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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18 and 20-22) in the reply filed on 7/21/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 19 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/21/2025.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the claims are directed to a method while the abstract appears to be directed to a product. Additionally, the abstract refers to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention (e.g., the abstract states that the product can be safely used around water). Additionally, the abstract contains the typographical error “mmendment” (line 2 of the abstract). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim does not end with a period. Each claim should begin with a capital letter and end with a period. See MPEP 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim contains the typographical error “soil mmendment” (line 18 of page 2 of the claim) which appears to intend to refer to a “soil amendment”. Further, the claim recites “wherein product” (line 17 of page 2 of the claim) which appears to intent to refer to “wherein said product.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-18 and 20-22 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim includes several recitations of percentages which render the claim indefinite:
“Predetermined liquid composition percentage” (line 9 of the claim)
“Keratin composition percentage” (lines 9-10 of the claim)
“Predetermined desired moisture content percentage” (lines 11-12 of the claim)
“Protein content within said mixture is at a predetermined percentage” (line 26 of the claim)
The recitations are indefinite because they set forth a measurement (a percentage) without specifying a standard such as weight, volume, or mol percent. For purposes of examination, the percentages are generally regarded as referring to percentages by weight in light of the instant specification which refers to certain percentages by weight (see, e.g., the Specification at Para. 007). Moisture and liquid content are regarded as referring to v/v%.
Claims 6, 10, 11, and 16, which depend from claim 1, are regarded as being indefinite for identical reasons: They each set forth a percentage range without specifying a standard for measurement.
Claim 6: “1-40% liquid and 60-99% keratin”
Claim 10: “3.5% to 6.0%”
Claim 11: “4%”
Claim 16: “2-4%” and “0.02%”
For purposes of examination, the percentages are generally regarded as referring to percentages by weight in light of the instant specification which refers to certain percentages by weight (see, e.g., the Specification at Para. 007). Moisture and liquid content are regarded as referring to v/v%.
Regarding claim 18, the claim also includes several recitations of percentages which render the claim indefinite:
“1-40% blood and 60-99% keratin” (line 10 of the claim)
“Moisture content percentage” (line 11 of the claim)
“Said moisture content percentage to be in the range of 58-62%” (lines 12-13 of the claim)
“Protein content within said mixture is 4%” (line 6 of page 2 of the claim)
“Adding 0.1% potassium sorbate and 0.1% sodium benzoate” (line 7 of page 2 of the claim)
“2-4% molasses . . . 0.02% full spectrum vitamin B pack” (lines 12-13 of page 2 of the claim)
The recitations are indefinite because they set forth a measurement (a percentage) without specifying a standard such as weight, volume, or mol percent. For purposes of examination, the percentages are generally regarded as referring to percentages by weight in light of the instant specification which refers to certain percentages by weight (see, e.g., the Specification at Para. 007). Moisture and liquid content are regarded as referring to v/v%.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, the recitations of the term “organic” (claim 1, line 8 of page 2 of the claim & claim 18, line 17 of page 2 of the claim) render the claims indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because the term “organic” can have a variety of meanings depending on the location (i.e., the country where the fertilizer is being used or made). The term could also simply mean that the product contains organic ingredients or components. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, any fertilizer containing organic components (e.g., features, animal parts, etc.) is regarded as reading on the limitation “organic”.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “organic commercial (nitrogen, phosphate, potash) fertilizer” [emphasis added] renders the claim indefinite. The use of the parentheses around the limitations (nitrogen, phosphate, potash) renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is uncertain whether the limitations within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For purposes of examination, any fertilizer is regarded as reading on these limitations, whether or not it contains all three of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation “organic commercial 4-0-1 (nitrogen, phosphate, potash) fertilizer” [emphasis added] renders the claim indefinite. The use of the parentheses around the limitations (nitrogen, phosphate, potash) renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is uncertain whether the limitations within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Additionally, the claim appears to contradict itself because it seems to require phosphate, but also recites a ratio of 4-0-1 wherein phosphate is 0. As such, it is unclear whether phosphate is required to be present or absent.
For purposes of examination, any fertilizer is regarded as reading on these limitations, whether or not it contains all three of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash.
Regarding claim 4, the recitation “pressurized to at least 1-2 atmospheres” (line 2 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a pressure of 1 atmosphere or above or a pressure of 2 atmospheres or above reads on the claim. This appears to be a broad recitation followed by a narrower recitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “at least 1 . . . atmospheres”, and the claim also recites "at least . . . which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Regarding claim 6, the recitation “60-99% keratin” renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the keratin content refers solely to keratin or also to the source material that the keratin is added from. For example, the specification refers to adding “60-99% feathers” (Specification Para. 004) in this step. Feathers are not 100% keratin, so it is unclear whether the claim intends to refer solely to the keratin content or to the total mass of feathers added. For purposes of examination, either measure falling within the claimed weight range is regarded as reading on this limitation, whether a measure of the keratin source material or the keratin itself.
Regarding claims 15 and 18, the recitations “full spectrum vitamin B pack” render the claims indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it is unclear is exactly which B vitamins must be included in order for the vitamins to qualify as a full spectrum pack. Further, the specification does not explicitly define the term. For example, it is unclear whether each of B vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B7, B9, and B12 must be included, which are typical B vitamins in a full spectrum supplement, or whether vitamin B4 must also be added, which is a B vitamin but is not typically included in a vitamin B supplement. For purposes of examination, any set of B vitamins having more than 1 different B vitamin is regarded as reading on a “full spectrum vitamin B pack.”
Regarding claim 18, the recitation “pressurized to at least 1-2 atmospheres” (line 5 of the claim) renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether a pressure of 1 atmosphere or above or a pressure of 2 atmospheres or above reads on the claim. This appears to be a broad recitation followed by a narrower recitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “at least 1 . . . atmospheres”, and the claim also recites "at least . . . 2 atmospheres" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Note that all other claims are being included as a result of their dependency upon a rejected claim as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-9, 12-13, 15, 17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morash (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0048307 A1, hereinafter “Morash”) in view of Bussieres-Dicaire (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2021/0053091 A1, hereinafter “Bussieres”).
Regarding claim 1, Morash teaches a method of producing a product for use as a fertilizer, feed, and soil amendment by breaking down proteins to amino acids (e.g., a method of making an agricultural admixture to enhance crop yield or to feed animals, wherein proteins are digested via enzymolysis) [Morash Abstract & Para. 0036] comprising the steps of:
Placing liquid in a tank system of at least one tank (e.g., the agricultural admixture is provided in a collection system [Morash Para. 0009], the system for producing the agricultural admixture includes a heated feed tank) [Morash Para. 0195] (the biological feed material is mixed in a tank) [Para. 0197] (See also Example 6 showing the biological feed material being added to the incubation tank) [Para. 0367], each of said at least one tank containing a heating system and an internal agitator (e.g., the biological material is heated with constant agitation and shear) [Para. 0036] (the temperature of the biological slurry is elevated either before or after addition of enzymes) [Para. 0058], (the feed tank can be a heated feed tank) [Para. 0195], (the biological slurry can be sheared with a high shear grinder during all or part of the incubating and pasteurizing steps) [Para. 0197];
Agitating and heating said liquid to an initial predetermined temperature (e.g., the biological slurry is ground via a grinder) [Para. 0010], (the temperature is increased to between 95 and 140 °F) [Para. 0012], (the biological slurry is ground, heated, and incubated with constant agitation and shear) [Para. 0036]
Adding keratin with said liquid in said at least one tank (e.g., the biological particles may comprise keratin-containing species such as beaks, feathers, claws, hair) [Para. 0066], (the biological stream can include poultry products such as feathers, beaks, feet, claws, bones) [Para. 0150] (the biological stream can include blood meal, which is liquid or dried blood) [Para. 0148 & 0154] until a mixture having a predetermined liquid composition percentage and keratin composition percentage is achieved (e.g., the composition may or may not be dewatered) [Para. 0033 & 0202], (various ingredients can adjust the water content of the biological slurry) [Para. 0153], (the agricultural admixture from the biological slurry should be high in protein [Para. 0186] which can be sourced from broken down keratin) [Para. 0150], these steps of adjusting the water content and blood content, and the protein content via keratin, are regarded as reading on a step of having a predetermined liquid composition percentage and keratin composition percentage
Obtaining a desired moisture content (e.g., the composition may or may not be dewatered) [Para. 0033 & 0202], (various ingredients can adjust the water content of the biological slurry) [Para. 0153],
Adjusting temperature of said mixture to a predetermined temperature (e.g., the biological slurry is first heated to between 95 °F and 140 °F, then incubated at two or more temperatures between about 95 °F and 140 °F [Para. 0012]
Bringing said mixture to an initial pH level (e.g., the pH may be adjusted) [Para. 0105]
Testing of said mixture for fat content (e.g., the fat content may optionally be reduced) [Para. 0015], (the fat content is modulated) [Para. 0028], oil can be added to increase fat content) [Para. 0158] (the fat content can be reduced from 5-12% to 0.2-4%, which can prevent clogging of fertilizer lines) [Para. 0200], these steps are regarded as reading on testing of the mixture for fat content
Adding enzymes to said mixture (e.g., one or more selected enzymes are added to the biological slurry) [Para. 0008]
Maintaining said pH initial level throughout process (e.g., the temperature and pH with the enzymes can be selected and optimized for the activity of the enzymes; the pH changes may occur at specific timing along with addition of additional types of enzymes) [Para. 0209]; these steps of selecting and/or optimizing the pH are regarded as reading on maintaining the pH level throughout the process
Pumping said mixture through a shear pump connected to each of said at least one tank by piping (e.g., the mixture is incubated under constant agitation and shear, which can implement a high-shear mixer) [Para. 0036 & 0032]; (the production batch can be stored and blended in one or more storage tanks with one or more circulation pumps) [Para. 0034]
Continuing to pump said mixture through said shear pump until particles within said mixture are less than a predetermined size (e.g., the incubated slurry contains biological particles) [Para. 0008], (the particles can be separated using a size separation method such as a screen) [Para. 0029]; the screen is regarded as reading on choosing a predetermined size
Maintaining said initial pH level and said temperature constant until protein content within said mixture is at a predetermined percentage and a stabilized pH is achieved (e.g., the agricultural admixture from the biological slurry should be high in protein [Para. 0186]) (the biological stream may be from soybeans, which contain 10 to 45% by weight protein) [Para. 0152], (the user should selectively control the fats, dry ash, and crude protein content) [Para. 0200], (the pH is controlled throughout the process as described above; and there may further be included a stabilization step) [Para. 0031]
Testing said mixture and adjusting to a neutral pH (e.g., the temperature and pH with the enzymes can be selected and optimized for the activity of the enzymes; the pH changes may occur at specific timing along with addition of additional types of enzymes) [Para. 0209]; (a chemical and/or buffer with a pKa enabling a pH above 7.0 may be added to the incubating mixture) [Para. 0205]
Heating said mixture and agitating until all enzymes are deactivated (e.g., after incubation, the incubated slurry can be heated again to between 150 and 180 °F in order to pasteurize the slurry) [Para. 0210] (the constant agitation and shear also decrease pathogen concentrations) [Para. 0211], (the separated incubated biological hydrolysate can be emulsified using an ultra-high shear grinder) [Para. 0213],
Cooling said mixture (e.g., the mixture cools after incubation) [Para. 0217] (cooling is also regarded as being an inherent step since the heating only lasts for about 30 minutes 10 to 18 hours) [Para. 0210]
Adding to said cooled mixture essential elements (e.g., the agricultural admixture can be used in combination with nitrate or ammonia based fertilizer) [Para. 0233], (the agricultural admixture can be mixed with an inorganic material such as basalt, granite, glauconite, greensand, biotite, a carbon source, etc.) [Para. 0238] (metal cations and coenzymes can be added) [Para. 0058].
Adjusting said mixture to a final pH to stop fermentation (e.g., the final pH of the composition may be lowered to about 2.5 to 3.5) [Para. 0219 & Para. 0221] (described as a suitable pH to stop fermentation in the Specification at Para. 008)
Pumping said mixture from said at least one tank (e.g., the emulsified hydrolysate from one production batch can be stored and blended in one or more storage tanks with one or more circulation pumps to form the agricultural mixture) [Para. 0034], (blending with other fertilizing ingredients may take place in one or more storage tanks using one or more circulation pumps) [Para. 0063] (the processes described further include the use of centrifugal processing to separate the hydrolyzed slurry into higher value product streams) [Para. 0416] (the final steps can include drying the slurry, milling it, and pelletizing it, which necessarily implies removal from the production tank) [Para. 0018 & Claim 1]
Wherein said mixture pumped from said at least one tank is packaged according to end use as an environmentally-friendly, organic commercial (nitrogen, phosphate, potash) fertilizer, feed, or soil amendment that can be used as a liquid or dried and used alone or in combination with other products (e.g., the final steps can include drying the slurry, milling it, and pelletizing it; which are regarded as reading on the packaging step) [Para. 0018 & Claim 1] (e.g., the agricultural admixture can be used in combination with nitrate or ammonia based fertilizer) [Para. 0233], (the agricultural admixture can be mixed with an inorganic material such as basalt, granite, glauconite, greensand, biotite, a carbon source, etc.) [Para. 0238].
Morash does not explicitly state that, in step (d), the mixture is tested to obtain a predetermined desired moisture content percentage. However, Morash teaches that the mixture is later pasteurized [Para. 0210] and screened for particle size [Para. 0029]. Bussieres teaches that it is standard when pasteurizing organic material for fertilizer applications [Bussieres Abstract & Para. 0052] to maintain a water content between 50 and 60% v/v [Para. 0040]. Further, for purposes of screening for particle size, the water content should be a maximum of 70% v/v, and the water content affects the screen/particle size selected [Bussieres Para. 0021]. As such, in looking to perform both pasteurization and particle screening as taught by Morash, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate the necessity of monitoring and optimizing the moisture content in the mixture in order to facilitate effective pasteurization and screening. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Morash to test the mixture to obtain a predetermined desired moisture content percentage as taught by Bussieres.
Regarding claim 2, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said liquid is blood (e.g., blood meal, which is liquid or dried blood) [Morash Para. 0148].
Regarding claim 3, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said keratin is feathers (e.g., the biological particles may comprise keratin-containing species such as beaks, feathers, claws, hair) [Para. 0066], (the biological stream can include poultry products such as feathers, beaks, feet, claws, bones) [Para. 0150].
Regarding claim 4, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein each of said at least one tank is pressurized to at least 1 atmosphere (e.g., the pasteurization may be performed at 1-10 atmospheres) [Para. 0211].
Regarding claim 5, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein each of said at least one tank is multiple tanks connected by valves and piping, each of said multiple tanks having a shear pump (e.g., the emulsified hydrolysate from one production batch can be stored and blended in one or more storage tanks with one or more circulation pumps to form the agricultural mixture; because Morash teaches that the mixture is under constant agitation and shear, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the one or more tanks would all contain a shear pump) [Para. 0034], (blending with other fertilizing ingredients may take place in one or more storage tanks using one or more circulation pumps) [Para. 0063], (multiple biological streams can be processed in parallel or serial and combined with any of the products described herein) [Para. 0314].
Regarding claim 7, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said desired moisture content percentage is in the range of 58-62% (e.g., the pasteurization process should maintain a water content between 50 and 60% v/v [Bussieres Para. 0040], with a maximum water content of 70% v/v [Bussieres Para. 0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said predetermined temperature is 147 °F to 158 °F temperature (e.g., the biological slurry is first heated to between 95 °F and 140 °F, then incubated at two or more temperatures between about 95 °F and 140 °F [Morash Para. 0012]. In the case where the prior art and the claimed range do not overlap but are merely close, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Here, 147 °F is regarded as being close to 140 °F.
Regarding claim 9, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said predetermined size of said particles is less than 120 microns to facilitate protein breakdown (e.g., the average particle size should be less than 70 microns) [Morash Para. 0213].
Regarding claim 12, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said enzymes are protease to break down proteins (e.g., the selected enzymes may include protease) [Morash Para. 0203].
Regarding claim 13, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said enzymes are lipase to cause fat to disperse within the solution (e.g., the selected enzymes may include lipase) [Morash Para. 0203].
Regarding claim 15, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said essential elements are molasses (the biological recyclable stream can include citrus molasses) [Para. 0153], potassium (potassium may be added as an anti-caking agent or preservative) [Para. 0184 & 0221], and full spectrum vitamin B pack (the composition can further comprise vitamin B12, biotin, folic acid, niacin, which are several different B vitamins) [Para. 0058].
