DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner.
A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at www.uspto.gov/FindPatentAttorney. Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-6 are pending and are being examined on the merits.
Priority
This application has an effective filing date of 7/17/2023.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for reciting the term “stages.” The Office recommends modifying the term to “steps.”
Claims 2-3 are objected to because they contain more than one sentence separated by periods. Claims must end with a period but may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations (See MPEP 608.01(m)). The Office recommends modifying claims 2-3 to recite a single sentence.
Claim 2 is objected to for reciting “wherein Hydrolysis.” The Office recommends modifying the phrase to “wherein the hydrolysis.”
Claim 3 is objected to for reciting “Raw material extraction.” The Office recommends modifying the phrase to “extraction using an acetic acid solution.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected as indefinite because claim 1 recites the phrase "The method comprises the following stages" which lacks antecedence. There are no methods described earlier in claim 1 or in a claim that precedes “The method” in claim 1, therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation and therefore “The method” lacks antecedence. The Office suggests modifying "The method comprises " to "A method of extracting a raw material comprising."
Claims 1-6 are rejected as indefinite because claim 1 recites the phrase "the extract" which lacks antecedence. Claim 1 does not disclose “an extract” prior to “the extract”, therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation and therefore “the extract” lacks antecedence. The Office suggests modifying "extraction using an acetic acid solution, and purification of the extract" to "extraction using an acetic acid solution to produce an extract, and purification of the extract."
Claims 2-3 are rejected as indefinite because “2.0-2.5%” and “1.5-1.8%”, respectively, are unclear. It is unclear what the “%” references and there a plurality of delimitations that are possible (e.g., weight/weight (w/w), volume/volume (v/v), weight/volume (w/v)). The Offices suggests that the applicant clarify the meaning of “%”. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the acetic acid percentages in claims 2-3 are construed to mean weight/weight (w/w), volume/volume (v/v), or weight/volume (w/v).
Claim 5 is rejected as indefinite because claim 5 recites the phrase "the filter fabric" which lacks antecedence. Claim 1 does not recite the phrase “filter fabric”, and since claim 5 depends upon claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation and therefore “the filter fabric” lacks antecedence. The Office suggests modifying claim 5 to “The method of claim 4, wherein the layer of filtered group B perlite has a thickness ranging from 25 to 30 mm.”
Claim 6 is rejected as indefinite because claim 6 recites the phrase "the filtration process" which lacks antecedence. Claim 1 does not recite the phrase “filtration process”, and since claim 6 depends upon claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. The Office suggests modifying claim 6 to “The method of claim 5, wherein the temperature of the extract is maintained between 50 and 55°C throughout the filtration process.”
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sergeevich et al. (RU2743860C1; cited on the attached Form PTO-892). Reference is made to a machine translation of RU2743860C1 obtained from Espacenet https://worldwide.espacenet.com/patent/search/family/074857437/publication/RU2743860C1?q=RU2743860C1>; cited on the attached Form PTO-892; hereafter “Sergeevich”).
Claims 1-6 are drawn to a method comprising: raw material purification, rinsing, grinding, hydrolysis, centrifugation, extraction using an acetic acid solution, and purification of the extract.
Regarding claim 1, Sergeevich teaches a method of obtaining collagen extract from the legs of broiler chickens, which provides for the stages of raw material purification, its washing, grinding, hydrolysis and extraction with an acetic acid solution, and purification of the extract (Abstract; Claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, Sergeevich teaches wherein the hydrolysis is carried out with a 2.0-2.5% solution of acetic acid with exposure for 6-10 hours at a temperature of 18-25 ° C with stirring (Abstract; Claim 1; p. 3, para 8; p. 4, para 5).
Regarding claim 3, Sergeevich teaches wherein the extraction of raw materials is carried out with a 1.5-1.8% solution of acetic acid at a temperature of 50-55 °C for 45-50 minutes with constant stirring (Abstract; Claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Sergeevich teaches wherein the extract is purified by filtration on a Druk filter with a layer of group B filtered perlite applied to it (Claim 2)
Regarding claim 5, Sergeevich teaches wherein the pearlite layer is applied with a thickness of 25-30 mm (Claim 3).
Regarding claim 6, Sergeevich teaches wherein the temperature of the extract is maintained within the range of 50-55 °C during filtration (Claim 4).
For the reasons stated herein, claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sergeevich.
Conclusion
No claims are currently allowed for the reasons as stated above. Applicants must
respond to the objections/rejections in this Office action to be fully responsive in
prosecution.
The instant Office Action is non-final.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT E. MULDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 3:30 PM.
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, Manjunath Rao can be reached on (571) 272-0939. 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.
/SCOTT E. MULDER/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/David Steadman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656