DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated January 21, 2026 (amendment) amending claims 1 and 26 and adding new claims 30-34 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12, 15-16 and 20-34 as filed with the amendment have been examined. Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 13-14, and 17-19 have been canceled. In view of the amendment, all outstanding claim objections have been withdrawn.
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 Objections
Claims 3, 10 and 29 are objected to because the instant specification and claims do not appear to meet all of the requirements for biological deposits. In particular, the record does indicate that samples of the deposited material are available to anyone determined by the Director to be entitled to access under 37 CFR 1.14 and that all restrictions imposed by the depositor on the availability to the public of the deposited material will be irrevocably removed upon the granting of the patent. 37 CFR 1.808(a) and see MPEP 2411.01.
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, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12, 15-16 and 20-34 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.
In claim 1, at line 6 the term “composition of the primary fermentation” is indefinite because it is not clear if the recited grain flour composition and the composition of the primary fermentation are the same or different. Is the composition of the primary fermentation the same thing as the grain flour composition?
The Office interprets the claimed composition of the primary fermentation as being the same thing as the recited grain flour composition.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12, 15-16 and 20-34 are objected to as depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9, 12, 15-16, 20-23, 26-27, 29 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN105475632 A to Zhang et al. (Zhang ‘632) in view of CN106538822 A to Wu et al. (Wu) and US 2017/0020161 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim), of record..
All references to Wu and Zhang refer to the Clarivate machine translation, copies of which are provided with this Office action.
Unless otherwise disclosed, all percentages (%s) disclosed without units are interpreted as weight %s (wt%), which is interpreted as interchangeable with mass%
Regarding instant claims 1, 7, 15-16, 23 and 26 at Abstract on page 1, Zhang ‘632 discloses a method of preparing fermented feed composition (claim 1 as a “fermented composition” of claim 15 and “feed composition” of claim 16). Further, at the Abstract Zhang ‘632 discloses the method comprising fermenting bean pulp (“soybean meal” as a “grain flour composition” as in claims 1 and 23) using Palladino yeast (“performing primary fermentation …wherein the yeast is the only microorganism used in the primary fermentation”) to give a product having reduced raffinose and stachyose content, that enhances animal immune function and regulation of intestinal microorganism balance, prompting growth of the animal and reducing use of antibiotics. Further, at page 3 in the 4th and 5th full paragraphs, item D., Zhang ‘632 discloses adding water (“moisture content adjustment and then heat treatment” - claim 7) to form a fermentation culture solution at the desired 30 to 35 °C wherein water content (“moisture content”) ranges from 40 to 50 wt% of the grain flour composition or composition of the primary fermentation (claims 1 and 26); in addition, on page 3, at D Zhang ‘632 discloses inoculating the grain flour composition with yeast at 1-3 x 107 CFU per gram of dry material and performing primary fermentation.
Further, the Office considers the claimed inoculating a yeast culture in an amount of 5 wt% to 15 wt%, based on the total weight of the composition of the primary fermentation to include the amount inoculated in page 3, at D of Zhang ‘632 because the number of yeast cells inoculated is the same as the number disclosed in Table 5 at page 27 of the instant specification.
Still further regarding instant claim 1 and regarding instant claims 3, 12, 20 and 29, the instant specification at page 30, 1st full paragraph discloses that a yeast or Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the claimed yeast have a 99% homology. Accordingly, the Office considers Saccharomyces cerevisiae to include the yeast disclosed in Zhang ‘632 at the Abstract; and, further considers the claimed yeast and the yeast disclosed in Zhang ‘632 to be substantially the same yeast. Accordingly, absent a clear showing as to how the yeast disclosed in Zhang ‘632 and the method of performing primary fermentation of Zhang ‘632 differs from that as claimed, the Office considers the yeast of Zhang ‘632 to produce one or all of the claimed enzymes of a phytase, α galactosidase and a protease as in claim 1; further still, the Office considers the yeast disclosed in Zhang ‘632 be the same yeast as the yeast deposited under the accession number KCCM12123P or KCCM12124P, as in claims 3 and 20; and, the Office considers the claimed yeast as deposited under the accession number KCCM12123P and/ or KCCM12124P as in claims 3, 12, 20 and 29 to include the yeast of Zhang ‘632. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Zhang ‘632 does not disclose performing secondary fermentation of the primary fermented product using a strain of the genus Bacillus; and does not disclose obtaining the secondary fermented product, wherein the secondary fermented product has reduced odor compared to a fermented product of Bacillus alone as in claim 1.
Further regarding instant claims 15-16, Zhang ‘632 does not disclose a fermented composition made by the claimed method comprising performing secondary fermentation as in claim 15 or a feed method made thereby as in claim 16.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 32-34, Zhang ‘632 does not disclose performing secondary fermentation using a strain of the genus Bacillus wherein the strain of the genus Bacillus is at least one strain selected from the group consisting of Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus toyoi, Bacillus coagulans, Bacillus polyfermenticus, and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens as in claim 9; and, Zhang ‘632 does not disclose performing secondary fermentation for at least 24 hours as in claim 32, does not disclose inoculating the strain of the genus Bacillus in an amount of from 1 to 30 wt%, based on the total weight of the primary fermented product as in claim 33, and does not disclose inoculating the strain of the genus Bacillus in an amount of from 5 to 15 wt%, based on the total weight of the primary fermented product as in claim 34.
Wu discloses at Abstract on pages 1 and 2 discloses sequentially fermenting soybean meal (“grain flour composition”) using bacillus subtilis and saccharomycetes (yeast) in performing primary fermentation and adding lactic acid bacteria in a graded fermentation process to obtain a secondary fermented product as an animal feed rich in high-concentrations of culture, protease and peptide active substances and having a water content of 25 to 40 wt%. Further, Wu discloses that the secondary fermentation reduces the drying process requirements and processing cost and provides an economical fermentation method and stable product with a low anti-nutritional factor content and good palatability to promote the growth of the animal, reduce antibiotic use. Further, Wu at 1), 2) and 3) at pages 2-3 and the 2nd full paragraph on page 3 discloses inoculating the Bacillus culture in the amount of from 0.5 to 1.5 x 107 CFU/g prior to performing primary fermentation, which then results in an amount of from 1 x 108 to 1 x 109 CFU/g of Bacillus culture at the end of secondary fermentation; and, further, Wu discloses performing secondary fermentation for from 3 to 5 days.
The Office considers the claimed inoculating a Bacillus culture in an amount of from 1 to 30 wt% and in an amount of from 5 wt% to 15 wt%, based on the total weight of the primary fermented product to include the amount inoculated in Wu page 3, 2nd full paragraph because the number of yeast cells after performing primary fermentation is greater than 1.5 x 107 and appears to be the same as the number at the beginning and at the end of secondary fermentation as disclosed in Table 5 at page 27 of the instant specification.
Kim discloses at [0001] fermented soybean meal products and methods for making the same by fermentation with a novel Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain which has been artificially selected via propagation to (at [0018]) inactivate anti-nutritional factors or hydrolyze proteins or peptides to make a more digestible animal feed product. See [0088]-[0090] Example 1 re: strain selection. Further, at FIG. 6 and [0133] Kim discloses the protein content of a fermented soybean meal prepared using the strain Bacillus amyloliquefaciens K2G. Virtually all peptides in the feed of Example 1 and FIG. 6 of Kim have a molecular weight of 30 kDa or less. Accordingly, the Office considers the Bacillus claimed and the Bacillus amyloliquefaciens K2G of Kim to be the same bacterium strain as that deposited under the accession number KCCM114371P.
Before the effective date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Wu for Zhang ‘632 to include performing secondary fermentation using a strain of the genus Bacillus in making its fermented composition and to inoculate or use as a starting amount the claimed amount of from 1 to 30 wt% and from 5 to 15 wt% of the Bacillus culture in its method, based on the total weight of the primary fermented product. Both references disclose methods of fermenting soybean meal to provide improved animal feed products. The ordinary skilled artisan in Zhang ‘632 would have desired to adopt a secondary fermentation as in Wu and as claimed to enable production of a feed product having improved nutritional and stability properties in a shorter primary fermentation period and reduce the amount of drying needed to produce a feed product having any desired amount of moisture, or a dry product.
Before the effective date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Kim for Zhang ‘632 to use the strain of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens selected in Kim or another equivalent strain in fermentation to obtain a high protein animal feed having a peptide having a molecular weight of 30 kDa or less in amount of 40 to 100 weight % of the total peptide in the product. Both references are drawn to methods of fermenting soybean meal and animal feed products thereof wherein the fermentation methods include fermenting using a bacterium to provide improved nutrition. In particular, the ordinary skilled artisan working in Zhang ‘632 would have looked to Kim to use a Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain in fermentation to improve the digestibility of the fermented high protein animal feed produced by performing primary fermentation and secondary fermentation as in Kim.
The Office considers the Zhang ‘632 disclosed method of performing primary fermentation and the Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim method of secondary fermentation with a strain of the genus Bacillus to be substantially the same as the claimed method of performing primary fermentation and secondary fermentation Accordingly, absent a clear showing as to how the method of performing primary fermentation and performing secondary fermentation of Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim differs from that as claimed, the Office considers the secondary fermented product of the fermentation disclosed in Zhang ‘632 at Abstract and page 3, item D. as modified by Wu at Abstract and at 1), 2) and 3) at pages 2-3 and the 2nd full paragraph on page 3 and Kim at [0001] and Example 1 at [0088]-[0090] to have a reduced odor compared to a fermented product of Bacillus alone as claimed in claim 1, and considers the method of Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim to comprise improving the odor of a fermented composition as in claims 1 and 22. See MPEP 2112.01.I
Regarding instant claim 4, Zhang ‘632 does not disclose a secondary fermented product with a peptide having a molecular weight of 30 kDa or less in an amount of 40 to 100 weight % of the total peptide in the product. However, the primary and secondary fermented and enzymolysis product of a soybean meal of Zhang ‘632 at Abstract and page 3, item D. as modified by Wu at Abstract and at 1), 2) and 3) at pages 2-3 and the 2nd full paragraph on page 3 and Kim at [0001] and Example 1, [0088]-[0090] and that of the claimed method appear to be substantially the same thing. Accordingly, absent a clear showing as to how the peptide in the secondary fermented product of Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim differs from that as claimed, the Office considers the secondary fermented product of the fermentation disclosed in Zhang ‘632 at Abstract and page 3, item D. as modified by Wu at Abstract and at 1), 2) and 3) at pages 2-3 and the 2nd full paragraph on page 3 and Kim at Example 1 to comprise a protein comprising 40 to 100 weight % of a peptide with a molecular weight of 30 kDa or less. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Regarding instant claim 27, the Zhang ‘632 feed composition does not include livestock manure, and thereby excludes it (claim 27).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN105475632 A to Zhang et al. (Zhang ‘632) in view of CN106538822 A to Wu et al. (Wu) and US 2017/0020161 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN106615672 A to Tang et al. (Tang).
All references to Lu and Tang refer to the Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which is provided with this Office action.
As applied to claim 1, Zhang ‘632 at Abstract and page 3, item D. as modified by Wu at Abstract and at 1), 2) and 3) at pages 2-3 and the 2nd full paragraph on page 3 and Kim at [0001] and Example 1, [0088]-[0090] discloses a method of making a fermented protein feed composition comprising preparing a grain flour comprising soybean meal and/or corn gluten, performing primary fermentation of it in a mixture comprising 30 to 60 wt% water and 5 to 15 wt% of yeast culture, based on the weight of the grain composition in the primary fermentation composition to form a primary fermented product, and then secondary fermenting the primary fermented product using a strain of bacillus to obtain a secondary fermented product.
Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim does not disclose a primary fermentation further comprising adding α-amylase or glucoamylase to the grain flour as in claim 6.
Tang at Abstract on page 1 discloses an enzymolysis fermented bean pulp (“soybean meal” as a grain flour) and preparation method thereof comprising crushing peeled bean pulp then performing enzymolysis by using alpha-galactosidase and glucoamylase, then heating it to inactivate and inoculating with bacterial strains. The Office considers the claimed primary fermentation to include the enzymolysis and then bacterial inoculation of the grain flour of Tang. At Abstract on page 2, Tang discloses that its method removes anti-nutritional factors from soybean meal feed and makes a stable ingredient having strong hydrophilicity and palatability, as well as being rich in functional small peptides, which is good for breeding animal intestinal nutrient balance.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Tang for Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim to perform its enzymolysis with amylase or glucoamylase prior to or as part of primary fermentation. All references disclose methods of fermenting soybean meal to make a more digestible feed. The ordinary skilled artisan in Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim would have desired to add α-amylase or glucoamylase prior to primary fermentation to form a feed product as in Tang having a low content of anti-nutritional factors as well as being rich in functional small peptides.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN105475632 A to Zhang et al. (Zhang ‘632) in view of CN106538822 A to Wu et al. (Wu) and US 2017/0020161 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of CN 107173316A to La (La), of record.
All references to Lu refer to the Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which is provided with this Office action.
As applied to claim 1, Zhang ‘632 at Abstract and page 3, item D. as modified by Wu at Abstract and at 1), 2) and 3) at pages 2-3 and the 2nd full paragraph on page 3 and Kim at [0001] and Example 1, [0088]-[0090] discloses a method of making a fermented protein feed composition comprising preparing a grain flour comprising soybean meal and/or corn gluten, performing primary fermentation of it in a mixture comprising 30 to 60 wt% water and 5 to 15 wt% of yeast culture, based on the weight of the grain composition in the primary fermentation composition to form a primary fermented product, and then secondary fermenting the primary fermented product using a strain of bacillus to obtain a secondary fermented product.
Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim does not disclose a method wherein the fermented composition is fermented only by the yeast and then secondary fermented only by a strain of the genus Bacillus.
The method disclosed in La in the sentence bridging pages 2 and 3 discloses primary fermentation of a cooked rice feed composition that is fermented only by the yeast and then performing secondary fermentation with a strain of the genus Bacillus and which on page 2 at the first paragraph after “Invention Content” provides a digestive protective agent for use in chick feed that reduces the incidence of illness or the need for medicine and improves their survival rate.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of La for Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim to perform its primary fermentation and secondary fermentation using only yeast and a strain of the genus Bacillus. All references disclose methods of fermentation using bacteria to provide a fermented feed that improves the digestion and health of animal consumers. The ordinary skilled artisan in Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim would have desired to form a feed using only the yeast and only a strain of the genus Bacillus as in La to efficiently provide its feed for improved digestion.
Claims 24-25 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN105475632 A to Zhang et al. (Zhang ‘632) in view of CN106538822 A to Wu et al. (Wu) and US 2017/0020161 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0024511A1 to Tolstorukov et al. (Tolstorukov), of record.
All references to Lu refer to the Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which is provided with this Office action.
As applied to claim 1, Zhang ‘632 at Abstract and page 3, item D. as modified by Wu at Abstract and at 1), 2) and 3) at pages 2-3 and the 2nd full paragraph on page 3 and Kim at [0001] and Example 1, [0088]-[0090] discloses a method of making a fermented protein feed composition comprising preparing a grain flour comprising soybean meal and/or corn gluten, performing primary fermentation of it in a mixture comprising 30 to 60 wt% water and 5 to 15 wt% of yeast culture, based on the weight of the grain composition in the primary fermentation composition to form a primary fermented product, and then secondary fermenting the primary fermented product using a strain of bacillus to obtain a secondary fermented product.
Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim does not disclose fermentation substrates or feed bases comprising corn gluten as in claim 24 or soybean meal and corn gluten as in claim 25. Further, Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim does not disclose performing primary fermentation for from 2 to 10 hours as in claim 30 or for a period of from 5 to 7 hours as in claim 31.
Tolstorukov at [0131]-[0134] discloses animal feed compositions comprising proteins cultured from transformed (recombinant) host cells containing nucleic acids that express proteins as enzymes for use (at [0228]) in any animal feed, such as soybean meal, and at [0047]-[0048] and [0133-134] discloses that the protein produced is an enzyme selected from a phytase, α-galactosidase and a protease, as well as amylase which the Office considers as including α-amylase. At [0228] Tolstorukov discloses animal feed compositions comprising cottonseed meal, soybean meal or corn meal. Further, Tolstorukov at [0193] discloses host cells comprising any yeast expression system known, including Saccharomyces cerevisiae. In addition, Tolstorukov discloses at [0224] the host cells can be part of the animal feed itself and, at [0211] discloses that its yeast cells can be grown in batch or continuous fermentation and on a semi-solid medium. The Office considers a grain flour comprising the claimed corn gluten in claims 1 and 24-25 to include the corn meal of Tolstorukov at [0028]. Also, Tolstorukov at Example 2 and [0237] discloses culturing its yeast for 6 hours to provide a desirably quantity of enzymes.
Before the effective date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Tolstorukov for Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim to make an animal feed comprising a grain flour of corn gluten or of both soybean meal and corn gluten and to perform a primary fermentation for from 2 to 10 hours or from 5 to 7 hours. All references disclose animal feed compositions providing enhanced nutrition and comprising a grain flour and yeast and fermentation methods for making them. The ordinary skilled artisan working in Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim would have desired to include both soybean meal and corn gluten as a source of protein which includes protein, as well as polysaccharides, oligosaccharides, higher molecular weight proteins, phytic acid and other antinutritional factors as in Tolstorukov that would be removed by the fermentation of the grain flour by enzymolysis and by the yeast and the strain of the genus Bacillus; in addition, Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim would desire to use a grain comprising corn gluten as in Tolstorukov to modify or improve the flavor of the product feed composition. Still further, the ordinary skilled artisan in Zhang ‘632 as modified by Wu and Kim would have desired to ferment its grain flour composition for the claimed primary fermentation period using a yeast as in Tolstorukov to provide the requisite amount of galactosidase, protease and phytase to form a desirable nutritious fermented feed product.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
CN 107173316A to La (La) in the sentence bridging pages 2 and 3 discloses primary fermentation of a cooked rice feed composition that is fermented only by the yeast and then performing secondary fermentation with a strain of the genus Bacillus and which on page 2 at the first paragraph after “Invention Content” provides a digestive protective agent for use in chick feed. La does not disclose performing primary fermentation and then performing secondary fermentation of a grain flour comprising soybean meal and/or corn gluten, and, further does not disclose performing secondary fermentation using a strain of the genus Bacillus which is Bacillus amyloliquefaciens as in claim 28 or a Bacillus amyloliquefaciens deposited under accession number KCCM114371P as in claim 10.
CN106173790 A to Lu et al. (Lu) discloses [[at Novelty on page 2, and on page 2 at Description at the sentence starting at line 12 with “The yeast” and the sentence starting with “Finally” at the 10th at last line, as well as on page 3 at “Food” - lines 11-12 discloses a method of making a fermented protein feed composition comprising preparing a grain flour comprising soybean meal and/or corn gluten, performing combined fermentation of it in a mixture comprising 30 to 60 wt% water and 5 to 15 wt%, based on the weight of the grain composition in the primary fermentation composition to form a primary fermented product of yeast and Bacillus culture which has been seed cultured separately. Lu does not disclose performing primary fermentation of a grain flour comprising soybean meal and/or corn gluten and then performing secondary fermentation of the primary fermented product, and, further does not disclose performing secondary fermentation using a strain of the genus Bacillus which is Bacillus amyloliquefaciens as in claim 28 or a Bacillus amyloliquefaciens deposited under accession number KCCM114371P as in claim 10.
Kim discloses at [0001] fermented soybean meal products and methods for making the same by fermentation with a novel Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain to (at [0018]) inactivate anti-nutritional factors or hydrolyze proteins or peptides to make a more digestible animal feed product. See [0088]-[0090] Example 2 re: strain selection. Further, at FIG. 6 and [0133] Kim discloses the protein content of a fermented soybean meal prepared using the strain Bacillus amyloliquefaciens K2G. Kim does not disclose performing primary fermentation using a yeast strain, does not disclose sequential fermentation by performing the primary fermentation and then performing secondary fermentation and obtaining and secondary fermented product. Further, as shown in Table 6 on page 29 of the instant specification, the allowable claims 10 and 28 recite a method of providing a secondary fermented product that surprisingly has reduced odor compared to a fermented product of Bacillus alone. Further, Kim does not disclose or suggest fermentation using Bacillus culture to improve the protein yield in a fermented product as shown in Table 5 on page 27 of the instant specification.
Zhang ‘632 discloses at Abstract on page 1 a method of preparing fermented feed composition by fermenting soybean meal in a grain flour composition using Palladino yeast as the only microorganism used in a primary fermentation. Further, at page 3 in the 4th and 5th full paragraphs, item D., Zhang ‘632 discloses adding water to form a fermentation culture solution wherein the moisture content ranges from 30 to 60 wt% of the grain flour composition or composition of the primary fermentation. Zhang ‘632 does not disclose performing secondary fermentation of the primary fermented product using a strain of the genus Bacillus; and does not disclose obtaining a secondary fermented product, or a fermented product has reduced odor compared to a fermented product of Bacillus alone.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated January 21, 2026, the following claim rejections have been withdrawn as moot:
The rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in regard to the basis for a weight % moisture content;
The rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9, 12, 15-16, 20-23, 26-27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106173790 A to Lu et al.;
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106173790 A to Lu et al. in view of CN106615672 A to Tang et al.;
The rejections of claims 10 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106173790 A to Lu et al. in view of US 2017/0020161 A1 to Kim et al.;
The rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106173790 A to Lu et al. in view of CN 107173316A to La; and,
The rejections of claim 24-25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106173790 A to Lu et al. in view of US 2016/0024511A1 to Tolstorukov et al.
The positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated March 20, 2025 (Reply) alleging that the combination of Lu and Tolstorukov fails to teach or suggest each and every element of the claims and that Lu does not disclose a secondary fermented product have been fully considered but they are found moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
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, Nikki H Dees can be reached on (571) 270-3435. 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.
/ANDREW E MERRIAM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1791