Regarding claim 17, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said initial predetermined temperature is 86 °F to 104 °F (e.g., the temperature is increased to between 95 and 140 °F) [Morash Para. 0012].
Regarding claim 20, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said final pH to stop fermentation is pH 3.2-3.6 (e.g., the final pH of the composition may be lowered to about 2.5 to 3.5) [Para. 0219 & Para. 0221].
Regarding claim 21, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said mixture is initially brought to an initial pH 8.9 to 9.6 (e.g., the pH implemented with the enzymes can be selected and optimized for the activity of the enzymes; the pH changes may occur at specific timing along with addition of additional types of enzymes) [Para. 0209]; (a chemical and/or buffer with a pKa enabling a pH above 7.0 may be added to the incubating mixture) [Para. 0205].
Regarding claim 22, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said mixture is stabilized at stabilized pH 6.8 to 7.6 (e.g., pH implemented with the enzymes can be selected and optimized for the activity of the enzymes; the pH changes may occur at specific timing along with addition of additional types of enzymes) [Para. 0209]; (a chemical and/or buffer with a pKa enabling a pH above 7.0 may be added to the incubating mixture) [Para. 0205].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morash and Bussieres as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Nomura (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2007/0207111 A1, hereinafter “Nomura”).
Regarding claim 6, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said predetermined percentage is 1-40% liquid: Morash teaches that the biological stream can include blood meal, which can be liquid blood [Morash Para. 0148]. Morash teaches that the final nitrogen content from the blood meal should be between 1-6% by weight [Morash Para. 0148]. Blood meal is approximately 15% by weight nitrogen [Morash Para. 0178]. As such, the total amount of liquid blood meal required to produce the range of nitrogen taught by Morash necessarily overlaps with the claimed liquid percentage of 1-40%.
Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the mixture having a keratin composition (the agricultural admixture from the biological slurry should be high in protein [Morash Para. 0186] which can be sourced from broken down keratin [Para. 0150] such as feathers [Para. 0146], but does not explicitly state that the keratin percentage should be 60-99%. Noting the Examiner’s interpretation set forth on Page 8 of this Office Action, either keratin source material or keratin content within this range reads on this limitation. Nomura teaches a similar process for hydrolyzing keratin [Nomura Abstract] for fertilizer applications [Nomura Para. 0002] and teaches suitable feather content by weight for this purpose. Specifically, it is standard to implement 8.8 g of dry feathers, and to add water to 12%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 60%, 70%, and 80% [Nomura Para. 0077] (conversely, 88%, 80%, 70%, 60%, 40%, 30%, and 20% feather content by weight). All of these keratin contents worked for hydrolysis, with those having water content over 20% working the best [Nomura Para. 0077]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that a wide variety of feather/keratin source material content which overlaps with the claimed range is suitable in order to facilitate hydrolysis and enzymolysis. In performing the method of Morash as modified by Bussieres, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Nomura to identify a suitable amount of keratin to include in the mixture, thereby readily arriving at a keratin/feather content as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Morash as modified by Bussieres to include feathers (regarded as reading on keratin) in an amount within the claimed range as taught by Nomura.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morash and Bussieres as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, and further in view of Zhu (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0363606 A1, hereinafter “Zhu”).
Regarding claim 10, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein a protein content is desired (e.g., the agricultural admixture from the biological slurry should be high in protein [Morash Para. 0186]), but does not explicitly state that the protein content should be 3.5 to 6.0%. The specification uses the decreased protein content as an indication that the proteins have been broken down to amino acids (Specification Para. 006). As such, the measure of protein content appears to be a measure of the extent of enzymolysis. Zhu teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize the extent of enzymolysis of keratin and protein-based organic components such as feathers [Zhu Abstract]. Zhu teaches a similar process comprising a biological preparation method for producing amino acid liquid fertilizer from waste feathers [Zhu Title & Abstract] wherein the rate of enzymolysis reaches 80% or above and the content of amino acids can reach 10.12% [Zhu Abstract]. The extent of enzymolysis is a result effective variable which depends on the specific enzyme complex implemented [Zhu Para. 0005] and the ratios of enzymes included therein [Zhu Para. 0011] as well as the dosage ratio of enzymes to substrate [Zhu Para. 0043], the system pH, and the system temperature [Zhu Para. 0046-47]. See also Zhu Table 3 showing optimization of enzymolysis response based on temperature, pH, concentration, and dosage [Zhu Para. 005]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the extent of enzymolysis, which is also conversely a measure of the intact protein remaining in the system, is a result-effective variable, and would be motivated to optimize this variable based on parameters disclosed by Zhu resulting in at least 80% or above hydrolysis [Zhu Abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Morash as modified by Bussieres to optimize the remaining protein content to within the range as claimed as taught by Zhu.
Regarding claim 11, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein a protein content is desired (e.g., the agricultural admixture from the biological slurry implemented in the enzymolysis/hydrolysis method should be high in protein [Morash Para. 0186]), but does not explicitly state that the protein content should be 4%. The specification uses the decreased protein content as an indication that the proteins have been broken down to amino acids (Specification Para. 006). As such, the measure of protein content appears to be a measure of the extent of enzymolysis. Zhu teaches that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily optimize the extent of enzymolysis of keratin and protein-based organic components such as feathers [Zhu Abstract]. Zhu teaches a similar process comprising a biological preparation method for producing amino acid liquid fertilizer from waste feathers [Zhu Title & Abstract] wherein the rate of enzymolysis reaches 80% or above and the content of amino acids can reach 10.12% [Zhu Abstract]. The extent of enzymolysis is a result effective variable which depends on the specific enzyme complex implemented [Zhu Para. 0005] and the ratios of enzymes included therein [Zhu Para. 0011] as well as the dosage ratio of enzymes to substrate [Zhu Para. 0043], the system pH, and the system temperature [Zhu Para. 0046-47]. See also Zhu Table 3 showing optimization of enzymolysis response based on temperature, pH, concentration, and dosage [Zhu Para. 005]. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate that the extent of enzymolysis, which is also conversely a measure of the intact protein remaining in the system, is a result-effective variable, and would be motivated to optimize this variable based on parameters disclosed by Zhu resulting in at least 80% or above hydrolysis [Zhu Abstract]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Morash as modified by Bussieres to optimize the remaining protein content to within the range as claimed as taught by Zhu.
Regarding claim 14, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method but does not explicitly include a step of adding sodium sulfite to further break down feathers. However, Zhu teaches in a similar biological preparation method for producing amino acid liquid fertilizer from waste feathers [Zhu Title & Abstract] that it is advantageous to add sodium sulfite to an enzymolysis process because it is a reducing agent conducive to breaking the disulfide bonds in the keratin, thereby promoting enzymolysis [Zhu Para. 0054]. As such, in performing the method of Morash as modified by Bussieres including enzymolysis of feathers, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Zhu and readily appreciate the advantages of further including sodium sulfite. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in performing the method of Morash as modified by Bussieres to further include sodium sulfite to break down feathers as taught by Zhu.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: Morash, the closest prior art of record, does not teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of dependent claim 16 or independent claim 18, with particular attention to the narrow percentage ranges of the included essential elements (molasses, potassium, full spectrum vitamin B) as well as the inclusion of the particular amounts of potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate stabilizers.
Morash teaches a method of producing a product for use as a fertilizer as discussed in the rejections of claims 1-15, 17, and 20-22 above. Morash teaches that the essential elements can include molasses (the biological recyclable stream can include citrus molasses) [Para. 0153], potassium (potassium may be added as an anti-caking agent or preservative) [Para. 0184 & 0221], and full spectrum vitamin B pack (the composition can further comprise vitamin B12, biotin, folic acid, niacin, which are several different B vitamins) [Para. 0058], but does not explicitly state any percentage ranges for these components as required by claims 16 and 18.
Further, Morash teaches that potassium sorbate may be implemented as a stabilizer [Para. 0221], but teaches a range (0.1 to 2.0%) [Para. 0221] which starts at 10x the claimed amount of only 0.01% potassium sorbate as required by claim 18. Morash further does not teach the inclusion of sodium benzoate as a stabilizer as required by claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEATHER E RAINBOW whose telephone number is (571)272-0185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 AM - 4 PM PST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at 571-270-3149. 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-fre6). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.E.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731