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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. Preliminary amendment and claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-21, 23 & 25 filed on 12/23/24 are present and under consideration in this Office Action.
2. Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers (foreign priority filed 6/23/22) submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
3. Drawings
The drawings filed on 12/23/24 are acknowledged.
4. IDS(s) filed 12/23/24, 4/3/25 & 4/3/25 are acknowledged. Signed copies of the IDS(s) are provided with this Office Action.
5. Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (second paragraph)
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 5, 9, 14, 21 & 23 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 5, 9, 14, 21 & 23 recite – the word “optionally”. The use of the expression “optionally” attempts to give both broad and narrow meaning to the scope of the above claims. These claims are unclear. Deletion of the word “optionally” is suggested to overcome this rejection.
7. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-21, 23 & 25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “Apparatus for extracting protein from potatoes, the apparatus comprising: a first filtration device having a filter material with a first pore size …. and so on, without clearly defining the first, second and third pore sizes, and one being smaller than the other, is vague and indefinite.
Following is suggested to overcome the rejection.
Claim 1. An apparatus for extracting protein from potatoes, the apparatus comprising: a first filtration device having a filter material with a first pore size of 10 micron to 200 micron; a second filtration device having a filter material with a second pore size of 0.8 micron to 10 micron; a third filtration device having a filter material with a third pore size of less than 0.8 micron to 0.1 micron or above; and an ultrafiltration device, wherein the second pore size is smaller than the first pore size, and the third pore size is smaller than the second pore size.
Similarly claim 17 be amended as follows to overcome the rejection.
Claim 17. A method for extracting protein from potatoes, the method comprising: (a) obtaining potato fruit juice; (b) passing the potato fruit juice through a first filtration device having a filter material with a first pore size of 10 micron to 200 micron to obtain a first filtrate; (c) passing the first filtrate through a second filtration device having a filter material with a second pore size of 0.8 micron to 10 micron to obtain a second filtrate; (d) passing the second filtrate through a third filtration device having a filter material with a third pore size of less than 0.8 micron to 0.1 micron or above to obtain a third filtrate; and (e) ultrafiltering the third filtrate to obtain an ultrafiltration retentate, wherein the second pore size is smaller than the first pore size, and the third pore size is smaller than the second pore size.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-14, 16, 18-21, 23 & 25 are included in the rejection for failing to correct the defect present in the base claim(s).
8. The reference of Shirin Dabestani et al. J. of Food Engineering, 2017, V195, pages 85-96 is cited as the closest prior art but is currently not used in any rejection.
The reference teaches (See abstract) - Extracting desirable potato proteins from potato processing industry water that contained other major components such as starch and fiber was investigated using membrane processes. The method was assessed based on the recovery yield, concentrating the protein and minimizing the fouling by different operating conditions and combination of pre-treatments. In this laboratory scale study, the recovery of protein from potato processing water (PPW) was evaluated by using seven combinations of sedimentation, centrifugation, paper filtration, microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) processes to achieve high yields of highly concentrated protein. The removal of 95% of starch and 78% of fiber were achieved by centrifugation at selected conditions and using 2.5 mm filter paper. The filtrate was treated with a 0.22 mm Polyvinylidene difluoride (PVDF) MF membrane prior to the UF process. The inclusion of the MF process led to the reduction of UF fouling by 30% assessed from the transmembrane pressure. UF membrane of 10 kDa Polyethersulfone (PES) was effective in concentration of protein, rich in protein from the patatin family. Little loss of the higher molecular weight proteins was observed with the combination of pre-treatments and ultrafiltration. Fouling minimization was approached through different pre-treatments, without chemical addition and pH change to prevent denaturation of protein. Fouling was improved by 72% using the proposed process compared to that of centrifugation as pre-treatment only prior to ultrafiltration. Three types of cleaning detergents including acid, base and surfactant were studied to investigate cleaning efficiency and the mechanism of fouling. Higher cleaning efficiency (97%) and sustainable cleaning were achieved with base cleaning (100 ppm Sodium hydroxide) compared to acid cleaning (100 ppm Hydrochloric acid) and surfactant cleaning (5 wt % Sodium dodecyl sulfate).
9. No claim is allowed.
10 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEKCHAND SAIDHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0940. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8.00-5.30. 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, Robert B Mondesi can be reached on 408 918 7584. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TEKCHAND SAIDHA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Recombinant Enzymes, Hoteling
Telephone: (571) 272-0940
Fax: (571) 273-0940
Prosecution Insights