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 .
This office action was written in response to the Applicants Remarks filed 9/17/25. Claims 1-12, 16-19, 21, and 22 are pending. Claims 13, 14, and 20 have been canceled. Claim 15 was previously cancelled.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 103(a) rejections of claims 13 and 20 in further view of Gershon have been withdrawn due to the cancellations of the claims.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 6 over Fillieres et al. (WO 2015/014860) “Fillieres 2”, Roze (EP 0559596 1993 Machine Translation), and Fillieres et al. (US 2016/0157511) and in further view of Deak (US 2013/0129867) has been withdrawn and rejected under new art.
The 103(a) rejection of claims 16-18, and 22 over Fillieres et al. (WO 2015/014860) “Fillieres 2”, in view of Roze (EP 0559596 1993 Machine Translation), Fillieres et al. (US 2016/0157511), and Deak (US 2013/0129867) has been withdrawn and rejected under new art.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 19 over Fillieres et al. (WO 2015/014860) “Fillieres 2”, Roze (EP 0559596 1993 Machine Translation), Fillieres et al. (US 2016/0157511) and Deak (US 2013/0129867) in further view of Rokey et al. (US 2009/0175120) has been withdrawn and rejected under new art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the gas flow" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because no “gas flow” was recited in claim 1 upon which claim 6 depends.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
10. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillieres et al. (WO 2015/014860) “Fillieres 2” in view of Roze (EP 0559596 1993 Machine Translation) and Fillieres et al. (US 2016/0157511).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8: “Fillieres 2” discloses a method of making partially hydrolyzed, partially insoluble, digestible keratin material in the form of feather meal, by hydrolyzing keratin by heating at 7 bar using saturated steam (water, heat, and pressure) [0009; 0010; 0033; 0036-0039 and using a hydrolyzer at 2 to 15 bar and d50 particle size is 50µm to 2mm or granulated to any particle size [abstract; 0009; 0034; 0044; 0051]. “Fillieres 2” also discloses that the product is a free flowing powder and has a particle size between 10um and 2 mm [0072]. “Fillieres 2” discloses that the drop in pepsin or illeal digestibility is less than 10% and that the pepsin and ileal digestibility remains higher than 80% and 90% respectively [0010; 0013]. “Fillieres 2” discloses drying [0014] and that the drying process comprises the effective turbulence of keratinaceous material [0068]. “Fillieres 2” discloses milling or agglomerating into a suitable particle size [0072]. “Fillieres 2” discloses a moisture content below about 12% and preferably between about 4% and about 8% [0047; claim 7].
“Fillieres 2” does not disclose the protein content of the feather meal. However, the Applicants own specification states that feathers comprise between 70 to 90% protein and that, generally, feather meal contains about 72% to about 87% protein [Applicants’ specification as filed pg. 3, lines 22-28]. Applicants state that this as a general statement regarding feather and feather meal. Therefore it would have been obvious that given feather is the only saturated steam treated component of the process that the resulting feather meal would have had the same protein content of about 72% to 87%.
“Fillieres 2” does not disclose concurrently drying and grinding of the partially hydrolyzed keratinaceous material in an air turbulence mill.
“Fillieres 2” does not disclose a d90 particle size that is less than 1mm.
Roze discloses a method of producing at least partially hydrolyzed keratinaceous material [0017; 0023]. Roze discloses hydrolyzing keratinaceous material with water [0028] in a hydrolysis tank (hydrolyzer) [claim 8] with heat [0030]. Roze discloses simultaneous drying and grinding of the partially hydrolyzed keratinaceous material in an attrition mill [0036]. Roze discloses that the digestibility was about 78% [0029]. The attrition mill of Roze incorporates a current of air and accomplishes grinding and drying at the same time [0046-0050] and is therefore the same as an air turbulence mill.
Fillieres discloses a method of making digestible keratin material by hydrolyzing keratin by heating at 7 bar using saturated steam (water and heat) [0116] and using a hydrolyzer at 2 to 15 bar and d50 particle size is 30 to 1000 um and d90 particle size is less than 1mm [abstract; 0048; 0051; 0093].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of “Fillieres 2” to include the step of simultaneous grinding and drying as in Roze in order to increase the efficiency in producing a final ground dried protein product.
Further it would have been obvious to modify the method of “Fillieres 2” to produce a particle size of d90 particle size is less than 1mm as in Fillieres to produce a fine powder for use in feeds.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by “Fillieres 2” overlaps the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Further although “Fillieres 2” does not disclose explicitly wherein more than 50% of the keratinaceous material is insoluble in water, “Fillieres 2” does disclose that the product is partially insoluble which can be interpreted at about 50%.
Regarding Claim 2: “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. “Fillieres 2” discloses keeping the keratin material during drying at below 90°C [0014].
Regarding Claim 3: “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Roze discloses the attrition mill rotating at 300 to 500 rev/min or 2,000 to 5,000 rev/min [0043, 0044].
Although Roze does not disclose 20-150 m/s it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the velocity for the intended application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
Regarding the specifics of the apparatus, the determination of patentability is based on the recited method and does not depend on the specifics of the apparatus used to execute the method. Here, the products resulting from the process of “Fillieres 2” as modified by Roze including partially hydrolyzed keratin are substantially similar to those obtained in the inventive process.
Regarding Claim 5: “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Roze discloses the air temperature at 250 to 400°C [0050].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the method of “Fillieres 2” to dry at the air temperature of 250 to 400°C as in Roze in order to adequately dry the keratin.
Regarding Claim 7: “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses the same steps as claimed and therefore it would have been expected that the partially hydrolyzed keratin would have had the same color features as claimed in claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9: “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. “Fillieres 2” does not disclose wherein the dried and ground digestible keratinaceous material has a d90 particle size below about 0.7 mm measured by laser diffraction using a dry powder Beckman Coulter particle size analyzer, and/or wherein the dried and ground digestible keratinaceous material has a d10 particle size above about 10 µm.
Fillieres discloses that the D90 particle size is less than 1 mm and below 0.5mm [0093].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the method of “Fillieres 2” to produce a particle size of d90 particle size is less than 1 mm and below 0.5 mm as in Fillieres to produce a fine powder suitable for feeds including fish food [0093].
Regarding the d90 particle size, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Fillieres overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Fillieres does not disclose that the particle size was measured by a Beckman Coulter analyzer, however, the selection of an apparatus to assess the particle size would have been based on the preference of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 10: “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. “Fillieres 2” does not disclose wherein the dried and ground digestible keratinaceous material has a d90 divided by d10 of 20 or less.
Fillieres discloses that the D90 particle size is less than 1 mm and below 0.5mm [0093].
Although Fillieres as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the dried and ground digestible keratinaceous material has a d90 divided by d10 of 20 or less, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the particle size for producing a powder for pet, animal, shrimp, or fish feeds [Fillieres 0015; 0070; 0073; claim 15], since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
Regarding Claim 21: “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. “Fillieres 2” discloses feather meal as the dry keratinaceous material [0073; 0087].
11. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillieres et al. (WO 2015/014860) “Fillieres 2” in view of Roze (EP 0559596 1993 Machine Translation) and Fillieres et al. (US 2016/0157511) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Hosokawa Micron March 29 2012 Innovative Drying technology from Hosokawa Micron
Regarding Claim 4: “Fillieres 2” discloses as discussed above in claim 1. “Fillieres 2” and Roze do not disclose a classifier.
Hosokawa discloses a dryer that has a classifier [pg. 2].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art to modify the method of modified “Fillieres 2” to include drying with a classifier as in Hosokawa to ensure that all of the particles are thoroughly dried.
12. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillieres et al. (WO 2015/014860) “Fillieres 2”, Roze (EP 0559596 1993 Machine Translation), and Fillieres et al. (US 2016/0157511) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Carin et al. (PH 12007500194 also WO 2006/014670) Machine Translation 9/2012.
Regarding Claim 6: “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. “Fillieres 2” does not disclose wherein the gas flow, is between about 10 and about 50 m3/hr per kg feed, which flow may be adjusted to influence the particle size of the dried keratinaceous material, and wherein the partly hydrolyzed keratin residence time is less than 10 sec.
