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 Applicant’s Remarks filed 6/22/26. Claims 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 12-19, and 28-30 are pending and have been examined on the merits. Claim 5 has been cancelled. Claims 3, 6, 7, 11, and 20-27 were previously cancelled.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 112(a) rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-10, 12-19, and 28-30 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1, 2, 8-10, 12, 13, 18, 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filliéres et al (US 2016/0183560) in view of Wang et al. (CN 105494886) “Wang 2”, Kim (WO 2014/126313), and Kalinikhin et al. RU 2505993 Machine Translation 2014.
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 8-10 and 28: Filliéres discloses a method of producing hydrolyzed keratin [abstract; 0070]. Filliéres discloses that the keratin material can be feathers [0003; 0004; 0006]. Filliéres discloses attaining a digestibility of higher than 85% [abstract; 0012; 0016; 0029]. Filliéres discloses that the hydrolysis with steam at a temperature depends on pressure [0038; 0039]. Filliéres discloses steam hydrolysis at a pressure of 2- 15 bar (29-217 psig)[0039]. Filliéres discloses steam hydrolysis at about 4 bar and about 144°C [0039]. Filliéres discloses that the hydrolyzed keratin serves to improve the nutritional value of pet feeds [0019; 0076].
Filliéres does not disclose adding a reducing sugar (claim 1); wherein the reducing sugar comprises galactose, glucose, glyceraldehyde, fructose, ribose, xylose, cellobiose, lactose, maltose, glucose syrup, maltodextrin, dextrin or glycogen(claim 8); wherein the one or more reducing sugars is xylose (claim 9); wherein the one or more reducing sugars is added in an amount of 5 wt.% or less, based upon the total weight of the mixture (claim 10).
Filliéres does not disclose adding cereal bran and adding at 5 to 10%.
Filliéres does not explicitly disclose hydrolyzing the feather, bran, and sugar together.
“Wang 2” discloses a method of making a hydrolyzed keratin product [abstract]. “Wang 2” discloses combining raw material in the form of feather meal, wheat bran and treating with an enzyme separately and then bringing the hydrolyzed feather meal and hydrolyzed wheat bran together [abstract]. “Wang 2” discloses a preparation containing 1-8 parts blood meal, 1-8 parts feather meal, 1-8 parts mycoprotein and 1-8 parts wheat bran [pg. 2]. If wheat bran were present at 1 part, blood meal at 1 part, feather meal at 8 parts and mycoprotein at 8 parts, wheat bran would be present at about 5.5%.
Kim discloses a method for making a liquid amino from keratin that imparts a beef or potato flavor [pg. 2, Advantageous effects]. Kim discloses hydrolyzing a mixture of hair or feathers, reducing sugars including xylose and glucose, maltose, and fructose [pg. 2. Mode for invention; Tech-Solution 1st and 2nd paragraphs]. Kim discloses xylose and glucose [pg. 2. Tech-Solution 1st and 2nd paragraphs]. Kim discloses xylose [pg. 2. Tech-Solution 1st and 2nd paragraphs]. Kim discloses 8 g of xylose in a mixture of at least 1 kg of keratin material [Ex. 1]. Therefore, Kim discloses about .8% xylose which is less than 5% reducing sugar.
Kalinikhin discloses hydrolyzing keratin containing waste (including feathers), oats (cereal containing bran), and sugar [abstract; pg. 2 para 6 and 7; claims 1-2]. Kalinikhin discloses that the ingredients are hydrolyzed together [pg. 2, para 7]. Kalinikhin discloses an increase in the digestibility of the feed produced [abstract]. Kalinikhin discloses improving the quality of pet food [pg. 2, para 6].
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 Filliéres to include cereal bran/wheat bran and at the amounts as in “Wang 2” in order to provide a more complete, balanced, and desirable nutritional composition and to provide other desirable organoleptic properties to the food material.
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 Filliéres to include reducing sugars as in Kim including xylose and glucose and at the amounts in Kim in order to produce a hydrolyzed feather product with reduced poor odor [Kim, pg. 2].
Further it would have been obvious to modify Filliéres to hydrolyze the feather, bran, and sugar together as in Kalinikhin where the ingredients including keratin, oats (bran containing material) and sugar are hydrolyzed together in order to provide an efficient hydrolyzation process and since any order of adding the ingredients is prima facie obvious Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F. 2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F. 2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 28, although Filliéres does not explicitly disclose 140°C one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Filliéres overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 12: Filliéres as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Filliéres does not disclose a pretreated feather and therefore discloses a raw feather material.
Regarding Claim 13: Filliéres as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Filliéres discloses steam hydrolysis for about 5 to 180 minutes under pressure of 2 to 15 bar (from about 29 psig to about 217 psig) [0039].
Although Filliéres does not explicitly disclose from about 15 to about 240 minutes one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Filliéres overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Although Filliéres does not explicitly disclose at least 38 psig one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Filliéres overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 18: Filliéres as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Filliéres discloses wherein the hydrolyzed keratinous protein-containing material is further processed by, drying [0050; 0051].
Regarding Claim 30: Filliéres as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Filliéres discloses steam hydrolysis for about 5 to 180 minutes and preferably 10 minutes to 1 hour [0039].
Although Filliéres does not explicitly disclose from 15 to 60 minutes one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Filliéres overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filliéres et al (US 2016/0183560), Wang et al. (CN 105494886) “Wang 2”, Kim (WO 2014/126313), and Kalinikhin et al. RU 2505993 Machine Translation 2014 as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of CZ 2014395.
Regarding Claim 28: Filleres does not disclose the claimed temperature. CZ2014395 discloses treating keratin at 140°C.
At the effective filing date of the invention, it would have bene obvious to modify the temperature to exactly 140 C as it is able to effectively hydrolyze keratin at the temperature disclosed in CZ 2014395.
Claims 4 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filliéres et al (US 2016/0183560), Wang et al. (CN 105494886) “Wang 2”, Kim (WO 2014/126313), and Kalinikhin et al. RU 2505993 Machine Translation 2014 as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Janse et al. (WO 2014/064024).
Regarding Claims 4 and 29: Filliéres as modified discloses wheat bran as discussed above in claim 1. Filliéres does not disclose wherein the wheat bran is defatted (claim 4). Filliéres does not disclose rice bran fiber (claim 29).
Janse discloses defatted rice bran subjected to hydrolysis to produce hydrolyzed rice bran [abstract; pg. 5, paragraphs 1-3]. Janse discloses that defatted rice bran is typically used for feed compositions [pg. 3, Background of the invention].
At the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Filliéres to include wheat bran in defatted form as in Janse or to use defatted rice bran in place of the wheat bran of modified Filliéres as in Janse in order to utilize bran in a form that is appropriate for incorporation into feed.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filliéres et al (US 2016/0183560), Wang et al. (CN 105494886) “Wang 2”, Kim (WO 2014/126313), and Kalinikhin et al. RU 2505993 Machine Translation 2014 as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Papadopoulos et al. “Effect of Different Processing Conditions on Amino Acid…” Poultry Science 1985 col. 64 pages 1729-1741.
Regarding Claim 14: Filliéres as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Filliéres discloses that known methods for hydrolyzing keratin include steam, enzymatic hydrolysis, and chemical hydrolysis [0006]. Filliéres does not disclose that the method further includes an enzyme hydrolysis step.
Papadopoulos discloses steam treating feathers followed by enzymatic hydrolysis to ensure complete digestion [abstract; Table 1]. Papadopoulos discloses treating at a temperature of 146°C and under pressure and that this is followed by chemical or enzymatic hydrolysis by a proteolytic enzyme [pg. 1730 “Materials and Method”].
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 Filliéres to further include the step of hydrolyzing via enzymatic hydrolysis as in Papadopoulos in order to further or more completely hydrolyze the feather or keratin material.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filliéres et al (US 2016/0183560), Wang et al. (CN 105494886) “Wang 2”, Kim (WO 2014/126313), and Kalinikhin et al. RU 2505993 Machine Translation 2014 and Papadopoulos et al. “Effect of Different Processing Conditions on Amino Acid…” Poultry Science 1985 col. 64 pages 1729-1741 as applied to claim 14 above and in further view of Xia (WO 2103/070798).
Regarding Claim 15: Filliéres as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 14. Filliéres does not disclose adding a proteolytic enzyme slurry comprising a quantity of at least one proteolytic enzyme in an aqueous environment to the mixture to produce a protein slurry; incubating the protein slurry for a time sufficient to produce the food protein ingredient.
Xia discloses mixing an enzyme in an aqueous solution to produce an enzyme solution and adding the enzyme solution to a proteinaceous mixture [00025; 00069].
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 Filliéres to include enzymes in an enzyme solution and incubating them in order to hydrolyze the keratin as in Xia in order to efficiently break down the keratin thereby making it highly digestible [0007].
Regarding Claims 16 and 17: Filliéres as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 15. Filliéres does not disclose wherein the proteolytic enzyme is selected from the group consisting of endoproteases, exoproteases, endogenous enzymes, and combinations thereof (claim 16); wherein the endoproteases include enzymes selected from the group consisting of keratinase, papain, and combinations thereof (claim 17).
“Wang 2” discloses the endoprotease and specifically papain [abstract; pg. 4].
Xia discloses endoproteases, exoproteases, endogenous enzymes and combinations and specifically discloses keratinase, papain, and combinations [00016].
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 Filliéres to include the enzymes of “Wang 2” and Xia in order to better digest the keratin and other protein sources in the mixture.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Filliéres et al (US 2016/0183560), Wang et al. (CN 105494886) “Wang 2”, Kim (WO 2014/126313), and Kalinikhin et al. RU 2505993 Machine Translation 2014 as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Fado et al. (JP 2004283033) Oct 2004.
Regarding Claim 19: Filliéres as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Filliéres does not disclose further comprising adding an amount of one or more antioxidants to the keratinous protein-containing material before, during or after hydrolysis.
Fado discloses adding an antioxidant to animal feed with improved digestibility [0015].
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 Filliéres to include further including antioxidants as in Fado in order to help better preserve the hydrolyzed keratin product.
Response to Arguments
On pages 6 and 7, the Applicant asserts that there is no motivation to arrive at the subject matter of the claimed invention because Fillieres does not disclose cereal bran at the claimed amounts, and because Wang 2, which disclosed amounts of cereal bran, did not disclose mixing non-hydrolyzed cereal bran with feathers and instead disclosed adding hydrolyzed cereal bran to feather powder.
The Examiner notes that although Wang discloses separately hydrolyzing the cereal bran and the feather powder and then bringing them together, the disclosure still renders the claims obvious because the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new or unexpected results. Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F. 2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F. 2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.
Further the rejections of the claims were also made in view of Kalinikhin which disclosed that the ingredients (feather, bran and sugar) are hydrolyzed together [pg. 2, para 7].
On page 7, the Applicant asserts that Kalinikhin discloses the process for extruding a feed additive. The Applicant asserts that Kalinikhin does not disclose advantages of using cereal bran for the purpose of reducing malodors in food products.
The Examiner disagrees. Kim discloses hydrolyzing keratinous material [abstract]. Kim discloses that the hydrolysis of keratin materials including feathers, produces sulfur containing components and other malodors [Kim, page 2 “Tech problem” and “Tech solution”]. Kim discloses that combining with sugars helps to produce a Maillard reaction where, upon heating, a more friendly fragrance is produced [Kim pg. 2, ‘Tech Solution”]. Further, Applicant does not necessarily attribute less odor to the presence of cereal bran in the instant application.
On pages 7-10, the Applicant assert unexpected results in reducing malodor.
The Examiner maintains that the result was not unexpected in view of Kim which as discussed above discloses the reduction in malodor in hydrolyzed keratin in the presence of sugar and that the Maillard reaction lessens the malodor and produces a more favorable odor.
On page 10, the Applicant asserts that Sobek does not cure the deficiencies of Filliéres, Wang 2, Kim and Kalinikhin.
The Examiner maintains the rejections for the reasons discussed above and maintains that Sobek teaches the hydrolysis of keratin at 140°C and therefore discloses the limitation for which it was incorporated.
On page 11, the Applicant asserts that Janse does not correct the deficiencies of Filliéres, Wang 2, Kim and Kalinikhin because it does not disclose hydrolyzing a mixture of keratin and rice bran fiber.
The Examiner disagrees because the limitations of hydrolyzing keratin in the presence of bran was covered by Filliéres, Wang 2 and Kalinikhin. Janse was relevant for its teaching of defatted rice bran that is subjected to hydrolysis.
On page 11, the Applicant asserts that Papadopoulos does not remedy the deficiencies of the previous references.
The Examiner maintains the reference for the reasons provided above and that the references were not deficient.
On page 12, the Applicant asserts that Xia does not cure the deficiencies of Filliéres, Wang 2, Kim and Kalinikhin. The Applicant asserts that Xia merely discloses processing food with an enzyme.
The Examiner disagrees and notes that Xia discloses why one would mix an enzyme in an aqueous solution which would be to more efficiently break down the keratin thereby making it highly digestible.
On pages 12-13, the Applicant asserts that Fado does not remedy the deficiencies of the previous claims.
The Examiner maintains that the previous claims are not deficient for the reasons discussed above and that Fado was relevant and met the limitation for which it was included.
For the reasons above the rejections have been maintained.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gunji et al. JP H0759516 discloses mixing feather and an edible solid material having a caking property and extruding [abstract]; discloses preventing the formation of malodor while increasing the digestibility of feather [0006; 0039]. Gunji discloses applying pressure and heat [0013]. Gunji discloses including sugar as a part of the caking material [0013; 6th page].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
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-Thu 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 at 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
Prosecution Insights