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 .
Priority
This application claims benefit of priority to People’s Republic of China Application No. CN202111031651.3 filed 09/03/2021. This application is also a 371 of PCT/CN2021/130222 filed 11/12/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. However, an English translation of the foreign patent document was not provided. Therefore, for the purposes of applying prior art, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 11/12/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 10/16/2023 has been acknowledged and considered.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 09/29/2023 are accepted by the Examiner.
Amendments and Claim Status
The Preliminary amendment filed 09/29/2023 amending claims 1 and 5 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-6 are currently pending and under examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a mass ratio of (1-12):1” in line 5 of the claim. The parentheses around the range for the first part of the ratio are unnecessary. Additionally, claim 1 is objected to for reciting “a fermentation process for preparing a postbiotic with a by-product of wheat processing” in the preamble. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “a fermentation process for preparing a postbiotic from a by-product of wheat processing” because it makes the claim more clear. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites “a mass ratio of (8-10):1” in line 3 of the claim. The parentheses around the range for the first part of the ratio are unnecessary. 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 1-6 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 “thoroughly mixing a process water and a wheat bran” in line 4 of the claim. It is unclear what ‘a process water’ is. It is unclear whether the process water is process water from processing wheat or if the process water is from another process. Thus, it is unclear what ‘a process water’ is.
Claim 1 recites “a mass ratio of (1-12):1” in line 5 of the claim. It is unclear if ‘(1-12)’ is part of the scope of the claim, if it is an optional limitation or if it is just the range of the first part of the ratio. Additionally, if it is simply the first part of the ratio, it is unclear why the range is in parentheses. Thus, the recitation of “a mass ratio of (1-12):1” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites “cooling the sterilized mixture to room temperature to obtain a fermentation matrix” in lines 6-7 of the claim. It is unclear why the sterilized mixture is being cooled to room temperature since the claim does not recite the sterilized mixture is heated. It is known that heating can be a means of sterilization, and in one embodiment within the instant Specification the mixture is sterilized at 121°C for 20 minutes (Specification, Page 14, Lines 5-6), but heating is not the only means of sterilization. As claimed, the limitation is broad enough to read on any means of sterilization, including means that do not utilize heat. Thus, it is unclear why the mixture would need to be cooled to room temperature when the mixture was never heated.
Claim 1 recites “and mixing resulting seed cultures to obtain a mixed fermentation broth” in lines 11-12 of the claim. First, it is unclear exactly what a ‘seed culture’ is and what is encompassed by a ‘seed culture.’ The term “seed culture” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Second, it is further unclear how the mixing of seed cultures results in a ‘mixed fermentation broth’ because a broth is a liquid but seed cultures are not necessarily liquids. As claimed, the only thing comprising the mixed fermentation broth is the mixture of seed cultures. Thus, it is unclear how a mixture of seed cultures that are not necessarily in liquid form would constitute a mixed fermentation broth.
Claim 1 recites “inoculating the mixed fermentation broth into the fermentation matrix in step (1) according to a mass proportion of 1% to 25%” in lines 13-14 of the claim. It is unclear what the mass proportion of 1% to 25% is referring to. It is unclear if the proportion is stating the mixed fermentation broth is 1% while the fermentation matrix is 25% and is giving a ratio of 1:25 or if the mixed fermentation broth is 1% to 25% of the total mass of the combination of the mixed fermentation broth and the fermentation matrix. It is also unclear what constitutes the “mass” in the “mass proportion.” If the mixture of seed cultures is what comprises the mixed fermentation broth, it is unclear what makes up the mass of the seed culture. For example, it is unclear if the mass is one individual microorganism of each claimed species and the rest of the mass is the nutrients keeping the microorganisms alive OR if the number of microorganisms make up the mass. Thus, the metes and bounds of this limitation are unclear.
Claim 1 recites “after the fermentation in step (2) is completed, filtering a resulting fermentation system to obtain a resulting filtrate” in lines 17-18 of the claim. It is unclear what a ‘fermentation system’ is. The term “fermentation system” is not defined by the claim, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the fermentation system recited is simply the products of fermentation or if the fermentation system is what was fermented, being the mixture of the mixed fermentation broth and the fermentation matrix. Thus, it is unclear exactly what a ‘fermentation system’ is.
Claim 2 recites “a mass ratio of (8-10):1 in line 3 of the claim. It is unclear if ‘(8-10)’ is part of the scope of the claim, if it is an optional limitation or if it is just the range of the first part of the ratio. Additionally, if it is simply the first part of the ratio, it is unclear why the range is in parentheses. Thus, the recitation of “a mass ratio of (8-10):1” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "an inoculation proportion is 10%" in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, the claim from which claim 4 depends, does not recite an inoculation proportion. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim 4 recites "wherein in step (2), an inoculation proportion is 10%" in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear what “inoculation proportion” is being referred to because the claim from which claim 4 depends does not recite an ‘inoculation proportion.’ It is unclear if the ‘inoculation proportion’ is referring to the ‘mass proportion’ or another proportion. If ‘inoculation proportion’ is referring to the ‘mass proportion,’ it is further indefinite because it is unclear what the ‘mass proportion’ comprises, as discussed above regarding claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “wherein in step (2), a number of viable bacteria in the seed culture prepared with each of … is greater than or equal to 1 x 106/mL” in lines 2-4 of the claim. The amount of viable bacteria in the seed culture is unclear because a number is claimed. For example, a, as in one, number of bacteria is greater than 1 x 106/mL but another number of bacteria is not being greater than 1 x 106/mL, would also be encompassed. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would be not be able to determine the metes and bounds of this limitation. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “wherein in step (2), the number of viable bacteria in the seed culture prepared with …”.
State of the Art
The claims appear to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art is Zhou et al. (CN 110643654 A, 01/03/2020) (IDS Reference of 10/16/2023, 9 Pages). Zhou et al. disclose a method utilizing Paenibacillus polymyxa for fermenting starch waste water (See entire document, Abstract). However, Zhou et al. do not disclose the further use of Brachybacterium paraconglomeratum and Flavobacterium pectinovorum in combination with the Paenibacillus polymyxa or anything that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize B. paraconglometarum and F. pectinovorum in combination with the P. polymyxa. Moreover, the prior art as a whole does not disclose the use of Brachybacterium paraconglomeratum and Flavobacterium pectinovorum for fermenting or for fermenting wheat bran or wheat starch.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY T WHITE whose telephone number is (571)272-0683. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/A.T.W./Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653