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 .
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 51-56 in the reply filed on 04/10/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 57-67 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 04/10/26.
Objections
Claim 53 is 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 closest prior art to claim 53 is Kong et al. Biotechnology 14 (4): 188-193, 2015)., which will be discussed in detail below. Kong teaches method of ultrafiltering fish frame bones with 3kDa and 10kDa membrane filters. However, Kong does not teach using bloodwater as the byproduct. This limitation is not taught or suggest by Kong or the art as a whole. As such, claim 53 is novel and unobvious over the prior art.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 102(A)(1)
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.
Claim(s) 51, 52, 54 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Kong et al. (Biotechnology 14 (4): 188-193, 2015).
Kong teaches preparation methods and partial characteristics of the antioxidative peptides from Spanish mackerel (abstract). This reference teaches that mackerel frame (bone) hydrolysate with alcalase had the highest degree of hydrolysis and DPPH (1,1-diphenyl-2-pycryl-hydrazyl) radical scavenging activity, the values of 31.3 and 18.5%, respectively (abstract). Kong teaches that Spanish mackerel (Scomberomorus niphonius) is extremely perishable and of lower commercial value when compared to other marine fishes, but processing produces many byproducts, including frame, skin, head, viscera and others, which occupy about 50% of total weight, and are enriched in protein that may be used as a valuable source of bioactive peptides, functional foods ingredients, and are often used in animal feed (p. 189, Col. 1, para. 1). This reference teaches that 10 grams of defatted mackerel frame powder were added to 100 mM Tris-HCl buffer (10%, w/v) at various pH (8.5, 8.5, 7.0 and 7.0) and hydrolyzed with four proteinases (alcalase, trypsin, protemax and flavourzyme) at optimal temperature (p. 189, Col. 2). This reference further teaches that the hydrolysate was first filtered with a 0.22 μm membrane and then ultrafiltered successively at 4°C by three ultrafiltration with molecular weight cut-off membranes of 10kDa, 5kDa, and 3 kDa and all four fractions were collected (p. 189, Col. 2, para. 2). Kong teaches that the peptide content and DPPH radical scavenging activity was measured and samples were then freeze-dried and stored (p. 189, Col. 2, para. 2).
This meets the limitations of claim 51 by teaching a method for producing a mackerel marine fraction using bone by-product (frame), ultrafiltering the hydrolysate through both a 3kDA and 10kDa filer membranes to produce separate 3kDa and 10kDa fractions with at least one retentate. Claim 52 is met because Kong teaches that the samples were freeze dried after filtration. Claim 54 is met because the by-product is fish bone. Claim 56 is met because the process comprises hydrolyzing the by-product with hydrolysis enzymes.
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) 51, 52 and 54-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al., as applied to claims 51, 52, 54 and 56 above, in view of Khiari et al. (Food Chemistry 139 (2013) 347–354).
The teachings of Kong have been described supra.
The difference between the prior art and the instant claims is that the prior art does not teach extracting gelatine from the marine by-product prior to filtering.
Khiari teaches that gelatines were extracted from mackerel and blue whiting bones after chemical or enzymatic pretreatments and their functional properties (solubility, foaming and emulsifying properties) were analyzed (abstract). The amino acid analyses showed that chemically pre-treated bone gelatines had higher amino acids (proline and hydroxyproline) contents compared to those extracted after the enzymatic pre-treatment, for both fish species (abstract). This reference teaches that gelatine is a biopolymer produced by extraction and hydrolysis of fibrous, insoluble collagen and that sources for fish collagen can be fish skin, bones, scales or connective tissue (p. 347, Col. 1, para. 3). Khiari also teaches that gelatine manufacture involves either an acid or alkaline pre-treatment followed by extraction with warm water and heat denaturation converts collagen into gelatine, which is then subjected to further clarification steps that include filtration, concentration, drying and milling (p. 347, Col. 2). This reference also teaches that for both fish, gelatines extracted after the enzymatic pretreatment of bones showed significantly higher content of hydrophobic amino acid residue, which results in effectively distributed hydrophilic/hydrophobic amino that improve the emulsifying properties of gelatines (p. 353, Col. 1, para. 2; section 3.6.2; Table 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordiary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to have taken the method of Kong and used the extracted gelatine of Khiari as the by-product because Khiari teaches that gelatines extracted after the enzymatic pretreatment of bones showed significantly higher content of hydrophobic amino acid residues, which results in effectively distributed hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids. One would be motivated to do so because Khairi teaches that gelatines extracted from the fish by-products had improved emulsifying properties because of their effectively distributed of hydrophilic and hydrophobic amino acids. As such, there is a reasonable expectation of success that the gelatine of Khiari can be used in the method of Kong to produce a protein-enriched food product with improved emulsification properties.
As such, claim 54 is rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANETTE M LIEB whose telephone number is (571)270-3490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7.
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, Lianko Garyu can be reached on 571-270-7367. 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.
/JEANETTE M LIEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1654
Prosecution Insights