Carin discloses a method of treating waste materials and converting them from high moisture waste materials to dry or low moisture products [abstract]. Carin discloses that the waste materials can be feathers, blood, blood meal, hair, and feather meal [pg. 9]. In an example, Carin discloses the gas flow rate being about 10 m3/hr and discloses a residence time of 10 to 18 minutes [pg. 31]. Carin also discloses that the contact time (residence time) between the waste materials and gas is determined by variables including the moisture content of the waste/feedstock and the desired end moisture content, and that “the desired contact time can be varied and regulated by the dryer vessel volume and size and by the throughput volumes of the feedstock and exhaust gases” [pg. 30, lines 32, 33; pg. 31, lines 1-13]. Carin discloses grinding or milling the dried material into a powder or meal [pg. 28, lines 9-19].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate into modified “Fillieres 2” the flow rate of Carin in order to produce a dried keratinaceous product.
Although Carin does not disclose the recited residence time, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the residence time for producing the dried product based on starting moisture content, desired final moisture content, and dryer vessel size and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
13. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillieres et al. (WO 2015/014860) “Fillieres 2”, Roze (EP 0559596 1993 Machine Translation), and Fillieres et al. (US 2016/0157511) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Rokey et al. (US 2009/0175120).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12: “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. “Fillieres 2” does not disclose wherein the dried and ground digestible keratinaceous material leaving the dryer and grinder has a poured density of about 0.2 g/cm3 or higher (claim 11); wherein the dried and ground digestible keratinaceous material as leaving the dryer and grinder has a tapped bulk density of about 0.25 g/cm3 or higher (claim 12).
Rokey discloses meal containing hydrolyzed feathers with a density after drying of 404, 433, or 435 kg/m3 (.404, .433. or .435 g/cm3) [0051].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of “Fillieres 2” to include the densities of the hydrolyzed keratin being 404, 433, or 435 kg/cm3 as in Rokey in order to provide a quality dried product [Rokey 0053].
14. Claims 16-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillieres et al. (WO 2015/014860) “Fillieres 2”, in view of Roze (EP 0559596 1993 Machine Translation), Fillieres et al. (US 2016/0157511), and Carin et al. (PH 12007500194 also WO 2006/014670) Machine Translation 9/2012.
Regarding Claim 16: “Fillieres 2” discloses a method of making partially hydrolyzed, partially insoluble, digestible keratin material in the form of feather meal, by hydrolyzing keratin by heating at 7 bar using saturated steam (water, heat, and pressure) [0009; 0010; 0033; 0036-0039 and using a hydrolyzer at 2 to 15 bar and d50 particle size is 50µm to 2mm or granulated to any particle size [abstract; 0009; 0034; 0044; 0051]. “Fillieres 2” also discloses that the product is a free flowing powder and has a particle size between 10um and 2 mm [0072]. “Fillieres 2” discloses that the drop in pepsin or illeal digestibility is less than 10% and the pepsin and ileal digestibility remains higher than 80% and 90% respectively [0010; 0013]. “Fillieres 2” discloses drying [0014] and that the drying process comprises effective turbulence of keratinaceous material [0068]. “Fillieres 2” discloses the temperature of the keratin material during drying at below 75°C [0014]. “Fillieres 2” discloses a moisture content below about 12% and preferably between about 4% and about 8% [0047; claim 7].
“Fillieres 2” does not disclose the protein content of the feather meal. However, the Applicants own specification states that feathers comprise between 70 to 90% protein and that, generally, feather meal contains about 72% to about 87% protein [Applicants’ specification as filed pg. 3, lines 22-28]. Applicants state that this as a general statement regarding feather and feather meal. Therefore it would have been obvious that given feather is the only saturated steam treated component of the process that the resulting feather meal would have had the same protein content of about 72% to 87%.
Fillieres 2 does not disclose simultaneous drying and grinding of the partially hydrolyzed keratinaceous material in an air turbulence mill.
Fillieres 2 does not disclose a d90 particle size that is less than 1mm.
Fillieres 2 does not disclose the gas flow rate as recited in claim 16.
Roze discloses a method of producing at least partially hydrolyzed keratinaceous material [0017; 0023]. Roze discloses hydrolyzing keratinaceous material with water [0028] in a hydrolysis tank (hydrolyzer) [claim 8] with heat [0030]. Roze discloses simultaneous drying and grinding of the partially hydrolyzed keratinaceous material in an attrition mill [0036]. Roze discloses that the digestibility was about 78% [0029]. The attrition mill of Roze incorporates a current of air and accomplishes grinding and drying at the same time [0046-0050] and is therefore the same as an air turbulence mill.
Fillieres discloses a method of making digestible keratin material by hydrolyzing keratin by heating at 7 bar using saturated steam (water and heat) [0116] and using a hydrolyzer at 2 to 15 bar and d50 particle size is 30 to 1000 um and d90 particle size is less than 1mm [abstract; 0048; 0051; 0093].
Carin discloses a method of treating waste materials and converting them from high moisture waste materials to dry or low moisture products [abstract]. Carin discloses that the waste materials can be feathers, blood, blood meal, hair, and feather meal [pg. 9]. In an example, Carin discloses the gas flow rate being about 10 m3/hr and discloses a residence time of 10 to 18 minutes [pg. 31]. Carin also discloses that the contact time (residence time) between the waste materials and gas is determined by variables including the moisture content of the waste/feedstock and the desired end moisture content, and that “the desired contact time can be varied and regulated by the dryer vessel volume and size and by the throughput volumes of the feedstock and exhaust gases” [pg. 30, lines 32, 33; pg. 31, lines 1-13]. Carin discloses grinding or milling the dried material into a powder or meal [pg. 28, lines 9-19].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Fillieres to include the step of simultaneous grinding and drying as in Roze in order to increase the efficiency on producing a final ground dried protein product.
Further it would have been obvious to modify the method of “Fillieres 2” to produce a particle size of d90 particle size is less than 1mm as in Fillieres to produce a fine powder.
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate into modified “Fillieres 2” the flow rate of Carin in order to produce a dried keratinaceous product.
One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Fillieres overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding the air turbulence mill comprises a chamber with appropriate inlets and outlets for product and stream(s) of gas in which a rotating member is mounted with stacks of impacting devices which rotating member can rotate at high speed, wherein the rotating member rotates at a tip speed between 20-150 m/s, this appears to rely on features of an apparatus. The determination of patentability is based on the recited method and does not depend on the specifics of the apparatus used to execute the method. Here, the products resulting from the process of Fillieres 2 as modified by the attrition mill of Roze including dried keratin, are substantially similar to those obtained in the inventive process and therefore does not depend upon the apparatus limitations instantly described.
Although Carin does not disclose the recited residence time of less than 10 seconds, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the residence time for producing the dried product based on starting moisture content, desired final moisture content, and dryer vessel size and since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
Regarding Claim 17: “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 16. “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses the same steps as claimed and therefore it would have been expected that the partially hydrolyzed keratin would have had the same color features as claimed in claim 17.
Regarding Claim 18: “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 17. “Fillieres 2” discloses a method of making hydrolyzed keratin by heating at 7 bar using saturated steam [0116] and using a hydrolyzer at 2 to 15 bar and d50 particle size is 30 to 1000 um and also 120-130 um [abstract; 0048; 0051; 0093].
Fillieres 2 does not disclose a d90 particle size that is less than .7mm.
Fillieres discloses a method of making digestible keratin material by hydrolyzing keratin by heating at 7 bar using saturated steam (water and heat) [0116] and using a hydrolyzer at 2 to 15 bar and d50 particle size is 30 to 1000 um and d90 particle size is less than .5mm [abstract; 0048; 0051; 0093].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of “Fillieres 2” to include the step of simultaneous grinding and drying as in Roze in order to increase the efficiency on producing a final ground dried protein product.
Further it would have been obvious to modify the method of “Fillieres 2” to produce a particle size of d90 particle size is less than 1mm as in Fillieres to produce a fine powder.
Fillieres does not disclose that the particle size was measured by a Beckman Coulter analyzer, however, the selection of an apparatus to assess the particle size would have been based on the preference of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 22: “Fillieres 2” as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 16. “Fillieres 2” discloses feather meal as the dry keratinaceous material [0073; 0087].
15. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillieres et al. (WO 2015/014860) “Fillieres 2”, Roze (EP 0559596 1993 Machine Translation), Fillieres et al. (US 2016/0157511) and Carin et al. (PH 12007500194 also WO 2006/014670) Machine Translation 9/2012 as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Rokey et al. (US 2009/0175120).
Regarding Claim 19: “Fillieres 2” discloses as discussed above in claim 18. “Fillieres 2” does not disclose the digestible keratinaceous material leaving the dryer and grinder has a poured density of about 0.25 g/cm3 or higher, and wherein the dried and ground digestible keratinaceous material as leaving the dryer and grinder has a tapped bulk density of about 0.3 g/cm3 or higher.
Rokey discloses meal containing hydrolyzed feathers with a density after drying of 404, 433, or 435 kg/m3 (.404, .433. or .435 g/cm3) [0051].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Fillieres 2 to include the densities of the hydrolyzed keratin being 404, 433, or 435 kg/cm3 as in Rokey in order to provide a quality dried product [Rokey 0053].
Response to Arguments
16. The 103(a) rejections of claims 13 and 20 in further view of Gershon have been withdrawn due to the cancellations of the claims.
17. The 103(a) rejection of claim 6 over Fillieres et al. (WO 2015/014860) “Fillieres 2”, Roze (EP 0559596 1993 Machine Translation), and Fillieres et al. (US 2016/0157511) and in further view of Deak (US 2013/0129867) has been withdrawn and rejected under new art.
18. The 103(a) rejection of claims 16-18, and 22 over Fillieres et al. (WO 2015/014860) “Fillieres 2”, in view of Roze (EP 0559596 1993 Machine Translation), Fillieres et al. (US 2016/0157511), and Deak (US 2013/0129867) has been withdrawn and rejected under new art.
19. The 103(a) rejection of claim 19 over Fillieres et al. (WO 2015/014860) “Fillieres 2”, Roze (EP 0559596 1993 Machine Translation), Fillieres et al. (US 2016/0157511) and Deak (US 2013/0129867) in further view of Rokey et al. (US 2009/0175120) has been withdrawn and rejected under new art.
20. The Examiner asserts that it is improper to combine “Filleres 2” with Roze. The Examiner asserts that Filleres 2 does not disclose the claimed digestibility, the powder characteristics, or the method of drying/grinding. The Applicants assert that “Filleres 2” and Roze disclose different materials and different drying methods. The Applicants also assert that the Examiner has used hindsight reasoning in combining “Fillieres 2” and Roze.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner does not dispute that “Fillieres 2” and Roze are not exactly the same. However, “Fillieres 2”does disclose that the drying method was one that incorporates movement. Further, it is not clear why one of ordinary skill would not expect the partly hydrolyzed protein to work in the dryer of Roze. The Applicants assert that since Roze discloses feathers combined with other offal by-products and since the level of digestibility is less than the instant claim that the method of drying would not have been expected to work. The Examiner disagrees because the instant invention does not consist only of keratinaceous material. The instant invention is inclusive of other by-products including blood.
Many drying methods are capable of drying wet proteinaceous material. Here, “Fillieres 2”discloses that drying methods that incorporate rotation are to be used. The fact that an attrition mill can reduce particle size while drying is an efficient feature and one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such a method. The Examiner notes that Roze was not relied upon for its level of digestibility. Further, it is not clear why the method of measurement of the digestibly would be necessary to see in Roze in order for it to be deemed accurate. Further, the Examiner maintains that the level of digestibility referred to in Roze is to the feather substrate and not the combination of feather in addition to viscera, bloods, or bone. Roze makes the point to state that “the level of digestibility of the feathers was of the order of 78%” [0029]. Roze also discloses that the feathers are subjected to hydrolysis before combining with other by-products [0017]. Therefore, it is further unclear why Roze would not be incompatible with “Fillieres 2”since they both incorporate additional by-products. Even so, the claimed level of digestibility was met by primary reference “Fillieres 2”.
21. Regarding the moisture content, the Examiner maintains that the limitation as amended was met as discussed in the above rejection. The Examiner notes that the target moisture content of Roze does not disqualify the method as being combinable with “Fillieres 2”. The moisture content of Roze is merely the moisture content that the inventors in that application wanted to attain. The Examiner maintains that the moisture content achieved would have been based on the level of heat applied, time allowed for drying, and the desire of one of ordinary skill in the art. “Fillieres 2” met the new limitation of the claims by its disclosure of drying and drying to a moisture content of less than 12% or 4 to 8%.
Pertinent Prior Art
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nur et al. 2013 TW I411450 Machine Translation discloses a method of drying and milling protein where the gas flow is between 30 and 100 m3/hour [abstract] Nur discloses the particle size of the protein at 5- 100µm [abstract]. Nur discloses a vortex chamber grinding apparatus [abstract].
Conclusion
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA C TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-4:00 pm.
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, Emily Le can be reached on 571-272-0903. 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.
/Felicia C Turner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793