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 is in regard to the application filed on June 3, 2021 and in response to a Request for Continued Examination filed on January 16, 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 16, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 15, 22, 34, 36, 40-46, and 48 are currently pending in the application; claims 2, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 16-21, 23-33, 35, 37-39, and 47 are canceled; claims 43-45 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 3, and 46 have been amended; claim 48 is new. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 14, 15, 22, 34, 36, 40-42, 46, and 48 are hereby examined on the merits.
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, 6, 22, 34, 40-42, and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillières et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0157511; listed in IDS dated August 22, 2023) in view of Wu et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0060383; cited on PTO-892 dated April 22, 2025) and Wang et al. (CN 105494886; listed in IDS dated June 13, 2022), herein after referred to as Fillières, Wu, and Wang, respectively.
Examiner’s note: citations of Wang refer to the machine translation cited on PTO-892 dated Dec. 18, 2023.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6, and 46, Fillières discloses a method for the production of highly digestible hydrolyzed keratinaceous material (claim 1), wherein the highly digestible keratinaceous material can be used as an ingredient in feed or food [0072] and the keratinaceous material has a high protein content [0005] (i.e., a process for producing a food product ingredient formed from a keratinous protein-containing material), the process comprising:
washing (i.e., cleaning) chicken feathers (i.e., keratinous protein-containing material) (example 1-4; [0106]), and
treating chicken feathers in a hydrolyzer with saturated steam and at 7 bar to create hydrolyzed feather meal (i.e., subjecting to steam hydrolysis under conditions sufficient to hydrolyze the keratinous protein-containing material to form the food product ingredient) ([0107]-[0108]).
Although Fillières does not explicitly disclose that the feathers are cleaned with a cleaning solution wherein the cleaning solution comprises water, Fillières does teach that the feathers are washed. “Wash” is defined as cleaning with water and typically soap (i.e., a cleaning solution). The instant specification also recites that the cleaning solution, in some embodiments, is just water (Specification: p. 3 lines 19-20). Thus, the “washing” of Fillières reads on the instant claim limitation of “cleaning…with a cleaning solution…wherein the cleaning solution comprises water.”
Fillières does not teach that the cleaning solution is at an elevated temperature of at least about 180°F or that the keratinous protein-containing material is cleaned by washing with the cleaning solution at least twice (instant claim 6).
Wu, in the same field of invention, teaches washing poultry feathers with soap and “adequate hot water” (i.e., a cleaning solution) and washing the feathers several times (i.e., at least twice) [0044]. The “adequate hot water” taught by Wu is considered to meet the claimed temperature range of at least about 180°F because “hot water” is considered to be a temperature of at least 120°F (49°C) and “adequate hot water” is considered to be hot water at a temperature that is suitable and/or desired for the user’s purposes. Where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Therefore, as it was known in the art to wash feathers (i.e., keratinous protein-containing material) with a cleaning solution at an elevated temperature and washing at least twice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have cleaned and washed the feathers as claimed, and at the temperatures claimed, since Wu teaches that feathers are known to be cleaned and washed with cleaning solutions at elevated temperatures and with multiple washing cycles.
Fillières in view of Wu does not teach that the keratinous protein-containing material is combined with a cereal bran to form a mixture, the mixture then being hydrolyzed.
Wang, in the same field of invention, teaches a hydrolyzed protein powder wherein a composition containing feather meal is hydrolyzed and a composition containing wheat bran (i.e., cereal bran) is hydrolyzed, and after the hydrolyzation of each, the two compositions are mixed together to form a mixture (claim 2). Wang offers the motivation that wheat bran contains a large number of vitamins and minerals and contains high levels of protein [0035]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the hydrolyzed wheat bran of Wang into the hydrolyzed feathers and food ingredient of Fillières and Wu. One would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of increasing the quantity of vitamins and minerals in the food product ingredient.
Wang does not teach mixing the feathers and wheat bran prior to the hydrolyzation step, so that the feathers and wheat bran are hydrolyzed together as one mixture. Instead, Wang teaches hydrolyzing the feathers and wheat bran separately, and then combining the two hydrolyzed products into one mixture (claim 2). However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. Thus, the process steps taught by Wang renders obvious the process of the instant claim.
Further regarding claim 46 and a method of removing malodors from a keratinous protein-containing material, given that modified Fillières teaches the claimed process steps as set forth above, carrying out the process will also remove malodors from the food product ingredient formed from a keratinous protein-containing material, since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical process, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present in the prior art products, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Regarding claim 22, Fillières teaches that that hydrolysis comprises one hydrolysis step [0107].
Regarding claim 34, Fillières teaches that the partly hydrolyzed feather meal (i.e., hydrolyzed keratinous protein-containing material) is dried after the hydrolysis step (i.e., further processing comprising drying) [0108]. Fillières additionally teaches that the keratinaceous material may also be further hydrolyzed through chemical hydrolyzation in order to obtain a highly digestible keratinaceous material [0075].
