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 .
Claim status
Claims 1-20 filed 11/22/2024 are pending in the application and are hereby examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the arabinan concentration” should “an arabinan concentration”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the arabinan amount” should “an arabinan amount”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisashi JPH0779680 B2 (English translation relied upon for reference, hereinafter referred to as Hisashi) in view of Perez-Lopez, “High hydrostatic pressure aided by food-grade enzymes as a novel approach for Okara valorization”, Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 42 (2017) 197–203 (hereinafter referred to as Perez-Lopez), and evidenced by Sloth Weidner US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0018292 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Sloth Weidner).
Regarding claims 1 and 4-6, Hisashi teaches a method of producing a fermented material (e.g., okara koji) comprising fermenting a grain-derived raw material (e.g., okara) using a koji mold (e.g., Aspergillus oryzae, Aspergillus soya or Aspergillus niger) (Abstract; 0001). Okara reads on the limitation about soy pulp.
Hisashi teaches okara, which necessarily contains arabinan polysaccharide, a cell wall component. Hisashi is silent regarding that the arabinan in the final fermented material (e.g., okara koji) is 5 mg/g or less as recited in claim 1.
Perez-Lopez teaches a method of improving the nutritional value of okara, the method comprising treating the okara with an enzyme complex Viscozyme® L (Abstract;. Page198, 2.2.1-2.2.3). Perez-Lopez teaches that treating the okara with the enzyme complex decreases the MW of polysaccharides, and increases the amount of soluble carbohydrate, as a result of the degradation of the cell wall polysaccharides (page 199, 3.1.1; page 201 right hand column, bottom para.). It is known that cell wall polysaccharides from a plant including soybean includes arabinan and cellulose.
Both Hisashi and Perez-Lopez are directed to okara. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hisashi by subjecting the okara to Viscozyme® L treatment prior to fermentation so as to degrade the non-digestible cell wall polysaccharides into digestible sugars thus improving the nutritional value of okara.
Viscozyme® L is known to contain both arabinase and cellulase (see para. 0201 of Sloth Weidner).
Hisashi as modified by Perez-Lopez does not explicitly teach the amount of arabinan concentration in the okara koji. However, given that the gist of Perez-Lopez is to use an enzyme complex to degrade the non-digestible cell wall polysaccharides in the okara into digestible lower sugars to improve its nutritional value, and Viscozyme® L could digest arabinan in the cell wall of soybean to form the lower sugars because it contains arabinase, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the enzymatic conditions (e.g., dosage, time, temperature, etc.) to ensure the efficient degradation of the non-digestible cell wall polysaccharides including arabinan and enrichment of the digestible lower or soluble sugar. As such, the amount of the arabinan as recited in claim 1 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 14-17, Hisashi in view of Perez-Lopez teaches a koji mold-fermented material (e.g., okara koji) of a grain derived raw material (e.g., enzyme-treated okara) but is silent regarding the amount of vitamin B such as folate in the okara koji. The amount of vitamin B in the final fermented material is necessarily a parameter of the process of making the fermented material. To this end, it is noted that the instant specification recites that the koji mold-fermented material is prepared by treating a grain-derived raw material such as draff of soybean with arabinase and cellulase and fermenting the treated raw material using a koji mold such as the genus of Aspergillus (0020; 0022-0032; 0060). Given that Hisashi in view of Perez-Lopez teaches the same steps of treating a soybean draff (e.g., okara) with arabinase and cellulase followed by fermentation the enzyme-treated soybean draff using the same koji mold, it logically follows that the amount of vitamin B such as folate in the final koji mold-fermented material as disclosed by prior art meets the range as recited in claim 2. See MPEP 2112.01 I, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 7 and 11, Hisashi teaches a method of producing a fermented material (e.g., okara koji) comprising fermenting a grain-derived raw material (e.g., okara) using a koji mold (e.g., Aspergillus oryzae, Aspergillus soya or Aspergillus niger) (Abstract; 0001).
Hisashi is silent regarding pre-treating the okara with arabinose and cellulase prior to fermentation.
Perez-Lopez teaches a method of improving the nutritional value of okara, the method comprising treating the okara with an enzyme complex Viscozyme® L (Abstract;. Page198, 2.2.1-2.2.3). Perez-Lopez teaches that treating the okara with the enzyme complex decreases the MW of polysaccharides, and increases the amount of soluble carbohydrate, as a result of the degradation of the cell wall polysaccharides (page 199, 3.1.1; page 201 right hand column, bottom para.). It is known that cell wall polysaccharides from a plant including soybean includes arabinan and cellulose.
Both Hisashi and Perez-Lopez are directed to okara. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hisashi by subjecting the okara to Viscozyme® L treatment prior to fermentation so as to degrade the non-digestible cell wall polysaccharides into digestible sugars thus improving the nutritional value of okara.
Viscozyme® L is known to contain both arabinase and cellulase (see para. 0201 of Sloth Weidner).
Regarding claims 8 and 12, Hisashi as modified by Perez-Lopez as recited above teaches a koji mold-fermented material (e.g., okara koji), but does not explicitly teach the amount of arabinan concentration in the okara koji. However, given that the gist of Perez-Lopez is to use an enzyme complex to degrade the non-digestible cell wall polysaccharides in the okara into digestible lower sugars to improve its nutritional value, and Viscozyme® L could digest arabinan in the cell wall of soybean to form the lower sugars because it contains arabinase, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the enzymatic conditions (e.g., dosage, time, temperature, etc.) to ensure the efficient degradation of the non-digestible cell wall polysaccharides including arabinan and enrichment of the digestible lower or soluble sugar. As such, the amount of the arabinan as recited in claim 8 or claim 12 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
For the same reason set forth above, the limitation about the arabinan amount as recited in claims 10 and 19 is also obvious over the prior art.
Regarding claims 13 and 20, given that Hisashi in view of Perez-Lopez teaches the same steps of treating a grain-derived raw material with arabinase and cellulase followed by fermentation using a koji mold, it logically follows that the final koji mold-fermented material has increased vitamin B compared to the untreated grain-derived raw material. See MPEP 2112.01 I, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisashi in view of Perez-Lopez as applied to claims 7-8 above, and further in view of Kasai, “Enzymatic high digestion of soybean milk residue (okara)”, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry”, 2004, 52, pages 5709-5716 (hereinafter referred to as Kasai).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Hisashi in view of Perez-Lopez teaches what has been recited above but is silent regarding the ratio of arabinase and cellulase on unit basis. Instead, Perez-Lopez teaches that okara is treated with an enzyme complex (e.g., Viscozyme® L) that comprises arabinase and cellulase the ratio of which is not specified. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that arabinase and cellulase target different polysaccharides in the cell wall and digest them accordingly (i.e., arabinase digests arabinan and cellulase digests cellulose). Further, Kasai in the same field of endeavor of enzymatic digestion of okara has demonstrated that okara can be treated with individual enzyme such as cellulase which serves to digest cellulose (page 5710. “Materials and Methods”; page 5714, right hand column, 3rd para.). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the amounts of arabinase and cellulase so as to ensure the efficient digestion of corresponding non-digestible cell wall polysaccharides (e.g., arabinan and cellulose) into digestible lower sugars for improving nutritional value. As such, the ratio as recited in claims 9 and 18 are merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, NIKKI H DEES can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights