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 .
Applicant’s response to restriction letter of 10/9/25 is acknowledged. Applicant elected Group I and species 3, only, without traverse.
Claims 3-4, 8-9, 12-15, 21-27 and the following species :1-2, 4-6, are hereby withdrawn as drawn to non-elected subject matter.
Claims 6-7, 11 and 19-20 are canceled.
DEATLED ACTION
Claims 1-2, 5, 10, 16-18, 28-29 are under examination on the merits.
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 1-2, 5, 10, 16-18, 28-29 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claim 1 (and its dependent claims 2, 5, 10, 16-18, 28-29) it is unclear what is being fermented. Further in claim 28, it is own right, applicant has mentioned that “a microorganism” is being fermented but failed to explain what specific microorganism(s) is referred to. Claims 2, 5, 10, 16-18 and 29 are merely rejected for depending from base claim 1.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In claims 16-17, the term “substantially” is confusing. It is unclear how much or what parentage constitutes “substantially”. Applicant has not specifically defined said term in the disclosure and in page 12, mentions that “the term “substantially solid phase” is meant solid-rich phase and the term “substantially liquid phrase” is meant liquid-rich phase”. But said definitions are also ambiguous because it is unknown how much or what percentage of solids or liquids result in “solid-rich phase” and liquid -rich phase”, respectively. Appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. In dependent claims 16-17, it is unclear if “the step of isolating ….” is the first isolation step or the second isolation step.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 10, 16-18, 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazenda et al., “Fazenda” (US2017/0226,551, 10/2017). Fazenda teaches and claims (see claim 20) an integrated aerobic method or system for the co-production of mycoprotein and ethanol from a feedstock (such as cereal) material, the method comprising the steps of:
a) providing an aqueous fermentable broth comprising one or more cereal materials;
b) fermenting at least a portion of the aqueous fermentable broth (fresh broth) with a micro-organism(s) in order to obtain mycoprotein or ethanol respectively and partially fermented broth (wherein said” partially fermented” broth is inherently partially spent media, see also [0025], where “partially fermented” broth is referred to an initial fermentation broth that has undergone an initial fermentation in order to produce mycoprotein”. Obviously, the resulting media of such initial fermentation will be “partially spent”);
c) separating the mycoprotein or ethanol from the partially fermented broth;
d) fermenting at least a portion of the partially fermented broth, optionally with a portion of unfermented aqueous fermentable broth, with a micro-organism(s) in order to obtain ethanol or mycoprotein respectively and a spent fermentation residue; and
e) isolating the ethanol or mycoprotein from the spent fermentation residue.
Applicant is reminded that in step (d) above, a portion of “partially fermented broth” mixed with the “aqueous fermentation media” inherently requires reintroduction (recycling) of isolated partially fermented broth separated and isolated from mycoprotein or ethanol in step (c) into the fermentation vessel, said vessel comprising said aqueous fermentation media. Obviously, such reintroduction, will decrease the amount of fermentation media required for the whole process.
In [0038], according to Fazenda, “once fermentation is completed, the mycoprotein and spent fermentation broth may be subjected to a heat treatment in order to remove/destroy nucleic acid, such as RNA, which may be present. Therefore, according to said paragraph, heating is performed prior to (before) mycoprotein isolation from the spent fermentation media/ mycoprotein mixture.
In said same paragraph, Fazenda states, “The mycoprotein may then be separated/isolated from the spent fermentation broth, using methods such as centrifugation or filtering, for example, and then dried.” Such dried mycoprotein will be “substantially” (see 112 second rejection above) solid phase (resulting in mycoprotein in solid phase” and since partially spent fermentation media was not dried ; it will be in “substantially” liquid phrase inherently comprising nutrients and carbohydrates.
Therefore, it is believed the teachings of Fazenda, as a whole, render this invention obvious.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARYAM MONSHIPOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-0932. The examiner can normally be reached full-flex.
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, Adam Weidner can be reached at 571-272-3045. 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.
/MARYAM MONSHIPOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651