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 .
Claims 1-18 are pending and examined on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants’ claimed domestic priority to U.S. provisional application 63/383,986, filed on 11/16/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2023 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 11/16/2023 are acknowledged and accepted by the Examiner.
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 5-7, 13-18 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.
The term “about” in claims 5-7, 13 (claims 14-18 dependent thereof), 15, 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the specification, the specification in paragraph 0021 defines it in reference to a given parameter that is inclusive of the stated value and has the meaning dictated by the context (e.g., it includes the degree of error associated with measurement of the given parameter, as well as variations resulting from manufacturing tolerances, etc.). However, given the disclosure of variations of the different degrees of error without distinctly defining said degrees of error, Examiner is interpreting it as exemplary and non-limiting.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al (US Patent No. US7,887,672 B2, Date of Patent: Feb. 15, 2011, cited on IDS dated 11/16/2023) {herein Yang} in view of Lee et al (Date of Publication: 13 July 2020, Examiner cited) {herein Lee}.
Claims 1-7 are drawn to a method of separating plant matter comprising: contacting monocotyledonous plant matter with one or more enzymes, the monocotyledonous plant matter comprising vascular bundles, pith, and rind; storing the one or more enzymes and monocotyledonous plant matter under anaerobic conditions; heating the one or more enzymes and monocotyledonous plant matter during the anaerobic conditions to form treated plant matter; drying the treated plant matter; milling the treated plant matter; and separating the treated plant matter into the vascular bundles, pith, and rind.
Claims 8-12 are drawn to a method of separating plant matter into anatomical structures comprising: combining monocotyledonous plant matter comprising vascular bundles, pith, and rind with one or more organisms expressing one or more of a glycohydrolase or an oxidoreductase; storing the one or more organisms and monocotyledonous plant matter under anaerobic conditions; heating the one or more organisms and monocotyledonous plant matter during the anaerobic conditions to form treated plant matter; drying the treated plant matter; milling the treated plant matter; and separating, based on size, the treated plant matter into vascular bundles, pith, and rind.
Claims 13-18 are drawn to a method for separating anatomical structures of corn stover comprising: contacting corn stover comprising corn stalks with one or more pectinases; placing the one or more pectinases and corn stalks under anaerobic conditions; heating the one or more pectinases and corn stalks to about 40°C during the anaerobic conditions to form enzyme treated corn stalks; drying the enzyme treated corn stalks; milling the enzyme treated corn stalks; and separating the enzyme treated corn stalks into anatomical structures comprising vascular bundles, pith, and rind.
With respect to claims 1-2, 5-9, 11-18, Yang teaches a method of separating cellulosic fiber bundles of cornstalk and cork hush (portions of a monocotyledonous plant), of which inherently contains vascular bundles, pith and ring (anatomical structures), having a length that is greater than individual cells via chemical retting by enzymatic treatment with pulpzyme (produced by microorganism and a glycohydrolase) and cellulase for 60 minutes at 50C and subsequently drying under ambient temperature (abstract and column 36, lines 8-25). Since the corn stover consists of the husk, stalks, leaves and corn, it is the Examiner’s position that Yang teaches the corn stover. The pulpzyme reacts with polysaccharide linkages. Since Wang teaches pulpzyme, which is a glycohydrolase, it is the Examiner’s position that the corn stalk and corn husk would necessarily be delaminated since pulpzyme is a glycohydrolase that inherently has said enzymatic property. Although the reference of Wang does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5 (a concentration of from about 1 mg of enzyme/g of monocotyledonous plant matter to about 5 mg of enzyme/g of monocotyledonous plant matter), MPEP 2144.05 states"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)." One of ordinary skill would desire to optimize the concentration of the enzymes depending on the particular application. It would be routine for one to arrive at the concentration for the application they intend on using the enzyme. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious. Yang further teaches to minimize the amount of oxygen available during extraction, experiments were conducted in closed containers using hot-air ovens to control the temperature (column 30, lines 64-66). Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to store the enzymatically and heat treated cornhusk in the absence of oxygen as Yang teaches that cornhusk tended to be completely hydrolyzed after 60 minutes at the boiling point (column 25, lines 54-56) due to the presence of oxygen (column 25, lines 57-58) of which provides more motivation for Yang to conduct said experimentation under anaerobic conditions as doing so loosens plant cell walls and extracts intact natural cellulosic fiber bundles, which is one of the goals of Yang (abstract). It is the Examiner’s position that said method would necessarily result in treated plant matter. Yang further teaches minimizing the amount of oxygen available during experimentation by conducting the experiments in closed containers within hot-air ovens (column 30, lines 64-66). Although the reference of Wang does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 7, MPEP 2144.05 states"[W]here 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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)." One of ordinary skill would desire to optimize the length of time the enzymatically treated plant material is maintained in an anaerobic environment depending on the particular application. It would be routine for one to arrive at the length of time the plant material is maintained in an anaerobic environment for the application they intend on using the plant material. Yang further teaches it is desirable to recover fibers that are between 1.5 to about 55 cm in length (column 7, lines 39, table R). Since Wang teaches the structure of a method for separating anatomical structures of corn stover by enzymatic digestion, it is the Examiner’s position that said method would necessarily result in vascular bundles with a diameter of from about 90 mm to about 200 mm, as recited in the instant application claim 18. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious. Wang further teaches the specimens were powdered in a Wiley mill (column 23, lines 60-61). Wang would be motivated to separate the rind, pith and vascular bundles of the cornhusk based on size after enzymatic treatment, before milling, as it would make the process of milling significantly more efficient and effective since each component is comprised of varying densities of fibers, therefore would undergo enzymatic digestion at different rates. This targeted approach prevents un-uniform, energy-draining grinding during the milling process. MPEP 2143.E. states “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that "a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.” In addition, Yang teaches the ability to select or determine the length of the fiber bundles allows for cornhusk to be a source of fiber bundles suitable for both short and long staple spinning systems (column 7, lines 29-31).
However, Wang does not teach the method wherein contacting monocotyledonous plant matter with one or more enzymes comprises contacting the monocotyledonous plant matter with a pectinase (claim 3). Wang does not teach the method wherein contacting the monocotyledonous plant matter with a pectinase comprises contacting the monocotyledonous plant matter with a pectinase derived from Aspergillus aculeatus (claim 4). Wang does not teach the method of combining the monocotyledonous plant matter with one or more organisms expressing a pectinase derived from Aspergillus aculeatus (claim 10). Wang does not teach a method of contacting corn stover comprising corn stalks with one or more pectinases (claim 13).
With respect to claims 3-4, 10, 13, Lee teaches a method wherein Aspergillus aculeatus (pectinases) reduces pectin contents in tissue-cultured and old-grown plants, thereby improving the retting process (page 16, column 1, para 5). Retting is the first extraction process to obtain high-quality fibers (page 2, column 1, para 1). The major task of the retting process within palnts is to remove the gluing components and release the fibers from bundle attachments (page 2, column 1, para 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Yang at al of a method of separating cellulosic fiber bundles of cornstalk and cork hush (portions), of which inherently contains vascular bundles, pith and ring (anatomical structures) via chemical retting by enzymatic treatment with pulpzyme (produced by microorganism and a glycohydrolase) and cellulase and subsequently drying said composition (abstract and column 36, lines 8-25) or combine the teaching of Lee et al with respect to the use of pectinase derived form Aspergillus aculeatus (pectinases) to reduce pectin contents in tissue-cultured and old-grown plants, thereby improving the retting process.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to either use the teachings of Yang et al. by itself or combine the teachings of Lee because Lee provides Yang with the motivation to combine pectinase from Aspergillus species such as Aspergillus aculeatus with cellulase and pulpzyme as doing so would result in the targeted degradation of pectin within the cell walls of the plant cells, thereby increasing the strength of the plant fibers, thereby making the plant composition more suitable for textile production which is the objective of Yang (Yang: column 3, line 10). Furthermore, Yang would be motivated to utilize the pectinase from said microbe as Lee teaches it improves the chemical retting process by increasing the high strength properties of organic fibers compared to traditional retting methods (Lee: page 16, column 1, para 5). Furthermore, by pairing the fungal enzyme with cellulase and pulpzyme, the reliance on harsh alkalis (like sodium hydroxide) is decreased, leading to eco-friendlier, less toxic waste products.
One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to make and use the claimed method for separating plant matter because Yang provides the basic method and its uses and methods of making it. Whereas Lee provides a method wherein Aspergillus aculeatus (pectinases) improves the chemical retting process (page 16, column 1, para 5). Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the above invention. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
No claims are in condition for allowance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0360. The examiner can normally be reached mf 7:30a - 4:30p.
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 at 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.
/ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights