixture comprises fish meal, bone meal, or meat and bone meal (MBM), one of the subfractions is enriched in protein and having a composition different than the feed mixture, and c. operating the tribo-electrostatic belt separator to fractionate the feed mixture, the tribo-electrostatic belt separator comprising: i. a first electrode and a second electrode arranged on opposite sides of a longitudinal centerline and configured to provide an electric field between the first and second electrodes; ii. at least one first roller disposed at a first end of the separator iii. at least one second roller disposed at a second end of the separator; iv. a continuous belt disposed between the first and second electrodes and supported by the at least one first roller and the at least one second roller; and v. a separation zone defined by the continuous belt, wherein the continuous belt is operated at a belt speed of about 10 to about 25 feet per second in U.S. Patent No. 12097511 which falls within the currently claimed range of 10-65 fps.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 10, the word “sub-fractions” should be changed to “subfractions” to be consistent with the rest of the claims.
Regarding claim 12, “prior to separation” should read “prior to the operating of the tribo-electrostatic belt separator to fractionate” to be consistent with claim 1, which does not specifically recite “separation”.
Regarding claim 17, “pulses (or legumes)” should read “pulses or legumes” since there is no discernable reason why parentheses are placed around “or legumes”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 9-11, 13-14, 15-16, and 18 is/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 6 recites the limitation "the optimum moisture content" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the protein content of one of the subfractions" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, claim 1 states “one of the subfractions is enriched in one of protein, starch and fiber”. Consequently, it is unclear if claim 9 specifically limiting the one subfraction to be enriched in protein. Also, is “one of the subfractions” referring to the one of the subfractions recited in claim 1 or another of the at least two subfractions? Consequently, claim 9 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the protein level" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, claim 1 states “one of the subfractions is enriched in one of protein, starch and fiber”. Consequently, it is unclear if claim 10 specifically limiting the one subfraction to be enriched in protein. Also, is “one of the sub-fractions” referring to the one of the subfractions recited in claim 1 or another of the at least two subfractions? Consequently, claim 10 is rejected as indefinite.
Regarding claim 11, it is unclear if the limitation “the feed mixture can be processed at a rate of anywhere in a range of 1000 to 20,000 kg per hour per meter of electrode width” is simply indicating that the feed mixture is capable of being processed at that rate or is positively reciting a step of processing the feed mixture at the stated rate.
Regarding claim 13, it is unclear if the limitation “an applied voltage can be anywhere in range between 3 kV and 20 kV” is simply indicating that the applied voltage is capable of being at that rate or is positively reciting a step of applying voltage at the stated rate.
Claim 14 is rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, it is unclear if the limitation “the voltage applied can be anywhere in range between 10 and 16 kV” is simply indicating that the voltage is capable of being applied at that rate or is positively reciting a step of applying voltage at the stated rate.
Claims 15 and 16 recite the limitation "the gap.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, it is unclear if the limitation “the gap . . . can be varied” is simply indicating that the gap is capable of being varied or is positively reciting a step of varying the gap between 0.5 and 2.5 cm in claim 15 and between 0.9 and 1.7 cm in claim 16.
Claim 16 is rejected as indefinite as a result of depending upon indefinite claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, it is unclear if “oilseeds and meals” refers to the “oilseeds or oilseed meal” as recited in claim 1 or to some other oilseed and meals.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-10, 12, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush (US 20160236206 A1) in view of Rajabzadeh (US 20150140185 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bush teaches (Paragraph 0011, 0023) a method comprising introducing the particle mixture (feed mixture) to a feed port of the belt separator system, in which the system comprises a first electrode, a second electrode arranged on opposite sides of a longitudinal centerline and configured to provide an electric field between the first and second electrode, a first roller disposed at a first end of the system, a second roller disposed at a second end of the system, a continuous belt disposed between the first and second electrodes and supported by the first roller and the second roller, and a separation zone defined by and between the continuous belt, wherein the belt separator system is a triboelectric counter-current belt-type separator system. Bush further teaches (Paragraph 0024, 0038) the particle mixture (feed mixture) is separated based on triboelectric charging of particles, and embodiments of the disclosure have also been shown to allow for a reduction in the operating belt motor torque of the belt separator apparatus, allowing for separation to occur at narrower electrode gaps and higher voltage gradients, leading to an improvement in separation performance (where the operation of the belt for separation while the electrodes have voltage supplied indicates that charging and separating of the feed mixture occur simultaneously). Additionally, Bush teaches (Paragraph 0004) belt separator systems (BSS) are used to separate the constituents of particle mixtures based on the charging of the different constituents by surface contact (i.e., the triboelectric effect). The separate constituents are understood to comprise at least two subfractions, as separation necessarily produces at least two separate groups of particles. Also, Bush teaches (Paragraph 0004, 0031) the top section of the belt and the bottom section of the belt move in opposite directions at relative velocities from 10 to 100 ft/sec (which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 65 feet per second) and the belt may move at a high speed, for example, about 40 miles an hour (58.7 ft/s).
Bush is silent on the feed mixture having a moisture content from 0.2% to 11.5% and comprising protein and at least one of starches, soluble fibers and insoluble fibers. Bush is further silent on said feed mixture comprising pulses, legumes, oilseeds, oilseed meal, fish meal, bone meal, or meat and bone meal (MBM). Also, Bush is silent on when said feed mixture comprises pulses, legumes, oilseeds or oilseed meal, one of the subfractions is enriched in one of protein, starch and fiber and having a composition different than the feed mixture, or wherein when said feed mixture comprises fish meal, bone meal, or meat and bone meal (MBM), one of the subfractions is enriched in protein and having a composition different than the feed mixture.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0014, 0019) an electrostatic separation process including feeding, tribocharging and separation units, wherein tribo-electrification is used to separate protein-rich particles from starch-rich and fiber-rich fractions (at least two subfractions) in pulses, grains, oilseeds, and dried fruits. Rajabzadeh further teaches (Paragraph 0032, 0033, 0036, 0037) prior to tribo-charging particles sizes are reduced through milling (where an oilseed subjected to milling is understood to be an oilseed meal) and the moisture content of the plant-based resources including pulses, grains, oilseeds used in the process is reduced to below 11% (i.e., 0-11%) in some embodiments (which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.2-11.5%). Additionally, Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0042) the separating apparatus is preferably a chamber in which preferably two electrodes are arranged (first and second electrode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bush to provide a feed mixture having a moisture content from 0.2% to 11.5% and comprising protein starches, and fibers, said feed mixture comprising pulses, legumes, oilseeds, or oilseed meal, and when said feed mixture comprises pulses, legumes, oilseeds or oilseed meal, one of the subfractions is enriched in one of protein, starch and fiber and having a composition different than the feed mixture as taught by Rajabzadeh since both are directed to processes of separating feed mixtures of particles by tribocharging and separating with first and second electrodes, since providing a feed mixture having a moisture content from 0.2% to 11.5% and comprising protein starches, and fibers, said feed mixture comprising pulses, legumes, oilseeds, or oilseed meal, and when said feed mixture comprises pulses, legumes, oilseeds or oilseed meal, one of the subfractions is enriched in one of protein, starch and fiber and having a composition different than the feed mixture is known in the art as shown by Rajabzadeh, since tribo-charging of particles and electrostatic separation allows for dry separation of pulses and oilseeds which offers an improvement over wet fraction processes where wet fractionation processes can result in protein denaturation and loss of solubility, reducing the quality and functionality of the protein ingredients and the generation of large volumes of whey-like acid effluents with relatively high quantities of proteinaceous, which can result in water quality issues (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0003, 0010), since the belt separator system of Bush allows for tribo-charging of the particles and separation via the belt at the same time and location as shown in Figure 1 of Bush, providing an improvement in the separation of particles compared to Rajabzadeh where separate units are required to first charge and then separate the particles as shown by the Tribo gun and Fractionation chamber in Figure 1 of Rajabzadeh, since Rajabzadeh demonstrates that feed material having a moisture content in the range of 0.2% to 11.5% can be successfully separated and since using the belt separator system of Bush results in an improved separation process, improved belt lifetime, reduced failure of the belt and less down time for the separation apparatus (Bush, Paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 2, Bush is silent on the feed mixture being sunflower meal.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0032, 0033) prior to tribo-charging particles sizes are reduced through milling (where an oilseed subjected to milling is understood to be an oilseed meal) and oilseeds may be selected from a group including sunflower.