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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/15/204, in part, fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(ii), which requires a copy of the translation if a written English-language translation of a non-English-language document, or portion thereof, is within the possession, custody, or control of, or is readily available to any individual designated in § 1.56(c). For references cited in the IDs where an English translation is not provided, said references are not considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 should include a conjugation of “and” or “or” between the filtration of the suspension and discharging steps. The same is true for between the performing a solid-liquid separation and homogenizing the filtrate steps. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 should include a conjugation of “and” or “or” between the sparging the filter cake and discharging steps.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “the phases” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the filtrate” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the raw material” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites “the raw material” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites “the raw material” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites “the plant-based raw materials” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the raw material” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “[T]he process according to claim 1”. Claim 1 is directed toward a method, not a process.
Claim 15 recites “[T]he process according to claim 1”. Claim 1 is directed toward a method, not a process.
Claim 16 recites “[T]he process according to claim 1”. Claim 1 is directed toward a method, not a process.
Claim 16 recites “selected from nuts; cereals; seeds; tubers. Said claim recites improper Markush group. To be in propre Markush form, the claim should recite “selected from the group consisting of nuts, cereals, seeds and tubers.”
Claim 17 recites “the solid-liquid separation” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites “the production” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 19-20 recite a dependency to claim 18. Claim 18 requires that there be at least one compression phase. And, claims 19-20 states, “wherein a compression phase”. Given that parent claim 18 requires “at least one compression phase”, it is not clear which of the at least one compression phase is intended by “a compression phase”.
The remainder of the claims are cited as being rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2)s being anticipated by Sun (CN110679668).
Claim 1 is directed toward a process comprising providing a i) suspension of a plant-based material containing compounds to be extracted, ii) performing a solid-liquid separation using a plate filter press, and iii) homogenizing the filtrate; wherein the plate filter press comprises at least one succession of filtration chambers and filter media, and wherein the solid-liquid separation step includes a) filling the plate filter press with the suspension, b) filtrating the suspension and concomitant formation of porous filter cakes on the filter media, and c) discharging the filtrate.
Sun teaches a process comprising providing a i) suspension of soybean in water, wherein soybean contains compounds to be extracted, ii) performing a solid-liquid separation of the suspension using a plate filter press, and iii) homogenizing the filtrate. [Paragraphs 42-56] To perform the a solid-liquid separation of the suspension using a plate filter press, Sun teaches filling the plate filter press with the suspension, b) filtrating the suspension and concomitant formation of porous filter cakes on the filter media, and c) discharging the filtrate.
It is noted that Sun is silent on the number of filtration chambers and filter media, however, absent evidence to the contrary, the plate filter press of Sun would necessarily comprise at least one succession of filtration chambers and filter media.
Regarding claim 2, Sun teaches pretreatment of the soybeans, which is a raw material, prior to putting it into suspension. [Paragraphs 49-55]
Regarding claim 3, as noted above, Sun teaches pretreatment of the soybeans, wherein the pretreatment includes heating the peeled soybean kernels in water at 92 degrees C. [Paragraph 53-54]
Regarding claim 4, as noted above, Sun teaches pretreatment of the soybeans, wherein the pretreatment includes soaking the soybeans. [Paragraph 51]
Regarding claim 5, as noted above, Sun teaches pretreatment of the soybeans, wherein the pretreatment includes putting the hot blanched soybean kernels into a machine for grinding. [Paragraph 54] Sun does not explicitly teach milling. However, it is noted that the specification uses “milling” and “grinding” interchangeably. [Page 10, paragraphs 2-3 of the instant specification.] Hence, given broadest reasonable interpretation, “milling” encompasses “grinding”.
Regarding claim 8, Sun teaches that the soybean in water, the suspension, at room temperature, and later in hot water at 92 degrees C. [Paragraph 49-55]
Regarding claim 13, Sun teaches homogenizing. And as part of homogenizing step, Sun teaches stirring speed at 70 r/min, which is high shear agitation. [Paragraph 57]
Regarding claim 14, Sun teaches that homogenizing is carried out in a pressure homogenizer. [Paragraph 58]
Regarding claim 15, Sun teaches a formulation step. [Paragraph 56]
Regarding claim 16, Sun teaches soybean, which is a plant-based seed.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2)s being anticipated by Sun (CN110679668), as evidenced by Bittencourt (Bittencourt, Soybean hulls as carbohydrate feedstock for medium to high-value biomolecule production in biorefineries: A review. Bioresource Technology, November 2021, Vol. 339, article 125594.)
Regarding claim 6, as noted above, Sun teaches pretreatment of the soybeans, wherein the pretreatment dehulling the soybean. [Paragraph 52] Sun does not expressly teach removing 2-30% by weight of the raw material. However, Bittencourt teaches that soybean hulls is about 5-8% of the whole seed, which is the soybean. [Abstract] Given this, by dehulling the soybeans, the process of Sun removes 5-8 weight % of the soybean. The 5-8% range is within the claimed range of 2 to 30 weight%.
Regarding claim 7, Sun teaches that soybean and water were mixed at a ratio of 1:5. The ratio is within the claimed ratio. [Paragraph 42]
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Harmegnies (EP22848571).
Regarding claim 9, as noted above, Sun teaches that the solid-liquid separation using plate press filtration at 0.25-0.30 MPa, which is 2.5-3.0 bar. Sun does not teach the use of a pressure that is less than 2 bar.
Harmegnies teaches that plate press filtration. Harmegnies also teaches using a pressure on the order of 0.3 to 0.6 bars. [Paragraph 0050]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the plate press filtration working parameters, including pressure of 0.3-0.6 bars, of Harmegnies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because less energy is required to operate at lower pressure. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for doing so because Harmegnies evidences that a pressure on the order of 0.3 to 0.6 bars can be applied in a solid-liquid separation process using plate press filtration.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Sun does not expressly teach sparging of the filter cakes during the solid-liquid separation process using plate press filtration.
Harmegnies teaches washing, which is sparging, of the filter cakes during the solid-liquid separation process using plate press filtration. [Claim 1] Harmegnies notes the advantages of the step are the recovery of the impregnated filter cake and a homogenization of the filter cake, as well as a reduction in their porosity, which allows better efficiency of the subsequent washing by avoiding the formation of preferential channels. [0051]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to sparge filter cakes during the solid-liquid separation process using plate press filtration. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to facilitate recovery of the impregnated filter cake, homogenization of the filter cake, as well as a reduction in their porosity, which allows better efficiency of the subsequent washing by avoiding the formation of preferential channels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for doing so because Harmegnies notes the advantages of the sparging step are the recovery of the impregnated filter cake and a homogenization of the filter cake, as well as a reduction in their porosity, which allows better efficiency of the subsequent washing by avoiding the formation of preferential channels.
Regarding claim 18, Sun teaches solid-liquid separation using of plate press filtration to obtain filter cake and soybean milk. While Sun does not expressly state that the filtration method applied comprises at least one compression phase. However, because the filtration process of Sun resulted in a filter cake and soybean milk from a slurry of grinded soybean and water, it logically follows that a compression phase is involved. Moreover, compression phase is part of plate press filtration.
Claims 19-20, Sun does not teach that the compression phase is carried out before (claim 19) or after (claim 20) sparging.
Harmegnies teaches that compression can occur before or after washing/sparging can occur. [Claim 9] Harmegnies notes the advantages of the step are the recovery of the impregnated filter cake and a homogenization of the filter cake, as well as a reduction in their porosity, which allows better efficiency of the subsequent washing by avoiding the formation of preferential channels. [0051]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have performed the compression step before or after washing/sparging. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to facilitate recovery of the impregnated filter cake, homogenization of the filter cake, as well as a reduction in their porosity, which allows better efficiency of the subsequent washing by avoiding the formation of preferential channels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for doing so because Harmegnies notes the advantages of the sparging step are the recovery of the impregnated filter cake and a homogenization of the filter cake, as well as a reduction in their porosity, which allows better efficiency of the subsequent washing by avoiding the formation of preferential channels.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Harmegnies (EP22848571), as evidenced by De Brackkeleire (EP3138620)
Regarding claims 11, Sun does not teach the use of elastomeric membrane. Sun does not expressly teach that the membranes are inflated with a fluid to exert compression on the filter cake at the end of the filtration.
Harmegnies teaches plate press filtration with the use of elastomeric membrane [0040]. Harmegnies notes that the filtration process improves the washing of filter cake. [001]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the plate press filtration and process of Harmegnies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so improve the washing of filter cake. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expiation of success for doing so because Harmegnies demonstrates that washing of filter cake is obtainable with their plate press filtration and process.
Additionally, Harmegnies teaches that under the effect of the introduction of water into the compression chamber of the plate press filter, the elastomeric membrane deforms and bulge uniformly over the entire height in the direction of the filter cakes. [0050] This is synonymous as the membranes are inflated with a fluid to exert compression on the filter cake at the end of the filtration. Such is further evidenced by De Brackkeleire. De Brackkeleire establishes that at the beginning of the washing stage, water is removed from the compression chambers and reintroduced into the filtration chambers in order to maintain pressure balance on both sides of the elastic membranes (col. 8, 1. 4-5). The membrane must have certain elasticity characteristics but also be sized to allow movement from the rest position to the "inflated" position. [0010-0014, 0026, 0035-0036 and 0039]
Regarding claim 12, Sun does not teach the use of elastomeric membrane. Sun does not teach that the membranes are inflated with a fluid to exert compression on the filter cake at the end of the filtration.
Harmegnies teaches plate press filtration with the use of elastomeric membrane [0040]. Harmegnies notes that the filtration process improves the washing of filter cake. [001]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have used the plate press filtration and process of Harmegnies. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so improve the washing of filter cake. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expiation of success for doing so because Harmegnies demonstrates that washing of filter cake is obtainable with their plate press filtration and process.
Additionally, Harmegnies teaches that under the effect of the introduction of water into the compression chamber of the plate press filter, the elastomeric membrane deforms and bulge uniformly over the entire height in the direction of the filter cakes. [0050] This is synonymous as the membranes are inflated with a fluid to exert compression on the filter cake at the end of the filtration. Such is further evidenced by De Brackkeleire. De Brackkeleire establishes that at the beginning of the washing stage, water is removed from the compression chambers and reintroduced into the filtration chambers in order to maintain pressure balance on both sides of the elastic membranes (col. 8, 1. 4-5). The membrane must have certain elasticity characteristics but also be sized to allow movement from the rest position to the "inflated" position. [0010-0014, 0026, 0035-0036 and 0039].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily M Le whose telephone number is (571)272-0903. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30pm.
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.
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.
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights