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 response to applicant’s claims filed December 30, 2022. Claims 1-12 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification contains many paragraphs wherein the separate words are not separated by spaces and are included in long strings (for example, see page 1, line 12). These run-ons throughout the specification should be corrected.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should use proper Markush language “the stabilizer is selected from the group consisting of” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: flax and ramie are misspelled “flex” and “remi”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should use proper Markush language “the raw natural fibers are selected from the group consisting of” 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 1-12 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. Claim 1 recites “enzymes selected from the group consisting of” which is unclear as to whether applicant wants all enzymes to be present or selection of a single enzyme from the Markush group is sufficient. Claim 2 suggest applicant intended that all the enzymes of claim 1 are present. The examples in applicant’s specification suggest not all species listed int eh Markush group of claim 1 are needed to make the enzyme formulation. The examiner interpreted the claim to require one or more of the enzymes of claim 1 to satisfy the limitation as indicated by the “selected from” language. Claims 2-12 are also rejected for being dependent upon claim 1 and inheriting the same deficiency.
Claims 2-5 and 9 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 2-5 and 9 are indefinite because they recite the term “it” but should recite “the enzyme formulation” in place of “it” so it is clear what is being referenced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cooney (WO 98/45228).
Cooney teaches compositions comprising 75-99 wt% of an enzyme mixture or 5000CDU/g protease, 12000 MWU/gram amylase, 100 LU/gram lipase and 1000 CU/gram cellulase, 0-50% wt % non-ionic surfactants and 0-50% propylene glycol (abstract). Cooney teaches examples with protease, amylase, lipase and cellulase, 20% propylene glycol and 2 wt% nonionic surfactant (page 31, last table). The limitations “for converting raw natural fibers to textile grade fibers” is simply intended use and the same formulation would be capable of performing the same function. Even though Cooney does not teach a converting raw natural fibers to textile grade fibers use of his composition, the two different intended uses are not distinguishable in terms of the composition, see In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324; Ex parte Douros, 163 USPQ 667; and In re Craige, 89 USPQ 393. Regarding claim 3 and 7-11, these are limitations based on the treatment method and application to fibers and do not further limit the components of the enzyme formulation itself. Since Cooney teaches the same composition for use at room temperature (75°F, 23.8°C; page 33, last paragraph ) and with enzymes stable in the claimed pH range of 4.5-5.5 (page 6, paragraph 3; page 10, buffer b. fungal amylase, page 15, third paragraph; page 4, second paragraph; page 22, paragraph 2) the stability at pH 4.5-5.5 and at a temperature of 20-50°C is met. Accordingly the teachings of Cooney are sufficient to anticipate the material limitations of the instant claims.
Claims 1 and 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarke (WO 03/006722).
Clarke teaches soaking dried bast hemp fibers (page 6, lines 2-5 and 20-24; page 3, paragraph 1) by retting (page 2, lines 19-36) with 0.5% Crystalzyme (pectinase, page 3, lines 13-19) for 4 hours (page 8, Table 1, batch 7). Clarke teaches the process is carried out at 25-55°C (page 4, lines 14-16) and the resultant fibers are spun into yarn (textile grade fiber, page 5, lines 17-21). The same enzymes would inherently have the same stability and are usable in the claimed temperature range so must be stable at that range. Regarding claim 3 and 7-11, these are limitations based on the treatment method and application to fibers and do not further limit the components of the enzyme formulation itself. Since Clarke teaches the same composition for use at 25-55°C and with the same pectinase enzymes, they would inherently be stable in the claimed pH range of 4.5-5.5. Accordingly the teachings of Clarke are sufficient to anticipate the material limitations of the instant claims.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarke (WO 03/006722) as evidenced by Rozenszain (WO 2012/135955).
Clarke is relied upon as set forth above.
Clarke is silent as to the pH at which the enzyme is stable.
Rozenszain provides evidence that Crystalzyme has maximal activity at pH 5 and at a temperature of 53±2°C indicating it is stable at pH 4.5-5.5 and temperature range of 20-50°C as Clarke teaches using the enzyme at room temperature. Accordingly, the teachings of Clarke are sufficient to anticipate the limitation of claim 4 as evidenced by the teachings of Rozenszain.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (WO 2008/138109).
Xiao teaches retting and bioscouring of flax and hemp (page 2, lines 3-13) using enzymes which are stable in a pH range of 4-10 and at 45°C (page 3, lines 18-27 ) . Xiao teaches retting hemp, jute, flax, and ramie with enzyme mixtures of cellulase, xylanase, pectinase, polygalacturonase, lipase, alpha-amylase, mannanase and laccase at pH 4-10 and temperatures of 30-55°C for 1-6 hours (page 4, lines 12-33).
Xiao does not teach all the claimed embodiments in a single example or specify the U/ml of the enzymes. But one of ordinary skill in the art could arrive at the claimed invention by selection from the teachings of Xiao.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the claimed enzyme mixture of one or more of cellulase, xylanase, pectinase, polygalacturonase, lipase, alpha-amylase, mannanase and laccase at create a formulation that is stable at pH 4-10 and temperatures of 30-55°C for 1-6 hours as Xiao teaches these enzymes are effective in bioscouring and retting hemp, flax, jute and ramie raw fibers to remove non-cellulosic material, in particular pectin, without damaging the fiber backbone and producing a purified fiber which may be subject to tother treatment steps for its eventual application.
Even though Xiao does not teach a converting to textile grade fibers use of his composition, the two different intended uses are not distinguishable in terms of the composition, see In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324; Ex parte Douros, 163 USPQ 667; and In re Craige, 89 USPQ 393. Regarding claim 3 and 7-11, these are limitations based on the treatment method and application to fibers and do not further limit the components of the enzyme formulation itself. Since Xiao teaches the same composition for use at pH 4-10 and temperatures 30-55°C, the stability at pH 4.5-5.5 and at a temperature of 20-50°C of the enzyme formulation is met.
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to adjust the U/ml of the enzymes based on the desired level of bioscouring and retting. Selecting the appropriate enzyme levels and activities to ensure complete retting and removal of non-cellulosic components from the fibers such as pectin would be obvious to maximize purity of the fiber product as well as the integrity of the fiber backbone.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (WO 2008/138109) in view of Jaskowski (US 4,481,355) and Schreckenbach (US 1,017,176).
Xiao is relied upon as set forth above.
Xiao does not teach nonionic surfactants and stabilizers.
Jaskowski teaches that in degumming bast fibers such as ramie or hemp bast fiber (column 4, lines 17-20), non-ionic surfactants such as TRITON X-100 to improve penetration of the enzyme including pectinase into the pectin surrounding the plant fiber for treatment at pH to 4.5 and temperatures of 100-140°F ( 37.77-60°C, column 7, lines 1-37).
Schreckenbach teaches treating raw fibers such as ramie, flax and hemp in a bath of sugar and glycerin (glycerol) for the benefit of making the fibers softer and increasing the divisibility to allow the fiber to be spun into finer yarns (page 1, left column, lines 11-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the enzyme formulations of Xiao by adding the non-ionic surfactants of Jaskowski and the sugars and glycerol of Schreckenbach because Jaskowski teaches that non-ionic surfactants such as TRITON X-100 to improve penetration of the enzyme including pectinase into the pectin surrounding similar plant fibers and Schreckenbach teaches adding stabilizers such as sugar and glycerol make similar fibers softer and increase the divisibility to allow the fiber to be spun into finer yarns.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (WO 2008/138109) in view of Kerovuo (US 2006/0210971).
Xiao is relied upon as set forth above.
Xiao does not teach the U/ml of the enzymes.
Kerovuo teaches using enzymes mixtures of cellulase, xylanase, pectinase, polygalacturonase, lipase, amylase, mannanase and laccase (paragraph 0114) for treating crude fibers such as flax, ramie, hemp or jute (paragraph 0081) or degumming bast fibers (paragraph 0442) wherein the enzymes are usually dosed at an enzyme strength of about 100 to about 40,000 units/ml (paragraph 0098).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the enzyme formulations of Xiao by using the claimed enzyme strengths as Kerovuo teaches treating similar bast fibers for degumming and crude flax, ramie, hemp or jute fibers with similar enzyme mixtures of cellulase, xylanase, pectinase, polygalacturonase, lipase, amylase, mannanase and laccase wherein effective enzyme strengths employed are 100 to about 40,000 units/ml. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to adjust the U/ml of each of the enzymes based on the desired level of degumming and processing. Selecting the appropriate enzyme levels and activities to ensure complete retting and removal of non-cellulosic components from the fibers such as pectin would be obvious to maximize purity of the fiber product as well as the integrity of the fiber backbone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761