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bush to provide a feed mixture that is sunflower meal as taught by Rajabzadeh since both are directed to processes of separating feed mixtures of particles by tribocharging and separating with first and second electrodes, since providing a feed mixture that is sunflower meal is known in the art as shown by Rajabzadeh, since tribo-charging of particles and electrostatic separation allows for dry separation of oilseed meal including sunflower meal which offers an improvement over wet fraction processes where wet fractionation processes can result in protein denaturation and loss of solubility, reducing the quality and functionality of the protein ingredients and the generation of large volumes of whey-like acid effluents with relatively high quantities of proteinaceous, which can result in water quality issues (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0003, 0010), since the belt separator system of Bush allows for tribo-charging of the particles and separation via the belt at the same time and location as shown in Figure 1 of Bush, providing an improvement in the separation of particles compared to Rajabzadeh where separate units are required to first charge and then separate the particles as shown by the Tribo gun and Fractionation chamber in Figure 1 of Rajabzadeh, and since using the belt separator system of Bush results in an improved separation process, improved belt lifetime, reduced failure of the belt and less down time for the separation apparatus (Bush, Paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 4, Bush is silent on the feed mixture being pea protein concentrate.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0032) pulses are selected from a group including peas. Also, Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0045) separated fractions may be recycled or connected to second separators to further enrich the protein and starch (i.e. protein rich fractions, which would include pea protein rich fractions (pea protein concentrate) may be used as a feed mixture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bush to provide a feed mixture that is pea protein concentrate as taught by Rajabzadeh since both are directed to processes of separating feed mixtures of particles by tribocharging and separating with first and second electrodes, since providing a feed mixture that is pea protein concentrate is known in the art as shown by Rajabzadeh, since tribo-charging of particles and electrostatic separation allows for dry separation of food materials including pea protein concentrate which offers an improvement over wet fraction processes where wet fractionation processes can result in protein denaturation and loss of solubility, reducing the quality and functionality of the protein ingredients and the generation of large volumes of whey-like acid effluents with relatively high quantities of proteinaceous, which can result in water quality issues (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0003, 0010), since the belt separator system of Bush allows for tribo-charging of the particles and separation via the belt at the same time and location as shown in Figure 1 of Bush, providing an improvement in the separation of particles compared to Rajabzadeh where separate units are required to first charge and then separate the particles as shown by the Tribo gun and Fractionation chamber in Figure 1 of Rajabzadeh, and since using the belt separator system of Bush results in an improved separation process, improved belt lifetime, reduced failure of the belt and less down time for the separation apparatus (Bush, Paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 5, Bush is silent on a moisture content of 10-12%.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0032, 0033, 0036) the moisture content of the plant-based resources including pulses, grains, oilseeds used in the process is reduced to below 11% (i.e., 0-11%) in some embodiments (which overlaps with the claimed range of 10-12%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bush to provide a feed mixture having a moisture content from 10% to 12% as taught by Rajabzadeh since both are directed to processes of separating feed mixtures of particles by tribocharging and separating with first and second electrodes, since providing a feed mixture having a moisture content from 10% to 12% is known in the art as shown by Rajabzadeh, since tribo-charging of particles and electrostatic separation allows for dry separation of pulses and oilseeds which offers an improvement over wet fraction processes where wet fractionation processes can result in protein denaturation and loss of solubility, reducing the quality and functionality of the protein ingredients and the generation of large volumes of whey-like acid effluents with relatively high quantities of proteinaceous, which can result in water quality issues (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0003, 0010), since the belt separator system of Bush allows for tribo-charging of the particles and separation via the belt at the same time and location as shown in Figure 1 of Bush, providing an improvement in the separation of particles compared to Rajabzadeh where separate units are required to first charge and then separate the particles as shown by the Tribo gun and Fractionation chamber in Figure 1 of Rajabzadeh, since using the belt separator system of Bush results in an improved separation process, improved belt lifetime, reduced failure of the belt and less down time for the separation apparatus (Bush, Paragraph 0024), since Rajabzadeh demonstrates that feed material having a moisture content in the range of 10% to 12% can be successfully separated, and since some consumers will prefer a food product with a moisture content from 10% to 12% depending upon preferences or requirements in taste, texture, shelf-life, etc.
Regarding claim 6, Bush is silent on the optimum moisture content being determined by experimentation for feed mixtures other than sunflower meal or pea protein concentrate.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0014, 0019) an electrostatic separation process including feeding, tribocharging and separation units, wherein tribo-electrification is used to separate protein-rich particles from starch-rich and fiber-rich fractions (at least two subfractions) in pulses, grains, oilseeds, and dried fruits. Rajabzadeh further teaches (Paragraph 0032) the pulses used in the process can be peas and the oilseeds can be sunflower, but Rajabzadeh also discloses feeds including grains, other pulses including beans and lentils, and other oilseeds including soybean, rapeseed, flaxseed, sesame, mustard, canola, and safflower seed (feed mixtures other than sunflower meal or pea protein concentrate). Additionally, Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0005, 0036) embodiments comprising reducing the moisture content of the fraction below 16%, below 11%, or below 6% prior to separation, and Rajabzadeh teaches that the moisture content effects the separation efficiency. Controlling the moisture content necessarily requires a determination of an intended moisture content, and, therefore, Rajabzadeh discloses determining a moisture content for feed mixtures other than sunflower meal or pea protein concentrate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bush to determine the moisture content for feed mixture other than sunflower or pea protein concentrate in view of Rajabzadeh since both are directed to processes of separating feed mixtures of particles by tribocharging and separating with first and second electrodes, since controlling the moisture content (which necessarily requires a determination of an intended moisture content) for feed other than sunflower meal or pea protein concentrate is known in the art as shown by Rajabzadeh, since moisture content is known to affect separation efficiency (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0005), since tribo-charging of particles and electrostatic separation allows for dry separation of pulses and oilseeds which offers an improvement over wet fraction processes where wet fractionation processes can result in protein denaturation and loss of solubility, reducing the quality and functionality of the protein ingredients and the generation of large volumes of whey-like acid effluents with relatively high quantities of proteinaceous, which can result in water quality issues (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0003, 0010), since Rajabzadeh demonstrates that feed material having an adjusted moisture content can be successfully separated.
Additionally, the claimed optimum moisture content determined by experimentation for feed mixtures other than sunflower meal or pea protein concentrate would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Bush, as modified above, based upon factors such as the type of feed mixture (where different foods such as pulses, legumes, and oilseeds have different moisture contents and different electrostatic properties at different moisture contents), the intended extent of separation and enrichment of protein, starch, or fiber, the distance between the electrodes and the voltage used, the desired moisture content of the separated fractions, etc.
Regarding claim 7, Bush is silent on the feed mixture comprising at least protein and starch, and wherein the protein includes gluten.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0032) plant-based protein-containing resources, including pulses, grains, oilseeds and dried fruits can be used in this invention to be separated into protein-, starch-, and fiber-rich fractions, wherein this novel separation technology can be used to produce low-gluten and high-gluten wheat flours.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bush to provide a feed mixture comprising at least protein and starch, and wherein the protein includes gluten as taught by Rajabzadeh since both are directed to processes of separating feed mixtures of particles by tribocharging and separating with first and second electrodes, since providing a feed mixture comprising at least protein and starch, and wherein the protein includes gluten is known in the art as shown by Rajabzadeh, since tribo-charging of particles and electrostatic separation allows for dry separation of food materials including pea protein concentrate which offers an improvement over wet fraction processes where wet fractionation processes can result in protein denaturation and loss of solubility, reducing the quality and functionality of the protein ingredients and the generation of large volumes of whey-like acid effluents with relatively high quantities of proteinaceous, which can result in water quality issues (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0003, 0010), since the belt separator system of Bush allows for tribo-charging of the particles and separation via the belt at the same time and location as shown in Figure 1 of Bush, providing an improvement in the separation of particles compared to Rajabzadeh where separate units are required to first charge and then separate the particles as shown by the Tribo gun and Fractionation chamber in Figure 1 of Rajabzadeh, since using the belt separator system of Bush results in an improved separation process, improved belt lifetime, reduced failure of the belt and less down time for the separation apparatus (Bush, Paragraph 0024), and since, due to dietary restrictions, taste preferences, nutritional requirements, or food allergies, some consumers will require or prefer feed material comprising at least protein and starch, wherein the protein includes gluten to other food products.
Regarding claim 8, Bush is silent on the feed mixture having a protein content of at least about 35% dry matter (DM) basis.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0054-0055; Table 2) an exemplary embodiment wherein a feed mixture comprises 45% protein by weight on dry basis (which falls within the claimed range of at least about 35% dry matter (DM) basis).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bush to provide a feed mixture having a protein content of at least about 35% dry matter (DM) basis as taught by Rajabzadeh since both are directed to processes of separating feed mixtures of particles by tribocharging and separating with first and second electrodes, since providing a feed mixture having a protein content of at least about 35% dry matter (DM) basis is known in the art as shown by Rajabzadeh, since tribo-charging of particles and electrostatic separation allows for dry separation of pulses and oilseeds which offers an improvement over wet fraction processes where wet fractionation processes can result in protein denaturation and loss of solubility, reducing the quality and functionality of the protein ingredients and the generation of large volumes of whey-like acid effluents with relatively high quantities of proteinaceous, which can result in water quality issues (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0003, 0010), since the belt separator system of Bush allows for tribo-charging of the particles and separation via the belt at the same time and location as shown in Figure 1 of Bush, providing an improvement in the separation of particles compared to Rajabzadeh where separate units are required to first charge and then separate the particles as shown by the Tribo gun and Fractionation chamber in Figure 1 of Rajabzadeh, since using the belt separator system of Bush results in an improved separation process, improved belt lifetime, reduced failure of the belt and less down time for the separation apparatus (Bush, Paragraph 0024), since Rajabzadeh demonstrates that feed material having a protein content of at least about 35% dry matter (DM) basis can be successfully separated, since some consumers will prefer a food product separated from a feed material with a protein content of at least about 35% dry matter (DM) basis depending upon preferences or requirements in diet, nutrition, taste, etc., and since the protein extracted from these resources is an environmentally conservative protein resource that has significant economic advantages over more expensive meat and dairy proteins (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 9, Bush is silent on the protein content of one of the subfractions being at least 5% greater than the protein content of the feed mixture on a dry matter basis.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0054-0055; Table 2) an exemplary embodiment wherein a feed mixture comprises 45% protein by weight on dry basis and a protein rich fraction comprises 86% protein by weight on dry basis (which falls within the claimed range of at least 5% greater).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bush to the protein content of one of the subfractions being at least 5% greater than the protein content of the feed mixture on a dry matter basis as taught by Rajabzadeh since both are directed to processes of separating feed mixtures of particles by tribocharging and separating with first and second electrodes, since providing the protein content of one of the subfractions being at least 5% greater than the protein content of the feed mixture on a dry matter basis is known in the art as shown by Rajabzadeh, since tribo-charging of particles and electrostatic separation allows for dry separation of pulses and oilseeds which offers an improvement over wet fraction processes where wet fractionation processes can result in protein denaturation and loss of solubility, reducing the quality and functionality of the protein ingredients and the generation of large volumes of whey-like acid effluents with relatively high quantities of proteinaceous, which can result in water quality issues (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0003, 0010), since the belt separator system of Bush allows for tribo-charging of the particles and separation via the belt at the same time and location as shown in Figure 1 of Bush, providing an improvement in the separation of particles compared to Rajabzadeh where separate units are required to first charge and then separate the particles as shown by the Tribo gun and Fractionation chamber in Figure 1 of Rajabzadeh, since using the belt separator system of Bush results in an improved separation process, improved belt lifetime, reduced failure of the belt and less down time for the separation apparatus (Bush, Paragraph 0024), since Rajabzadeh demonstrates that a subfraction with a protein content being at least 5% greater than the protein content of the feed mixture on a dry matter basis can be successfully separated, since some consumers will prefer a food product with a protein content being at least 5% greater than the protein content of the feed mixture, depending upon preferences or requirements in diet, nutrition, taste, etc., and since the protein extracted from these resources is an environmentally conservative protein resource that has significant economic advantages over more expensive meat and dairy proteins (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 10, Bush is silent on the protein level of one of the sub-fractions being enriched to be anywhere in the range of 25% to 46.5% DM, or 30-48% DM, or 52-62%DM, or 60-71.5% DM, or 55%-80% DM.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0056-0057; Table 3) an exemplary embodiment wherein a protein rich fraction comprises 52% protein by weight on dry basis (which falls within the claimed range of 52-62% DM).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bush to configure the protein level of one of the subfractions to be enriched in the range of 52-62% DM as taught by Rajabzadeh since both are directed to processes of separating feed mixtures of particles by tribocharging and separating with first and second electrodes, since providing protein level of one of the subfractions to be enriched in the range of 52-62% DM is known in the art as shown by Rajabzadeh, since tribo-charging of particles and electrostatic separation allows for dry separation of pulses and oilseeds which offers an improvement over wet fraction processes where wet fractionation processes can result in protein denaturation and loss of solubility, reducing the quality and functionality of the protein ingredients and the generation of large volumes of whey-like acid effluents with relatively high quantities of proteinaceous, which can result in water quality issues (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0003, 0010), since the belt separator system of Bush allows for tribo-charging of the particles and separation via the belt at the same time and location as shown in Figure 1 of Bush, providing an improvement in the separation of particles compared to Rajabzadeh where separate units are required to first charge and then separate the particles as shown by the Tribo gun and Fractionation chamber in Figure 1 of Rajabzadeh, since using the belt separator system of Bush results in an improved separation process, improved belt lifetime, reduced failure of the belt and less down time for the separation apparatus (Bush, Paragraph 0024), since Rajabzadeh demonstrates that a subfraction with a protein level in the range of 52-62% DM can be successfully separated, since some consumers will prefer a subfraction with a protein level in the range of 52-62% DM, depending upon preferences or requirements in diet, nutrition, taste, etc., and since the protein extracted from these resources is an environmentally conservative protein resource that has significant economic advantages over more expensive meat and dairy proteins (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0002).
Regarding claim 12, Bush is silent on an adjustment of feed moisture prior to separation by one of drying or wetting.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0032, 0033, 0036-0037) the moisture content of the plant-based resources including pulses, grains, oilseeds used in the process is reduced prior to tribo-charging and separation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the process of Bush to provide an adjustment of feed moisture prior to separation by drying as taught by Rajabzadeh since both are directed to processes of separating feed mixtures of particles by tribocharging and separating with first and second electrodes, since providing an adjustment of feed moisture prior to separation by drying is known in the art as shown by Rajabzadeh, since tribo-charging of particles and electrostatic separation allows for dry separation of pulses and oilseeds which offers an improvement over wet fraction processes where wet fractionation processes can result in protein denaturation and loss of solubility, reducing the quality and functionality of the protein ingredients and the generation of large volumes of whey-like acid effluents with relatively high quantities of proteinaceous, which can result in water quality issues (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0003, 0010), since the belt separator system of Bush allows for tribo-charging of the particles and separation via the belt at the same time and location as shown in Figure 1 of Bush, providing an improvement in the separation of particles compared to Rajabzadeh where separate units are required to first charge and then separate the particles as shown by the Tribo gun and Fractionation chamber in Figure 1 of Rajabzadeh, since using the belt separator system of Bush results in an improved separation process, improved belt lifetime, reduced failure of the belt and less down time for the separation apparatus (Bush, Paragraph 0024), since Rajabzadeh demonstrates that feed material having a reduced moisture content can be successfully separated, and since some consumers will prefer a food product with a reduced moisture content depending upon preferences or requirements in taste, texture, shelf-life, etc.
Regarding claim 15, Bush teaches (Paragraph 0057) a series of separation experiments was performed in which the electrode gap, which was varied from 0.48 to 0.38 inches (0.97-1.22 cm) which falls within the claimed range of 0.5-2.5 cm.
Regarding claim 16, Bush teaches (Paragraph 0057) a series of separation experiments was performed in which the electrode gap, which was varied from 0.48 to 0.38 inches (0.97-1.22 cm) which falls within the claimed range of 0.9-1.7 cm.
