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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received 4/16/2026:
Claims 1-22 are presently pending
Claim 19 is withdrawn
The objections to the specification are withdrawn in light of the amendments
The claim objections are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
The previously stated claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
All prior art grounds of rejection are maintained, with new grounds only as necessitated by amendment
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 recitation “determining lipase amount required based on said fat content” (step (g)) renders the claim indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “lipase,” as no lipase has been previously set forth as an included or added component. The claim later refers to “adding enzymes” (step (h)). For purposes of examination, the recitation is regarded as referring to enzymes in general, not specifically lipase.
Further regarding claim 1, the recitation “testing said mixture to obtain a moisture content percentage reading and adding water to maintain said predetermined moisture content percentage” (step (d)) [emphasis added] renders the claim indefinite. The recitation is indefinite because, as drafted, it is unclear if “reading” is a step in the process, or the result of obtaining the moisture content. For purposes of examination, the “reading” is regarded as being the step in the process of obtaining the moisture content percentage.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, the recitations “determining lipase amount required based on said fat content” (step g of claim 1) and “adding lipase as needed based on said fat content” (step h of claim 18) render the respective claims indefinite. Both recitations set forth a step of adding an amount of lipase determined by an amount of fat, but it is unclear what exactly that entails, rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. “As needed” and “based on” appear to be relative terms that are not defined by the claims or the specification. The Specification details that “the ratio of lipase to protease” varies “dependent on fat content,” providing typical percentages of lipase and protease for unusually high fat content, but these are not drafted in such a way as to limit Applicant by these descriptions. See the Specification at Para. 063. For purposes of examination, a process in the prior art is regarded as reading on these particular steps so long as it contains fat and then lipase is added.
Regarding claim 16, the recitation “said vitamin B pack” lacks antecedent basis, as no vitamin B pack as previously been set forth in claim 15 or claim 1. Further, the recitation “vitamin B pack” is indefinite as it is unclear exactly which B vitamins must be included for the vitamins to qualify as a pack. For purposes of examination, any group of B vitamins having more than 1 different B vitamin is regarded as reading on a “pack.”
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 essential and non-essential amino acids (e.g., a method of making an agricultural admixture to enhance crop yield or to feed animals, wherein proteins including blood meal, keratin, beaks, feathers, claws, and hair are digested via enzymolysis) [Morash Abstract & Para. 0036 & Para. 0066 & Para. 0148 & Para. 0154] (proteins including blood meal, keratin, beaks, feathers, claws and hair necessarily break down into both essential and non-essential amino acids, and Morash explicitly lists that the resulting agricultural admixture includes arginine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, threonine, glycine, etc. [Para. 0226]) 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 gradually heating said liquid to a first 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] (which will necessarily take place gradually, because instant temperature change is impossible), (the biological slurry is ground, heated, and incubated with constant agitation and shear) [Para. 0036]
Adding a source of keratin to said liquid within 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 moisture content defined by a predetermined liquid composition percentage by weight and keratin composition percentage by weight 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 and adding water to maintain said predetermined 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 said first predetermined temperature of said mixture to a second 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, 0209]
Testing of said mixture for fat content and determining lipase (here regarded as referring to enzymes as set forth on Page 3 of this Office Action) amount based on said 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. Further, Morash states that the enzymes are added for the purposes of digesting fats [Para. 0203 & Claim 34]. As such, the enzyme amount is determined based on the fat content: The fact that there is fat present means that the enzyme is required in some amount, as opposed to no enzyme being required if there were no fat content.
Adding enzymes to said mixture (e.g., one or more selected enzymes are added to the biological slurry) [Para. 0008]
Monitoring said mixture to maintain said predetermined initial pH level throughout processing (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 monitoring and maintaining the pH level throughout the process
Pumping said mixture through at least one 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]
Cycling 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, (the mixture can be partially recycled as a liquid fraction and subjected to continued circulation pumps) [Para. 0033-34] which is regarded as reading on cycling the mixture,
Maintaining said first predetermined pH level and said second predetermined temperature constant until protein content within said mixture is at a predetermined percentage by weight and a stabilized second 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 third 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 and agitating said mixture 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 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.
Morash also does not explicitly state that, in step (f), the pH adjustment is accomplished using NaOH specifically. Morash teaches that 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], and a chemical and/or buffer with a pKa enabling a pH above 7.0 may be added to the incubating mixture [Para. 0205]. Darling teaches in a similar process for recycling protein waste using enzymes to create a fertilizer [Darling Abstract & Para. 0005] that it is standard to implement a pH controlling medium in the enzymatic digest mixing tank such as sodium hydroxide or phosphoric acid [Darling Para. 0068]. As such, in performing the enzymatic digestion of Morash which calls for a pH adjustment enabling a pH above 7.0, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Darling and readily appreciate that sodium hydroxide is a standard option for this exact purpose. As such, selecting sodium hydroxide amounts to no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. 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 including pH adjustment to specifically use sodium hydroxide as taught by Darling.
Regarding claim 2, Morash as modified by Bussieres teaches the method wherein said liquid is liquid 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 source 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 at least one tank 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 B vitamins (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 a first 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 a second 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 by weight: 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% by weight. 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% by weight. 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that Morash does not disclose intentionally breaking down proteins into amino acids to produce complete, essential and non-essential amino acids (Remarks Pages 2-3). This is not found persuasive because Morash explicitly teaches breaking down proteins into amino acids (e.g., incubating one or more enzymes with a biological recyclable stream in order to digest proteins, which generates a nourishing product containing amino acids) [Morash Para. 0036], explicitly listing both essential and non-essential amino acids as part of the final product (arginine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, threonine, phenylalanine, tryptophan, valine, alanine, aspartic acid, cysteine, glutamic acid, glycine, proline, serine, and tryptophan) [Morash Para. 0226]. Even assuming Applicant is correct in asserting that Morash features a “mere disclosure of an amino acid byproduct” while the claimed invention details an “intentional process of breaking down protein to amino acids” (Remarks Page 3), a byproduct still reads on the invention as claimed. An intentionally or unintentionally created amino acid byproduct is nonetheless a process of breaking down protein to amino acids as claimed.
Applicant further argues that Morash is not an enabling disclosure because it is a “kitchen sink” disclosure without one individual embodiment demonstrating the claimed invention (Remarks Page 3). It is noted that the claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, not 35 U.S.C. 102. "In determining that quantum of prior art disclosure which is necessary to declare an ... invention ‘not novel’ or ‘anticipated’ within section 102, the stated test is whether a reference contains an ‘enabling disclosure’...." In re Hoeksema, 399 F.2d 269, 158 USPQ 596 (CCPA 1968). Further, even if a reference discloses an inoperative device, it is prior art for all that it teaches." Beckman Instruments v. LKB Produkter AB, 892 F.2d 1547, 1551, 13 USPQ2d 1301, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Therefore, "a non-enabling reference may qualify as prior art for the purpose of determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103." Symbol Techs. Inc. v. Opticon Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 1578, 19 USPQ2d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 1991). As such, even assuming applicant is correct that Morash is not an enabling disclosure, the issue is not determinative to the present rejection.
Applicant also appears to assert that the products of the process as claimed and the process of Morash would be different: “Any product produced using a keratin source will not be the same as a product produced using fresh foods from a grocery, grain, pomace, nuts . . . the source material would need to be processed specifically with the end-product in mind” (Remarks Pages 4-5). However, Applicant does not appear to assert any specific differences in the resulting product which differentiate from Morash. Applicant also asserts that Morash would not make a consistent, repeatable output, but again does not detail any specific difference in output aside from the general assertion that the outputs would be different (Remarks Page 4).
Applicant also asserts that the Examiner’s rejection is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction (Remarks Page 5). It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant also argues that Morash teaches away from the claimed invention (Remarks Page 5) based on the following:
First, Applicant argues that Morash does not teach a step of providing a liquid (1a). This is not found persuasive because Morash provides a biological recyclable stream which can include fresh food recyclables, eggs, etc., which contain water, and blood meal [Para. 0007], which is specifically defined as liquid or dried blood [Para. 0148]. Absent further definition of how liquid or watery the initial input needs to be, Morash teaches a liquid.
Second, Applicant argues that Morash does not teach gradual heating (1b). All heating of a mixture is necessarily gradual, as instantaneous heating is impossible.
Third, Applicant argues that Morash includes more steps (two additional steps) to the pending application (1b). However, the claims implement the open connecting term “comprising” which allows for additional method steps not included in the claim.
Applicant also asserts that “the heating step in Morash actually teaches away from the present invention, as an immediate heating in the Morash range would coagulate blood” (Remarks Pages 6-7). However, the heating temperature range of Morash overlaps with the claimed range, and Morash does not disparage any part of the range. Similar or overlapping ranges create a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Fourth, Applicant asserts that Morash adds other ingredients besides keratin (1c). As discussed above, the claims implement the open connecting term “comprising” which allows for additional method steps and ingredients not included in the claim.
Applicant also asserts that blood meal is not the same as liquid blood. However, Morash specifically defines blood meal as liquid or dried blood [Para. 0148].
Fifth, Applicant states that testing the moisture content requires adding water (1d). However, Morash as modified by Bussieres provides motivation to optimize the water content to between 50-70%.
Sixth, Applicant argues that Morash heats the slurry 4 times (1e). This does not amount to teaching away from the claimed invention, which only requires 2 rounds of heating. As discussed above, the claims implement the open connecting term “comprising” which allows for additional method steps and ingredients not included in the claim.
Seventh, Applicant argues that “consistently monitoring for fat content to add sufficient lipase for fat removal is not taught by Morash” (1g). Considering the interpretation set forth by the Examiner on Pages 3-4 of this Office Action, Morash meets this limitation. Further, the claim as drafted does not require “consistently monitoring.”
Eight, Applicant argues that Morash adds enzymes before heating (1h). However, claim 1 also includes a step of adding enzymes before a step of heating (1h and 1n). Morash teaches multiple steps of adding enzymes and heating (see, for example [Para. 0036]). Further, Morash states that “In some aspects one or more selected enzymes may be added after the first ground biological slurry is heated” [Para. 0058].
Ninth, Applicant argues that Morash does not disclose a pH higher than 7 (1i). However, Morash specifically teaches that a chemical and/or buffer with a pKa enabling a pH above 7.0 may be added to the incubating mixture [Para. 0205]
Tenth, Applicant argues that Morash does not teach cycling a mixture through a tank (1k). However, Morash teaches that the mixture can be partially recycled as a liquid fraction and subjected to continued circulation pumps [Para. 0033-34] which is regarded as reading on cycling the mixture.
It is noted that Applicant argues that the Examiner has cited and applied paragraphs in a non-sequential manner (Remarks Page 10). However, in light of the above responses to arguments, it is unclear which steps are alleged to be performed in the wrong sequence or order. It is also noted from In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results; see also In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.).
The remarks on Pages 10-13 appear to be general allegations of patentability without specific arguments asserted.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the challenged rejections are maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 18 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, for the same reasons as previously indicated in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 1/16/2026.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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-free). 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
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights