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 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 1-9 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the recitation “ subjecting a plant-protein containing mixed composition containing a plant protein material, hydrogen peroxide, and water to a decoloring reaction;” renders the claim indefinite It is not clear what steps need to be taken for a “decoloring reaction.” Does the method require adding hydrogen peroxide and water to plant protein material?
Regarding claims 1 and 8, the recitation “and a hydrogen peroxide removing step of causing a hydrogen peroxide degrading enzyme to act” renders the claim indefinite by it is not clear what steps “cause” the hydrogen peroxide degrading enzymes to act. Does the method require a step of adding a hydrogen peroxide degrading enzyme to the decolored plant protein material?
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacks et al. (US 4,464,296 – IDS filed December 23, 2024).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 6 and 8, Jacks et al. disclose a method of increasing the solubility of dry oilseed protein (i.e., plant protein material), the method comprising the steps of: (a) mixing soybean protein (i.e., protein derived from pulses) with 30% hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)(i.e., water and H2O2; (b) centrifuging the mixture at 200 g for about 15 minutes to clarify the solution; (c) dialyzing the supernatant against water containing catalase (i.e., causing the catalase enzyme to act); and (d) drying the dialysate (Abstract, C2/L41-60/Example 3).
While Jacks et al. is silent with respect to decoloring, if the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction (MPEP §2111.02).
While Jacks et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the content of H2O2 is 0.5% or more, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Jacks et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jacks et al. disclose the plant protein material is soybean protein isolated from hexane-extracted soybean meal and purified by isoelectric precipitation (C2/L41-47). The soybean protein material of Jacks et al. is untextured.
Regarding claim 7, Jacks et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jacks et al. disclose catalase (C2/L55-58). While Jacks et al. does not disclose how the catalase is obtained, the fact that the catalase is obtained from a specific genus of bacteria, Aspergillus, rather than, for example, a bovine source, does not change the function of the catalase. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have used a catalase derived from any source in the process of Jacks et al. with a reasonable expectation of successfully removing H2O2 from the treated plant protein material.
Regarding claim 9, Jacks et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jacks et al. disclose the treated soy protein is intended for use in food systems (C1/L8-20).
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et al. (“Decolorization and detoxication of plant-based proteins using hydrogen peroxide and catalase”, Scientific Reports, December 27, 2022, pp. 1-10 -IDS filed December 23, 2024).
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8, Sakai et al. disclose a method of decoloring soy protein isolate (i.e., untextured plant protein material derived from pulses) and textured vegetable protein (i.e., textured plant protein material), the method comprising the steps of: (a) treating soy protein isolate or textured vegetable protein with a 5 to 15% hydrogen peroxide solution (i.e., hydrogen peroxide and water) while incubating for 24h at 20⁰C; (b) degrading the residual hydrogen peroxide by mixing catalase with the treated protein and incubating for 30 min at 20⁰C (Abstract); and (c) drying the decolored protein compositions (Abstract, p. 6/Methods).
Regarding claim 7, Sakai et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sakai et al. disclose catalase (Abstract, p. 6/Methods). While Sakai et al. does not disclose how the catalase is obtained, the fact that the catalase is obtained from a specific genus of bacteria, Aspergillus, rather than, for example, a bovine source, does not change the function of the catalase. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have used a catalase derived from any source in the process of Sakai et al. with a reasonable expectation of successfully removing H2O2 from the treated plant protein material.
Regarding claim 9, Sakai et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sakai et al. disclose food, i.e. plant-based hamburgers comprising the decolored textured vegetable protein (p. 5/Color and physical properties of decolored TVP-based foods).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights