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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/16/2025.
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 12/16/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
There is a substantial commonality of features among independent claim 1 (Group I) and independent claim 16 (Group II).
It is submitted that claims 1-22 can be readily evaluated in one search without placing undue burden on the Examiner; the claims are interrelated.
Duplication of work on the part of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is not warranted where these claims of different categories are interrelated.
Undue financial burden would be placed upon the Applicant for separate fees and costs with prosecuting three applications and maintaining three patents.
It is more efficient to have early determination of the full scope of the patent protection to be afforded in this technology, which is advantageous to the public.
This is not found persuasive because:
Due to the distinct and/or independent inventions accomplished by either different apparatuses or different methods, the inventions must be restricted.
Inventions I and II: Invention I can be used as a double fermentation system to produce ethanol, which is a different process than the method of Invention II.
Inventions I and III: Invention I, as stated above, can be used as a double fermentation system to produce ethanol, which is a different process than the method of Invention III.
Inventions II and III: Invention II does not require a lysate in the process composition, which differs from Invention III, which requires lysing microorganisms and producing a lysate that is then inoculated into a process composition.
There is an undue search burden for searching the different inventions.
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
Group I is classified in C12M23/58
Group II is classified in C12M47/10
Group III is classified in C12M21/14
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and,
the inventions require a different field of search (e.g. searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding the specification, pg. 9, line 29, the term “FIGS. 2-5B (discussed below)” is used; however, there are only Figs. 1, 2, and 3 in the application.
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 11-13 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 11 recites the limitation “the lysate” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding the dependent claims 12-13, these claims are rejected for the same reason as the base claim upon which they depend.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadhav (US 20250257371) in view of Alibek (US 20190309248) and Moll (US 20110189755).
Regarding claim 1, Jadhav discloses a system for propagating two or more microorganisms (paragraphs [0039] and [0053]) to mitigate mycotoxin contamination (paragraphs [0195]-[0196] and [0233]), wherein the system is configured to couple to one or more points of a process in a bioprocessing facility (Fig. 1B and paragraph [0047]) to inoculate at least a portion of the propagated composition and/or a composition derived from the propagated composition (Fig. 1B and paragraph [0047]) into one or more process compositions (Fig. 1B and paragraph [0047]) to mitigate mycotoxin contamination (paragraphs [0195]-[0196] and [0233]), wherein the bioprocessing facility is configured to produce one or more bioproducts from biomass (Fig. 1B and paragraph [0047]; “liquid CO2”, “ethanol”, “high protein concentrate”, and “fiber”).
Jadhav does not disclose:
expressing one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination
wherein the system comprises two or more propagation tanks, wherein each of the two or more propagation tanks comprises at least one microorganism expressing one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination, wherein at least one of the two or more propagation tanks comprises at least one microorganism that expresses one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination that is different from at least one microorganism that expresses one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination that is present in another propagation tank, wherein the system is configured to propagate the at least one microorganism that is present in each of the two or more propagation tanks and form a propagated composition comprising the at least one microorganism expressing one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination
Alibek discloses:
wherein the system comprises two or more propagation tanks (paragraph [0020]), wherein each of the two or more propagation tanks comprises at least one microorganism (paragraph [0078]) expressing one or more microbe-based compositions (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]), wherein at least one of the two or more propagation tanks comprises at least one microorganism that expresses one or more microbe-based compositions (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]) that is different from at least one microorganism that one or more microbe-based compositions (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]) that is present in another propagation tank (paragraph [0020]), wherein the system is configured to propagate the at least one microorganism that is present in each of the two or more propagation tanks and form a propagated composition comprising the at least one microorganism expressing one or more microbe-based compositions (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
In the analogous art of fermentation systems and methods, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jadhav with the at least two tank system of Alibek in order to grow two different microorganisms and combine the resulting harvested material (Alibek, paragraphs [0036]-[0037]).
Moll discloses:
expressing one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination (paragraph [0022]).
In the analogous art of enzymatic decomposition of mycotoxins, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of modified Jadhav with the enzymes of Moll in order to degrade mycotoxins during the production of bioethanol in the mash for the production of alcohol, or to degrade and render harmless mycotoxins during the production of foods directly in the production process (Moll, paragraph [0010]).
Additionally, for clarity, regarding the limitation “at least one microorganism expressing one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination, wherein at least one of the two or more propagation tanks comprises at least one microorganism that expresses one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination that is different from at least one microorganism that expresses one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination that is present in another propagation tank”, Jadhav discloses at least two microorganisms, and modified Jadhav in view of Alibek describes two or more propagation tanks, each with microorganisms. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jadhav to have at least two propagation tanks as in Alibek in order to grow two different microorganisms and combine the resulting harvested material.
Regarding claim 2, Jadhav does not disclose wherein the composition derived from the propagated composition in each of the two or more propagation tanks is chosen from a concentrated propagation broth, a lysate of the at least one microorganism, a concentrated lysate of the at least one microorganism, enzyme that is isolated from a propagation broth of the at least one microorganism, enzyme that is isolated from a lysate of the at least one microorganism, and combinations thereof.
Alibek discloses wherein the composition derived from the propagated composition in each of the two or more propagation tanks is chosen from a concentrated propagation broth (paragraph [0035]), a lysate of the at least one microorganism (paragraph [0035]), a concentrated lysate of the at least one microorganism (paragraphs [0035] and [0110]), and an enzyme that is isolated (paragraph [0042]).
In the analogous art of fermentation systems and methods, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jadhav with the at least two tank system of Alibek in order to grow two different microorganisms and combine the resulting harvested material (Alibek, paragraphs [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding the phrase “enzyme that is isolated from a propagation broth of the at least one microorganism, enzyme that is isolated from a lysate of the at least one microorganism, and combinations thereof”, these limitations are recited in the alternative. Because the limitation has been met already, the remaining limitations need not be rejected at this time.
Regarding claim 3, Jadhav discloses a bioprocessing facility is configured to produce one or more bioproducts from biomass (Fig. 1B and paragraph [0047]; “liquid CO2”, “ethanol”, “high protein concentrate”, and “fiber”).
Jadhav does not disclose wherein the system is configured to be movable as a single unit among two or more bioprocessing facilities, wherein each bioprocessing facility is configured to produce one or more bioproducts from biomass.
Alibek discloses wherein the system is configured to be movable as a single unit (paragraphs [0064]-[0065]).
In the analogous art of novel fermentation systems and methods, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of modified Jadhav with the movability of Alibek (for instance, with wheels) in order to steer, push, pull, and transport the apparatus onto the back of a semi-truck trailer or any other kind of truck or trailer for portability (Alibek, paragraphs [0064]-[0065]).
Regarding the phrase “two or more bioprocessing facilities, wherein each bioprocessing facility is configured to produce one or more bioproducts from biomass”, Jadhav already discloses one of these bioprocessing facilities. The limitation is obvious under duplication of parts. Mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of modified Jadhav to be used with two or more bioprocessing facilities in order to maximize the amount of probiotic culture that can be spread to the feedstock among several facilities so that the optimal total catabolism of mycotoxins can be achieved from any single probiotic culture system.
Regarding the limitation “among two or more bioprocessing facilities, wherein each bioprocessing facility is configured to produce one or more bioproducts from biomass”, the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified Jadhav would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the at least two movable tanks of modified Jadhav.
Regarding claim 4, Jadhav discloses wherein the each of the two or more propagation tanks has a volumetric capacity of 10,000 gallons or less (paragraph [0233] “1 or 2 L volumes of 0.35 TSB in a to 1 tube to 1 L ratio”).
If it is deemed that Jadhav does not disclose the volumetric capacity above, Alibek discloses wherein the each of the two or more propagation tanks has a volumetric capacity of 10,000 gallons or less (claim 3).
In the analogous art of novel fermentation systems and methods, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Jadhav with the volumetric capacity of Alibek in order to scale the culture effectively depending on application, for instance, 50 gallons or smaller for bioremediation (Alibek, paragraph [0054]).
In addition, the claim limitation is obvious under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions … [and the claimed device] would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Jadhav with the volumetric capacity of Alibek in order to scale the culture effectively depending on application, for instance, 50 gallons or smaller for bioremediation (Alibek, paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 5, Jadhav discloses wherein the each of the two or more propagation tanks has a volumetric capacity of 3,000 gallons or less (paragraph [0233] “1 or 2 L volumes of 0.35 TSB in a to 1 tube to 1 L ratio”).
If it is deemed that Jadhav does not disclose the volumetric capacity above, Alibek discloses wherein the each of the two or more propagation tanks has a volumetric capacity of 3,000 gallons or less (claim 3).
In the analogous art of novel fermentation systems and methods, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Jadhav with the volumetric capacity of Alibek in order to scale the culture effectively depending on application, for instance, 50 gallons or smaller for bioremediation (Alibek, paragraph [0054]).
In addition, the claim limitation is obvious under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions … [and the claimed device] would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Jadhav with the volumetric capacity of Alibek in order to scale the culture effectively depending on application, for instance, 50 gallons or smaller for bioremediation (Alibek, paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 6, Jadhav does not disclose wherein the two or more propagation tanks comprises three or more propagation tanks, wherein each of the three or more propagation tanks comprises at least one microorganism expressing one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination, wherein at least one of the three or more propagation tanks comprises at least one microorganism that expresses one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination that is different from at least one microorganism that expresses one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination that is present in another propagation tank, wherein the system is configured to propagate the at least one microorganism that is present in each of the three or more propagation tanks and form a propagated composition comprising the at least one microorganism expressing one or more enzymes to mitigate mycotoxin contamination, and wherein the system is configured to couple to one or more points of a process in a bioprocessing facility to inoculate at least a portion of the propagated composition and/or a composition derived from the propagated composition from each of the three or more propagation tanks into one or more process compositions to mitigate mycotoxin contamination, wherein the bioprocessing facility is configured to produce one or more bioproducts from biomass.
Alibek discloses at least two propagation tanks (paragraph [0020]).
In the analogous art of fermentation systems and methods, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jadhav with the at least two tank system of Alibek in order to grow at least two different microorganisms and combine the resulting harvested material (Alibek, paragraphs [0036]-[0037]).
Moll discloses at least three different enzyme sequences for mycotoxin decontamination (paragraph [0010]).
In the analogous art of enzymatic decomposition of mycotoxins, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of modified Jadhav with the enzymes of Moll in order to degrade mycotoxins during the production of bioethanol in the mash for the production of alcohol, or to degrade and render harmless mycotoxins during the production of foods directly in the production process (Moll, paragraph [0010]).
Additionally, regarding the limitation, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Jadhav with a third propagation tank in accordance with the claim limitation in order to provide a third enzyme for mycotoxin decontamination.
Regarding claim 7, Jadhav does not disclose wherein the system is configured to remove and adjustably combine at least a portion of the contents of at least two propagation tanks in a volumetric ratio of 1:1 or different than 1:1.
Alibek discloses wherein the system is configured to remove and adjustably combine at least a portion of the contents of at least two propagation tanks (paragraph [0020] via “tubing”) in a volumetric ratio of 1:1 or different than 1:1 (inherent to a ratio of 1:1 or a ratio other than 1:1 to combining two volumes).
In the analogous art of novel fermentation systems and methods, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Jadhav with the combination of the contents of the at least two propagation tanks of Alibek in order to balance the culture levels in each tank and to produce microbe-based compositions that can be used in the oil and gas industry, agriculture, health care and environmental cleanup (Alibek, paragraph [0017] and [0020]).
In addition, regarding the limitation “adjustably combine”, according to MPEP § 2144.04(V)(D), adjustability of a part is not a patentable advance. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the volumetric ratio of the at least two propagation tanks of modified Jadhav in order to balance the culture levels in each tank and to produce microbe-based compositions that can be used in the oil and gas industry, agriculture, health care and environmental cleanup (Alibek, paragraph [0017] and [0020]).
Regarding the volumetric ratio of the limitation, if it is deemed that modified Jadhav does not disclose the limitation “in a volumetric ratio of 1:1 or different than 1:1”, the claim limitation is obvious under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions … [and the claimed device] would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Jadhav with a volumetric ratio in order to combine the microbial compositions located in each tank and to produce microbe-based compositions that can be used in the oil and gas industry, agriculture, health care and environmental cleanup (Alibek, paragraph [0017] and [0020]).
Regarding the limitation, the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified Jadhav would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the at least two propagation tanks and the tubing connecting them.
Regarding claim 8, Jadhav discloses coupling to one or more one or more points in the bioprocessing facility (Fig. 1B and paragraphs [0047] and [0098]-[0100]) to receive a composition chosen from a nutrient source, a carbon source, and combinations thereof (paragraph [0052] “feedstock”).
Jadhav does not disclose wherein at least one of the two or more propagation tanks.
However, modified Jadhav already teaches this limitation (see rejection to claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 9, Jadhav does not disclose further comprising a storage system in fluid communication with at least one of the two or more propagation tanks, wherein the storage systems is configured to receive at least a portion of contents directly or indirectly from the at least one of the two or more propagation tanks, wherein the storage system comprises one or more storage containers, wherein each storage container has a capacity of 150 gallons or less.
Alibek discloses at least two propagation tanks in fluid communication (paragraph [0020] via “tubing”), wherein each propagation tank has a capacity of 150 gallons or less (claim 3 and paragraph [0054]).
In the analogous art of fermentation systems and methods, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Jadhav with the at least two tank system of Alibek in order to grow two different microorganisms and combine the resulting harvested material (Alibek, paragraphs [0036]-[0037]).
Regarding the limitation “a storage system in fluid communication with at least one of the two or more propagation tanks, wherein the storage systems is configured to receive at least a portion of contents directly or indirectly from the at least one of the two or more propagation tanks, wherein the storage system comprises one or more storage containers, wherein each storage container has a capacity of 150 gallons or less”, these storage containers that are in fluid communication with the two or more propagation tanks are considered obvious under duplication of parts. Regarding the limitations “containers” and “tanks”, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B). In addition, the claim limitation is obvious under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), which states that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions … [and the claimed device] would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device”. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Jadhav with the volumetric capacity of Alibek in order to scale the culture effectively depending on application, for instance, 50 gallons or smaller for bioremediation (Alibek, paragraph [0054]).
Regarding claim 10, Jadhav does not disclose further comprising a lysis system in fluid communication with at least one of the two or more propagation tanks, wherein the lysis system is configured to form a lysate with at least a portion of propagated composition from the at least one of the two or more propagation tanks.
Alibek discloses further comprising a lysis system with at least one of the two or more propagation tanks (paragraph [0020]), wherein the lysis system is configured to form a lysate with at least a portion of propagated composition from the at least one of the two or more propagation tanks (paragraphs [0035]-[0036] “lysed”).
In the analogous art of novel fermentation systems and methods, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of modified Jadhav with the lysis system of Alibek in order to provide an enzymatic product that can be isolated, purified, and provided in a composition (Alibek, paragraphs [0036] and [0040]-[0042]).
Regarding the limitation “in fluid communication”, this is obvious under integration of parts (such as tubing connecting the two or more propagation tanks with the lysis system). Integration of parts would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a matter of obvious engineering choice. MPEP § 2144.04(V)(B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify modified Jadhav with the fluid communication between the propagation tanks and the lysis system in order to make a continuously pumping and operating system throughout the process of fermentation (Alibek, paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 15, Jadhav discloses wherein the system is configured to control the temperature of the enzyme present in the system to be 110°F or less (paragraph [0228], incubation with bacteria expressing mycotoxin-degrading enzymes occurs at 30°C; inherently, this temperature is equivalent to 86°F).
If it is deemed that Jadhav does not disclose the limitation above, Alibek discloses wherein the system is configured to control the temperature (paragraphs [0055]-[0059] and [0061]) of the enzyme present in the system to be 110°F or less (paragraph [0088], incubation with microorganisms expressing mycotoxin-degrading enzymes occurs in a range of about 5° to about 100° C).
In the analogous art of novel fermentation systems and methods, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of modified Jadhav with the temperature and temperature control of Alibek in order to maintain an appropriate temperature for fermentation and the production of desired metabolites such as enzymes (Alibek, paragraphs [0056], [0118], and [0129]).
Additionally, regarding the limitation, the manner of operating or intended use of a claimed apparatus does not patentably distinguish it from the prior art. MPEP § 2114(II). The device of modified Jadhav would be fully capable of operating in this manner given the at least two tanks.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadhav (US 20250257371) in view of Alibek (US 20190309248) and Moll (US 20110189755) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Garnham (US 20210337838).
Regarding claim 11, Jadhav does not disclose further comprising a source of one or more protease inhibitors, wherein the system is configured to combine the one or more protease inhibitors with the lysate.
Garnham discloses comprising a source of one or more protease inhibitors, wherein the system is configured to combine the one or more protease inhibitors with the lysate (paragraph [0191]).
In the analogous art of mycotoxin detoxification, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Jadhav with the protease inhibitor and lysate combination of Garnham in order to preserve the mycotoxin-detoxifying enzymes that could be destroyed by proteases after lysing the microbial cells producing those enzymes.
Regarding claim 12, Jadhav does not disclose wherein the system is configured to combine the one or more protease inhibitors with the lysate at a weight ratio in a range from 1:10,000 to 1:10.
However, the limitation is obvious as a matter of routine optimization, because the weight ratio of protease inhibitor to the lysate is a result-effective variable. The motivation for optimizing this result-effective variable is to promote the preservation of mycotoxin-detoxifying enzymes while requiring a minimal amount of protease inhibitor to do so. MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 13, Jadhav does not disclose wherein the system is configured to combine the one or more protease inhibitors with the lysate at a weight ratio in a range from 1:10,000 to 1:1000.
However, the limitation is obvious as a matter of routine optimization, because the weight ratio of protease inhibitor to the lysate is a result-effective variable. The motivation for optimizing this result-effective variable is to promote the preservation of mycotoxin-detoxifying enzymes while requiring a minimal amount of protease inhibitor to do so. MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jadhav (US 20250257371) in view of Alibek (US 20190309248) and Moll (US 20110189755) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Homan (US 20060147442).
Regarding claim 14, modified Jadhav teaches one or more points in the system (Fig. 1B and paragraph [0047]).
Jadhav does not disclose further comprising a source of one or more stabilizers, wherein the system is configured to combine the one or more stabilizers with at least one propagated composition and/or a composition derived from the at least one propagated composition at one or more points in the system.
Homan discloses further comprising a source of one or more stabilizers, wherein the system is configured to combine the one or more stabilizers with at least one propagated composition and/or a composition derived from the at least one propagated composition (paragraphs [0104], [0337], and [0343]).
In the analogous art of biocides, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of modified Jadhav with the one or more stabilizers of Homan in order to increase the solubility of the compounds to allow for the preparation of highly concentrated solutions (Homan, paragraph [0337]).
Additional Prior Art References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
ThermoFisher Scientific (“Overview of Protease and Phosphatase Inhibition for Protein Preparation”) – This non-patent literature describes protease inhibition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN G ESPERON whose telephone number is 571-272-9807. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9 am - 6 pm every other Friday.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/N.G.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799