Regarding claims 40 and 41, modified Fillières does not teach that the food product ingredient has a total aroma score that is lower than a food product ingredient without cereal bran nor that the food product ingredient has a total aroma score of less than 5.5 on a scale of 0 to 15 as measured by quantitative descriptive analysis.
However, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical process, the claimed properties or functions are presumed to be present in the prior art products, and thus a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01.I. Since the process of the instant claims and the process taught by modified Fillières are substantially identical, then the claimed aroma scores must also be present in the food product ingredient taught by modified Fillières, unless proven otherwise.
Fillières teaches that the steam hydrolysis is carried out at 7 bar (equivalent to 101.5 psig) (Fillières: [0107]), which falls within the steam hydrolysis pressure range of 0-200 psig as recited in the instant specification (Specification: p. 7 lines 3-5).
The instant specification recites that the food product ingredient contains a variety of amino acids including cysteine, leucine, arginine, glutamic acid, glycine, serine, and phenylalanine (Specification: p. 17 lines 3-5), all of which are included in the food product ingredient taught by Fillières (Fillières: Table 4).
Wang teaches that the hydrolyzed protein powder comprises 1-8 parts each of blood meal, feather meal, bacterial protein, and wheat bran (Wang: claim 1). If each component is added evenly (e.g., 1 part of each component), then wheat bran would be present in an amount of 25% by weight. The instant specification recites that the food product ingredient can include up to about 30 wt.% cereal bran (Specification: p. 19 line 23). Thus, the amount of wheat bran as taught by Wang falls within the limitation recited in the instant specification.
As shown with the earlier rejections and above examples, the composition and process as taught by modified Fillières is substantially identical to that of the claimed invention. Therefore, the product and process of modified Fillières must possess the same aroma properties and scores as claimed in the instant claims.
Regarding claim 42, modified Fillières does not teach any amount of hexanal in the food product ingredient (examples 1-10). Given the similarities between the process taught by the prior art and the claimed process providing the claimed invention, as detailed above with regard to claims 40 and 41, the amount of hexanal and/or the peroxide value of the food product ingredient is considered to fall within the claimed ranges.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillières et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0157511; listed in IDS dated August 22, 2023) in view of Wu et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0060383; cited on PTO-892 dated April 22, 2025) and Wang et al. (CN 105494886; listed in IDS dated June 13, 2022) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ka (“Ka’s Feather Care Tips and Tricks”, Serpentfeathers: The Art of Ka Amorastreya, January 2018; listed on PTO-892 dated Dec. 18, 2023).
Modified Fillières teaches the process for producing a food product ingredient formed from a keratinous protein-containing material as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Modified Fillières does not teach that the keratinous protein-containing material (e.g., feathers) is frozen before forming the mixture.
Ka, in the same field of invention, teaches freezing feathers for the care of the feathers. Ka offers the motivation that freezing the feathers prevents dust mites and moth larvae as well as killing off any eggs, larvae, or mites that might be on the feathers (“FREEZING”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the process of modified Fillières by incorporating the freezing of Ka prior to the start of the processing steps. One would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of eradicating any bugs or mites that might be attached to the feathers.
Claims 10 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillières et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0157511; listed in IDS dated August 22, 2023) in view of Wu et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0060383; cited on PTO-892 dated April 22, 2025) and Wang et al. (CN 105494886; listed in IDS dated June 13, 2022) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Savolainen (US Patent 5,262,307; listed in IDS dated June 13, 2022).
Modified Fillières teaches the process for producing a food product ingredient formed from a keratinous protein-containing material as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claims 10 and 36, modified Fillières does not teach that the keratinous protein-containing material is subject to pretreatment with a proteolytic enzyme or a reducing agent prior to hydrolysis nor that the mixture is subject to intermediate processing prior to hydrolysis.
Savolainen, in the same field of invention, teaches a keratin ingredient (i.e., keratinous protein-containing material) that is pretreated (i.e., intermediate processing) with an aqueous solution containing sulfite ions (i.e., a reducing agent) prior to hydrolyzing the keratin ingredient (Abstract). Savolainen offers the motivation that the pretreatment of the keratin (e.g. feathers (Example 1)) with sulfite denatures the keratin, thus opening the sulfur bridges which enable enzymes, including digestive enzymes in animals, to hydrolyze the denatured keratin and peptide bonds into useful smaller ingredients such as peptides (col. 1 lines 60-65). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the hydrolysis pretreatment with a reducing agent of Savolainen into the process of modified Fillières, thereby arriving at the claimed invention with the reasonable expectation that the pretreatment with a reducing agent will enable the hydrolyzation of the peptide bonds of keratin to form peptides.
Claims 14, 15, and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fillières et al. (US PG Pub 2016/0157511; listed in IDS dated August 22, 2023) in view of Wu et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0060383; cited on PTO-892 dated April 22, 2025) and Wang et al. (CN 105494886; listed in IDS dated June 13, 2022) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Janse et al. (US PG Pub 2015/0257411; listed on PTO-892 dated Dec. 18, 2023), herein after referred to as Janse.
Modified Fillières teaches the process for producing a food product ingredient formed from a keratinous protein-containing material as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, modified Fillières does not teach that the cereal bran is defatted before forming the mixture.
Janse, in the same field of invention, teaches the hydrolysis of defatted rice bran (i.e., cereal bran) [0125]. Janse offers the motivation that defatted rice bran is used in feed applications [0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the cereal bran of modified Fillières with the defatted rice bran of Janse. One would have been motivated to make this modification since both are cereal brans, but defatted rice bran is more suitable in feed applications.
Regarding claim 15, modified Fillières does not teach that the cereal bran is combined with a solvent prior to forming the mixture.
Janse teaches a suspension of defatted rice bran that is prepared prior to hydrolysis, wherein the suspension comprises defatted rice brain mixed with water (i.e., a solvent) (Janse: Example 5, [0140]). Although Janse does not teach that the water is a solvent, the instant specification recites water as a suitable example as a solvent (Specification: p. 3 lines 31-32), thus, the water of Janse reads on the solvent of the instant claim. Janse offers the motivation that a mixture of defatted rice bran and water that undergoes hydrolysis is then followed by a solid/liquid separation wherein the dried solid fraction contains a high amount of total dietary fiber [0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have incorporated the combination of the cereal bran and water as a solvent of Janse into the process of modified Fillières, thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that adding water to the cereal bran allows a solid/liquid separation after hydrolysis that produces solids with high amounts of total dietary fiber.
Regarding claim 48, where Wang teaches the inclusion of cereal bran into the composition of Fillières and Wu as set forth above with regard to claim 1, Wang also teaches that the total composition comprises 1-8 parts each of blood meal, feather meal, bacterial protein, and wheat bran (Wang: claim 1). If each component is added evenly (e.g., 1 part of each component), then wheat bran would be present in an amount of 25% by weight based on the total weight of the composition. Therefore, where Wang teaches the inclusion of cereal bran at an amount of 25 wt.%, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the cereal bran at the taught amount of Wang into the composition of Fillières and Wu, thereby arriving at the claimed invention, as Wang teaches a suitable amount of the cereal bran for inclusion into a composition.
Modified Fillières is silent as to that the cereal bran is defatted rice bran.
Janse, in the same field of invention, teaches the hydrolysis of defatted rice bran [0125]. Janse offers the motivation that defatted rice bran is used in feed applications [0003]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have substituted the cereal bran of modified Fillières with the defatted rice bran of Janse. One would have been motivated to make this modification since both are cereal brans, but defatted rice bran is more suitable in feed applications.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 16, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The prior art rejection has been amended in light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, however, the essential prior art rejection has been maintained by the examiner for the following reasons.
Applicant restates the arguments (Remarks, p. 6-8) presented in the Remarks of the Response After Final Action filed on November 21, 2025, which the Examiner responded to, and found unpersuasive, in the Advisory Action dated December 4, 2025.
Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s response and argues that the results obtained by the panelists are reliable and repeatable because the panelists are capable of detecting, and assigning where appropriate, a wide range of aromas, as well as that the panelists/samples were blinded and randomized such that the results are free from bias from external factors (Remarks, p 8-9).
This argument is not persuasive. Applicant has still not provided any information as to whether these panelists are actual trained panelists that are experts in the field or if they are merely panelists that possess the ability to smell a wide range of aromas (the latter of which one could argue could be anyone with fully functioning smell receptors). Unless the panelists are those of the former, it is not convincible that the results provided by the Applicant could be reproduced. Additionally, the fact that the experiments were done blind and randomized does not alleviate any external bias from the panelists – if all the panelists were employees of the company/Applicant, then they would all most likely possess some level of bias towards their employer. Thus, it is not persuasive that the provided data is sufficient for supporting that the claimed method yields unexpected results.
Applicant further disagrees with the Examiner’s previous response and argues that “providing evidence in comparison to the Examiner’s proposed alternative method is not necessary.” Applicant argues that since the rejection combines prior art references to teach the claimed method, then comparing the results of the claimed invention to that of the prior art is not necessary (Remarks, p. 9).
This argument is not persuasive. The previous Advisory Action did not state that Applicant must compare the results of the claimed invention to the results of the combination of the prior art references, but to the results of the closest prior art, which is necessary in successfully rebutting the prima facie case of obviousness. Per MPEP 716.02(e), “an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). ‘A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference.’ In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978).”
The remaining arguments directed to the additional dependent claims rely on Applicant’s first argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Fillières in view of Wu and Wang to arrive at the claimed invention, and that the claimed invention exhibits unexpected advantages over the prior art (Remarks, p. 9-11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Chang, US PG Pub. 2016/0167014, teaches washing feathers at 25-90°C (77-194°F) [0019].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURA E SWEENEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki Dees can be reached at (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.
/M.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791