Regarding claim 17, Bush is silent on the feed mixture comprising pulses (or legumes) including any of peas, lima beans, fava beans, lupin beans, and garbanzo beans.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0032) pulses are selected from a group including beans, peas, lentils, and mixtures thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bush to provide a feed mixture comprising pulses (or legumes) including peas and beans as taught by Rajabzadeh since both are directed to processes of separating feed mixtures of particles by tribocharging and separating with first and second electrodes, since providing a feed mixture comprising pulses (or legumes) including peas and beans is known in the art as shown by Rajabzadeh, since tribo-charging of particles and electrostatic separation allows for dry separation of food materials including pea protein concentrate which offers an improvement over wet fraction processes where wet fractionation processes can result in protein denaturation and loss of solubility, reducing the quality and functionality of the protein ingredients and the generation of large volumes of whey-like acid effluents with relatively high quantities of proteinaceous, which can result in water quality issues (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0003, 0010), since the belt separator system of Bush allows for tribo-charging of the particles and separation via the belt at the same time and location as shown in Figure 1 of Bush, providing an improvement in the separation of particles compared to Rajabzadeh where separate units are required to first charge and then separate the particles as shown by the Tribo gun and Fractionation chamber in Figure 1 of Rajabzadeh, since using the belt separator system of Bush results in an improved separation process, improved belt lifetime, reduced failure of the belt and less down time for the separation apparatus (Bush, Paragraph 0024), and since, due to dietary restrictions, taste preferences, nutritional requirements, or food allergies, some consumers will require or prefer pulses (or legumes) including peas and beans to other food products.
Regarding claim 18, Bush is silent on the feed mixture comprising oilseeds and meals prepared by removing oil from raw oilseed, including any of soybean, canola, rapeseed, sunflower, mustard, sesame, flaxseed, safflower, corn germ, and peanut.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0032) oilseeds are selected from a group including soybean, rapeseed, flaxseed, sunflower, sesame, mustard, canola, safflower seed and mixtures thereof, wherein, preferably the oilseeds are de-oiled prior to the separation process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bush to provide a feed mixture comprising oilseeds and meals prepared by removing oil from raw oilseed, including any of soybean, canola, rapeseed, sunflower, mustard, sesame, flaxseed, and safflower as taught by Rajabzadeh since both are directed to processes of separating feed mixtures of particles by tribocharging and separating with first and second electrodes, since providing a feed mixture comprising oilseeds and meals prepared by removing oil from raw oilseed, including any of soybean, canola, rapeseed, sunflower, mustard, sesame, flaxseed, and safflower is known in the art as shown by Rajabzadeh, since tribo-charging of particles and electrostatic separation allows for dry separation of food materials including pea protein concentrate which offers an improvement over wet fraction processes where wet fractionation processes can result in protein denaturation and loss of solubility, reducing the quality and functionality of the protein ingredients and the generation of large volumes of whey-like acid effluents with relatively high quantities of proteinaceous, which can result in water quality issues (Rajabzadeh, Paragraph 0003, 0010), since the belt separator system of Bush allows for tribo-charging of the particles and separation via the belt at the same time and location as shown in Figure 1 of Bush, providing an improvement in the separation of particles compared to Rajabzadeh where separate units are required to first charge and then separate the particles as shown by the Tribo gun and Fractionation chamber in Figure 1 of Rajabzadeh, since using the belt separator system of Bush results in an improved separation process, improved belt lifetime, reduced failure of the belt and less down time for the separation apparatus (Bush, Paragraph 0024), since some consumers will prefer de-oiled oilseeds to avoid excess oil intake in their diet, and since, due to dietary restrictions, taste preferences, nutritional requirements, or food allergies, some consumers will require or prefer oilseeds and meals prepared by removing oil from raw oilseed, including any of soybean, canola, rapeseed, sunflower, mustard, sesame, flaxseed, and safflower to other food products.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush (US 20160236206 A1) in view of Rajabzadeh (US 20150140185 A1), and further in view of Piriou (US 20160369305 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Bush is silent on the moisture content being 6-8%.
However, the claimed moisture content of 6-8% would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Bush, as modified above, based upon factors such as the type of feed mixture (where different foods such as pulses, legumes, and oilseeds have different moisture contents and different electrostatic properties at different moisture contents), the intended extent of separation and enrichment of protein, starch, or fiber, the distance between the electrodes and the voltage used, the desired moisture content of the separated fractions, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed moisture content being 6-8% that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Bush is silent with regards to moisture content being 6-8% one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable moisture content values or ranges.
Rajabzadeh teaches (Paragraph 0032, 0033, 0036, 0037) prior to tribo-charging, the moisture content of the plant-based resources including pulses, grains, oilseeds used in the process is reduced to below 11% (i.e., 0-11%) in some embodiments (which encompasses the claimed range of 6-8%).
Piriou teaches (Paragraph 0017-0019) sorting of ultrafine particles by triboelectrostatically charging ultrafine particles and deviating the path of the charged particles in an electric field, wherein, in an exemplary embodiment, wheat straw is ground, dried to a moisture content between 7% and 10% (which overlaps with the claimed range of 6-8%) and subsequently fractionated by electrostatic separation.
Selection of a known material property (moisture content) based on its suitability for its intended use (tribo-electrostatic separation) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush (US 20160236206 A1) in view of Rajabzadeh (US 20150140185 A1), and further in view of MacKay (US 20120059508 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Bush, as modified above, does not explicitly state that the feed mixture can be processed at a rate of anywhere in a range of 1000 to 20,000 kg per hour per meter of electrode width.
However, the claimed processing rate of 1000 to 20,000 kg per hour per meter of electrode width would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Bush, as modified above, based upon factors such as the composition of the feed mixture, the intended protein or starch content of the subfractions, the size and dimensions of the belt and electrodes (where a larger belt could process a larger mass of feed mixture), the configuration of the electrode width, the particle size of the feed mixture, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit from the claimed processing rate of 1000 to 20,000 kg per hour per meter of electrode width that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Bush is silent with regards to a processing rate of 1000 to 20,000 kg per hour per meter of electrode width one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable moisture content values or ranges.
MacKay teaches (Claims 1, 12) a method for controlling processing of particulate materials using an electrostatic separation system, wherein processing particulate material in the electrostatic separation system comprises feeding the particulate material at a feed rate of between about 3 and 17 tons per hour per foot of electrode width (8,929-50,598 kg per hour per meter of electrode width, which overlaps with the claimed range of 1000 to 20,000 kg per hour per meter of electrode width).
Selection of a known process operating condition (processing rate) based on its suitability for its intended use (electrostatic separation) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bush (US 20160236206 A1) in view of Rajabzadeh (US 20150140185 A1), and further in view of Bittner (US 20110289923 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Bush, as modified above, is silent on an applied voltage anywhere in range between 3 kV and 20 kV.
Regarding claim 14, Bush, as modified above, is silent on the voltage applied being anywhere in range between 10 kV and 16 kV.
However, the claimed applied voltage anywhere in range between 3 kV and 20 kV and anywhere in range between 10 kV and 16 kV would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Bush, as modified above, based upon factors such as the intended separation efficiency (where the applied voltage difference influences the separation efficiency (Bittner, Paragraph 0051)), the type and composition of the feed material being treated, the gap between the electrodes, the treatment time with the electrodes, the particle size, the intended movement path of the separated particles, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed applied voltage anywhere in range between 3 kV and 20 kV and anywhere in range between 10 kV and 16 kV that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Bush, as modified above, is silent with regards to the applied voltage one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable operational parameters.
Bittner teaches (Paragraph 0011) a method of using a belt-type, tribo-electrostatic separation device, wherein normal operating ranges for the operating parameters include an applied voltage difference between 6 kV to 12 kV (which falls withing the claimed range of 3-20 kV and overlaps with the claimed range of 10-16 kV).
Selection of a known operational parameter (applied voltage) based on its suitability for its intended use (tribo-electrostatic separation) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yager (US 20120234730 A1) teaches a method of radiation assisted electrostatic separation of semiconductor materials.
Link (US 6681938 B1) teaches a process for separating organic and inorganic particles from a dry mixture by sizing the particles into isolated fractions, contacting the sized particles to a charged substrate and subjecting the charged particles to an electric field to separate the particles.
Stencel (US 5938041 A) teaches a method for electrostatically separating two species of particles present in a raw feedstock.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights