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Claims 1-6 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/7/2026.
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.
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al. (CN 110078576 A, hereinafter referred to as Fu) (English machine translation provided, see PTO-892) as evidenced by Srinivasan B., A guide to the Michaelis-Menten equation: steady state and beyond (hereinafter referred to as Srinivasan; see PTO-892) and Peter M. van Bodegom, Johannes C.M. Scholten, Microbial processes of CH4 production in a rice paddy soil: model and experimental validation (hereinafter referred to as Bodegom; see PTO-892).
Regarding claim 7, Fu discloses a method for harmless treatment of a livestock and poultry carcass/residue ([0011] discloses treatment for slaughter waste, i.e., livestock carcasses) using a bacterium-enzyme complex comprising a composite microbial inoculant (Fu – [0013]), a protease preparation ([0012]), and a lipase preparation ([0012]), comprising the following steps:
(1) subjecting a livestock and poultry carcass/residue to be treated to crushing and a high-temperature high-pressure treatment at 121-°C to 135°C and 0.10 MPa to 0.15 MPa (FU – [0015]);
(2) cooling a mixture I obtained in step (1), and mixing with the protease and lipase preparation to allow enzymolysis ([0012] discloses an enzymatic hydrolysis step using lipase and protease; [0018], enzymatic hydrolysis occurs at a lower temperature);
(3) mixing in a composite microbial inoculant to allow fermentative degradation ([0013]).
Although Fu does not expressly disclose the temperature range of , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sterilization step of Fu to use a temperature of 100-°C to 120°C because Fu discloses a very close range and describes such a range as “high temperature” ([0015], discloses 121°C-135°C as high temperature), and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to accommodate for equipment limitations. Such a modification would predictably sterilize and disinfect the carcass in preparation for decomposition.
Examiner notes that the limitation wherein the composite microbial inoculant, protease preparation, and lipase preparation are packaged independently is written in the preamble does not appear to limit the method because the body of the claim is silent to independent packaging (MPEP § 2111.02).
Fu does not expressly disclose mixing the protease preparation before mixing the lipase preparation. Nonetheless, it has been held that changes in sequence of adding ingredients is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP § 2144.04 IV C).
Fu is silent to the reaction and incubation times as claimed in steps (2), (3), and (4).
Regarding the reaction times claimed in steps (2) and (3), it is well known in the art of enzyme reaction kinetics that enzymatic reactions are characterized by time, substrate concentration, and enzyme concentration, as evidenced by Srinivasan. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP § 2144.05). Fu discloses the general conditions for reacting the mixture with lipase and protease and Srinivasan provides evidence that reaction time is a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover an optimum or workable range for the reaction times of the mixture with a protease preparation or lipase preparation.
Regarding the incubation time claimed in step (4), it is well known in the art of organic decomposition that decomposition resulting from microbial processes is characterized by time, substrate concentration, and enzyme concentration, as evidenced by Bodegom. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation , when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP § 2144.05). Fu discloses the general conditions for incubating the mixture with a composite microbial inoculant and Bodegom provides evidence that incubation time is a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover an optimum or workable range for the incubation time of the mixture with a microbial inoculant.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art combination teaches the method according to claim 7.
Fu of the prior art combination further discloses that the protease preparation comprises an alkaline protease ([0012]).
Regarding claim 9 and 10, the prior art combination teaches method according to claim 7 and 8.
Fu of the prior art combination further discloses wherein the mixture I is cooled to 50°C to 55°C and then mixed with the protease preparation in step (2) ([0018]).
Regarding claim 11-14, the prior art combination teaches the method according to claim 8.
Fu of the prior art combination relates the mass of protease preparation relative to the mass of livestock and poultry carcass/residue ([0017]), but does not expressly disclose or teach the percent mass range as claimed in claim 11-14.
Nonetheless, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation, when the particular parameter is recognized as a result-effective variable (MPEP § 2144.05). Fu discloses the general conditions for adding some mass of enzyme for degradation and Srinivasan provides evidence that enzymatic reactions are characterized by enzyme concentration, i.e., mass of protease preparation, and substrate concentration i.e., mass of livestock and poultry carcass/residue. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to discover an optimum or workable range for the mass percent of protease preparation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-18 are 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 15, Fu as evidenced by Srinivasan and Bodegom provide the closest prior art. As discussed above, Fu as evidenced by Srinivasan and Bodegom teach the method according to claim 9. Srinivasan renders the limitation wherein the lipase preparation has a mass of 1% to 5% of a mass of the livestock and poultry carcass/residue. However, the prior art of record is silent to the mixture II being cooled to 50°C to 55°C and then mixed with the lipase preparation in step (3) within the claimed environment.
Regarding claim 16, the claim contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons discussed with respect to claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Fu as evidenced by Srinivasan and Bodegom provide the closest prior art. As discussed above, Fu as evidenced by Srinivasan and Bodegom teaches the method according to claim 9. Bodegom renders the limitation wherein the composite microbial inoculant has a mass of 0.1% to 2% of a mass of the livestock and poultry carcass/residue. However, the prior art of record is silent to the mixture III being cooled to 34°C to 37°C and then mixed with the composite microbial inoculant in step (4) within the claimed environment.
Regarding claim 18, the claim contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons discussed with respect to claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Beachy (US 2022/0242798 A1) is drawn to a method for producing a fertilizer from blood and feathers.
Gao et al. (CN 115322979 A) is drawn to a method of treating animal carcasses using a compound bacterium enzyme agent.
Xie et al. (CN 109796288 A) is drawn to a method of processing organic waste using enzymatic hydrolysis and microbial fermentation.
Xu et al. (CN 111041006 A) is drawn to a compound enzyme preparation for degrading animal carcasses.
Howard et al., Characterization of the soil microbial community associated with the decomposition of a swine carcass identifies various lipolytic and proteolytic bacteria capable of degrading animal carcasses.
English machine translations provided, see PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADRIAN J CARREON whose telephone number is (571)272-6818. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5 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, 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.
/A.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1799
/William H. Beisner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights