Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-11-21)
Rejection types: 112 - Written Description/Enablement

CLAIMS:
What is claimed is:

1\. A process for modifying the characteristics of citrus fiber comprising the steps of a. hydrating citrus fiber;b. treating the hydrated citrus fiber to obtain homogenized citrus fiber;
c. washing the homogenized citrus fiber with an organic solvent to obtain organic solvent washed citrus fiber;
d. desolventizing and drying the organic solvent washed citrus fiber; and
e. recovering modified citrus fiber therefrom.

2\. A process according to claim 1, wherein said citrus fiber is obtained from citrus pulp,
citrus peel, citrus rag and combinations thereof.

3\. A process according to claims 1-2, wherein the viscosity of the modified citrus fiber is increased by at least 100%, wherein said citrus fiber is dispersed in standardized
water at a mixing speed of from 800 rpm to 1000 rpm, to a 3 w/w% citrus fiber/standardized water solution, and wherein said viscosity is measured at a shear rate of 5 s- at 20\*C.

4\. A process according to claims 1-3, wherein the treatment comprises pressure
homogenization using a pressure of from 50 bar to 1000 bar.

5\. A process according to claim 4, wherein said treatment is a single-pass pressure homogenization using a pressure of from 300 bar to 1000 bar.

6\. A process according to claim 4, wherein said treatment is a multi-pass pressure homogenization comprising at least 2 passes, using a pressure of from 100 bar to 600 bar.

7\. A process according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the citrus fiber is
subjected to a heat treatment prior to homogenization at a temperature of from 50 0C to 1400C for a period of 1 second to 3 minutes.

8\. A process according to any of the preceding claims, wherein said process further comprises a comminution or pulverizing step prior to desolventizing and drying.

9\. A process according to any of the preceding claims, wherein said process further comprises a comminution or pulverizing step after drying.

10\. A process according to any of the preceding claims, wherein said process further
comprises subjecting said citrus fiber to a processing aid selected from the group consisting of enzymes, acids, bases, hydrocolloids, vegetable fiber, bleaching agents, and combinations thereof.

11\. Citrus fiber obtained by the process according to claims 1-10, said citrus fiber having
having a c\* close packing concentration value of less than 3.8 w%, anhydrous basis.

12\. Citrus fiber according to claim 11, wherein said citrus fiber has a moisture content of from 5% to 15%.

13\. Citrus fiber according to claims 11-12 having a viscosity of at least 1000 mPa.s,
wherein said citrus fiber is dispersed in standardized water at a mixing speed of from 800 rpm to 1000 rpm, preferably 900 rpm, to a 3 w/w% citrus fiber/standardized water solution, and wherein said viscosity is measured at a shear rate of 5 s-' at 20\*C.

14\. Citrus fiber according to claims 11-13 having a CIELAB L\* value of at least 90.

15\. Citrus fiber according to claim 14 having a CIELAB b\* value of less than 20.

16\. A blend of citrus fiber according to claims 11-15 and a plant-derived fiber.

17\. A food product, feed product, beverage, a personal care product, a pharmaceutical product or a detergent product comprising a citrus fiber of claims 11-15 or a blend of claim 16.

18\. Use of citrus fiber according to claims 11-15 or of a blend of claim 16 as a texturiser or viscosifier in a food products, a feed product, a beverage, a personal care product,
a pharmaceutical product or a detergent product. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

OFFICE ACTION:
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA  or AIA  Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA  first to invent provisions.
Status of the Application
Claims 11-15 and 19-24 filed in a preliminary amendment on 10/27/2023 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2024 were filed before the first Office action.  The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.  Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 11 and dependent claims 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 11 characterizes the claimed “a citrus fiber” as “comprising” a specific  C* close packing concentration and dispersibility in water at a specified mixing speed.
The composition of the claimed product is not known as “comprising” does not preclude added components.
According to the instant disclosure:
“[W]ith the process of the present invention, the c* value can be lowered with at least 5%, and often with at least 10% and even with more than 20%. Even with a 5% difference the properties of the fiber are significantly different” (page 7 lines 23-25).
However, a  specific process for producing the product is not claimed.    It is not known what these values characterized as “lowered with at least” are lowered from or lowered with. The phrase “can be lowered” conveys that experimental optimization of processing conditions within the ranges disclosed in the prior art would produce a product with desired properties, and therefore having a close packing concentration in the claimed range. In applicants’ disclosure, comparative untreated commercial samples are shown to have close packing concentrations of 4.04 and 3.94 (page 15 lines 11-15) which are close to the recited limit of 3.8 (within 5.9% and 3.5% of this value, respectively).
The viscosity values are claimed to be determined by a specific procedure, and according to the disclosure, the claimed method of modifying the characteristics of citrus fiber “modifies the citrus fiber so that it can build viscosity even when dispersed in solution at low shear rates” (page 15 lines 23-24). A meaningful comparison with a product in the prior art cannot be made as a specific procedure for determining viscosity is claimed.
The scope of the claimed invention is not clearly defined.
Appropriate correction is required.

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: Remarks
The non-final Office Action of November 21, 2024, has been received and reviewed. In this Response, claims 11 and 12 are amended, no claims are cancelled, and claims 25-33 are newly added. Therefore, claims 11-15 and 19-33 are pending. Applicant requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejections.
Support for Claim Amendments
Claim 11 is amended to recite a modified citrus fiber. Support for the amendment can be found, for example, at page 2, line 12 of the specification as filed. Claim 12 is amended to recite a moisture content of from 6% to 14%. Support for the amendment can be found, for example, at page 7, lines 26-27 of the specification as filed. Claim 24 is amended to remove multiple dependencies.
Support for new claims 25-26 can be found, for example, at page 7, lines 19-25 of the
specification. Support for new claims 27-28 can be found, for example, at page 3, line 13, and at page 7, lines 13-14 of the specification. Support for new claim 29 can be found, for example, at page 4, lines 14-19 of the specification. Support for new claim 30 can be found, for example, at page 3, lines 30-31 of the specification. Support for new claim 31 can be found, for example, at page 15, lines 5-6 of the specification. Support for new claim 32 can be found, for example, at claim 24. Support for new claim 33 can be found, for example, at page 7, line 31 - page 8, line 6, at page 3, line 13, at page 7, lines 13-14, at page 4, lines 14-19, at page 15, lines 5-6, at page 15, lines 9-11, and at page 6, lines 13-14 of the specification.
The 35 U.S.C.
112(b) Re
j
ection
Claim 11 and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
35 U.S.C. §112(b) requires that claims must be "definite" to "ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent." MPEP § 2173. It has been held that as long as those of ordinary skill in the art
understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification, the
requirements of definiteness under § 112(b) are met. MPEP § 2173.02, citing Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Office Action raises the following issues:
(I)
At page 2, the Office Action states:
Claim 11 characterizes the claimed "a citrus fiber" as "comprising" a specific C* close packing concentration and
dispersibility in water at a specified mixing speed.
The composition of the claimed product is not known as "comprising" does not preclude added components.
Claim 11 is amended to specify that the recited properties pertain to the modified citrus fiber. Applicant respectfully asserts that while "comprising" allows for additional components, the claimed properties refer to the modified citrus fiber, irrespective of any additional components. Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the amended claim is read in light of the specification, meeting the requirements of definiteness under § 112(b).
(II)
At page 2, the Office Action states that "[a]ccording to the instant disclosure": '[W]ith the process of the present invention, the c* value can be lowered with at least 5%, and often with at least 10% and even with more than 20%. Even with a 5% difference the properties
of the fiber are significantly different' (page 7 lines 23-25).
However, a specific process for producing the product is not claimed. It is not known what these values characterized as "lowered
with at least" are lowered from or lowered with.
It is not clear why the Examiner makes this assertion in the rejection of claim 11.
However, to clarify the specification, the above-quoted portion is amended herewith. That is, the
specification is amended to clarify that "[w]ith the process of the present invention, the c* value can be lowered [by] at least 5%, and often [by] at least 10% and even [by] more than 20%. Even with a 5% difference, the properties of the fiber are significantly different."
As noted by the Examiner, a specific process for producing the product is not claimed. The claims are directed to a citrus fiber comprising a modified citrus fiber having certain properties that can be achieved using the methods described in the present disclosure. Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification, meeting the requirements of definiteness under §112(b).
(III)
At page 2, the Office Action states:
The phrase   "can   be  lowered"  conveys that experimental optimization of processing conditions within the ranges disclosed in the prior art would produce a product with desired properties, and therefore having a close packing concentration in the claimed range.
In applicants' disclosure, comparative untreated commercial samples are shown to have close packing concentrations of 4.04 and 3.94 (page 15 lines 11-15) which are close to the recited limit of 3.8
(within 5.9% and 3.5% of this value, respectively).
Applicant respectfully disagrees. The cited phrase "can be lowered" at page 7, line 23 of the specification refers to the ability of lowering of the c* close packing concentration values of citrus fiber
by using the process described in the specification.
In the same Example referenced by the Examiner, the c* of Citri-Fi 100 was lowered from 4.04 to 3.04 (that is, lowered by about 25 %) and the c* of Herbacel AO-Plus Citrus Fibre N was lowered from 3.94 to 3.74 (lowered by about 5.1 %). Both of these reductions in c* are in line with the statement in the specification that "[W]ith the process of the present invention, the c* value can be lowered [by] at least 5%, and often [by] at least 10% and even [by] more than 20%. Even with a 5% difference, the properties of the fiber are significantly different." See page 7, lines 23-25.
Furthermore, without acquiescing to the assertion that comparative untreated commercial samples display c* close packing concentration values close to the claimed limit, Applicant respectfully asserts that claim 11 particularly points out and distinctly claims the subject matter, as required under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Specifically, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of "a modified citrus fiber having a c* close packing concentration value of less than 3.8 w%, anhydrous basis" when the claim is read in light of the specification.
(IV)
At page 2, the Office Action states (emphasis added):
The viscosity values are claimed to be determined by a specific procedure, and according to the disclosure, the claimed method of modifying the characteristics of citrus fiber "modifies the citrus fiber so that it can build viscosity even when dispersed in solution at low shear rates" (page 15 lines 23-24). A meaningful comparison with a product in the prior art cannot be made as a
specific procedure for determining viscosity is claimed.
albeit on a Brookfield LVDV++ viscometer.
The sentence cited by the Examiner refers to the fact that the modified citrus fibers of the present application have a high viscosity (they can "build viscosity") even at the relatively low shear rate (mixing speed of 900 rpm used in the test method), while without processing, a high viscosity can only be achieved with a much higher shear rate (e.g., mixing speed of 9500 rpm). See page 15, lines 16-24. As can be seen in the table under "2. Viscosity," the processed Citri-Fi 100 had a viscosity of 6345 mPa-s measured at 900 rpm, while without processing Citri-Fi 100 had a viscosity of 508 mPa-s. However, the paragraph that follows states that if Citri-Fi 100 was tested at 9500 rmp, it had a viscosity of 7545 mPa-s. See page 15, lines 20-22.
The present claims define the mixing speed and shear rate used in the viscosity
determination. Therefore, a meaningful comparison with a product in the prior art could easily be made by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification, meeting the requirements of definiteness under § 112(b). For at least these reasons, withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.
Summary
Applicant submits that the claims are in condition for allowance and requests notification to that effect. Applicant invites the Examiner to contact the undersigned Applicant's Representative at the telephone number listed below if doing so may advance prosecution of this application.
Respectfully submitted by

NEXT OFFICE ACTION: DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA  or AIA  Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA  first to invent provisions.
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment and response filed 2/21/2025. Claims 11-15 and 19-33 are pending in the application. Claim 1 was amended, claims 16-18 were previously canceled  and claims 24-33 were added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/21/2025 was filed before close of prosecution in the application..  The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.  Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 11-15 and 19-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of US Patent No. 11,623,967 and US Patent No. 11,834,776.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims in the patents recite methods of treating a citrus fiber material by similar method steps produce modified citrus fiber having properties as claimed in the current application.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter in claims 11-15 and 19-33 is potentially allowable.
As summarized in art that was available at the time of the application, the connections between composition/structure/physical state and properties facilitates in providing cell wall materials with tailor-made functional properties by choice of suitable conditions for the preparation (Pickardt et al., cited in the IDS filed 10/23/2023). A method to make a modified citrus fiber with properties as claimed in the current invention, is claimed in the above patents by the applicant.
Further evidence is provided in the review article by Déléris et al., cited in the IDS filed 10/23/2023, detailing the relationship between processing history, including solvent removal and drying method on the functional properties of cellulose based materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of claim amendments are persuasive. The previous rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.