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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-8 as filed on 12/04/2023 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119
(a)-(d) to Application No.TW112134393, filed on 09/08/2023; which papers have been made of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
Specific deficiency - Sequences appearing in the drawings are not identified by sequence identifiers in accordance with 37 CFR 1.831(c). Sequence identifiers for sequences (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) must appear either in the drawings or in the Brief Description of the Drawings.
Required response – Applicant must provide:
Amended drawings in accordance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) inserting the required sequence identifiers;
AND/OR
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3), and 1.125 inserting the required sequence identifiers (i.e., “SEQ ID NO:X” or the like) into the Brief Description of the Drawings, consisting of:
• A copy of the previously-submitted specification, with deletions shown with strikethrough or brackets and insertions shown with underlining (marked-up version);
• A copy of the amended specification without markings (clean version); and
• A statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Paragraph [0006]
Objected to in the recitation of “prior researches”. Research is an uncountable noun. To improve clarity, the term should be amended to “prior research”. Appropriate correction is required.
Objected to for not following SI conventions. A space should be between numbers and the percentage symbol. A space is needed between “nitrogen,1.6”. To improve clarity, the term should be amended to “nitrogen, 1.6”. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0007]
Objected to for not following SI conventions. A space should be between a number and degrees symbol. In the recitation of “160°C and 180°C”, the terms should be amended to “160 °C and 180 °C”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Paragraph [0009]
Objected to in the recitation of “few empirical tests to confirm its beneficial uses, and to what plant” To improve clarity, the term should be amended to “has undergone few empirical tests to determine for which plant species it may be beneficial”. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0010]
Objected in the recitation of “mixture of feathers and water”. To improve clarity, the term should be amended to “mixtures of feathers and water”. Appropriate correction is required.
Objected in the recitation of “inventors of present application”. To improve clarity, the term should be amended to “inventors of the present application”. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0011]
Objected in the recitation of “a solution, resulting in the solution having molecular mass of 593.3 – 3,828.0 Dalton and containing at least 253 peptides”. As recited, it is interpreted as the solution has a molecular mass of 593.3 – 3,828.0 Dalton, not the peptides. A solution cannot have a molecular mass expressed in Daltons. Appropriate correction is required.
Objected to for not following SI conventions. A space should be between a number and percentage symbol. In the recitation of “50%”, the term should be amended to “50 %”. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0013]
Objected in the recitation of “a solution with molecular mass of 593.3 – 3,508.9 Dalton and containing at least 253 peptides”. As recited, it is interpreted as the solution has a molecular mass of 593.3 – 3,508.9 Dalton, not the peptides. A solution cannot have a molecular mass expressed in Daltons. Appropriate correction is required.
Objected to for not following SI conventions. A space should be between a number and percentage symbol. In the recitation of “50%”, the term should be amended to “50 %”. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0014]
Objected in the recitation of “a solution with molecular mass of 705.9 – 3194.7 Dalton, containing at least 253 peptides”. As recited, it is interpreted as the solution has a molecular mass of 705.9 – 3194.7 Dalton, not the peptides. A solution cannot have a molecular mass expressed in Daltons. Appropriate correction is required.
Objected to for not following SI conventions. A space should be between a number and percentage symbol. In the recitation of “46%”, the term should be amended to “46 %”. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0017]
Objected in the recitation of “solution of present invention”. To improve clarity, the term should be amended to “solution of the present invention”. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0018]
Objected in the recitation of “44kg of water and 66kg of feathers”. Following SI conventions, metric units should be spaced from numbers. To improve clarity, the terms should be amended to “44 kg of water and 66 kg of feathers”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Objected to for not following SI conventions. A space should be between a number and percentage symbol. In the recitation of “50%”, the term should be amended to “50 %”. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0019]
Objected to for not following SI conventions. A space should be between a number and degrees symbol. In the recitation of “195°C”, the term should be amended to “195 °C”. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0021]
Objected to for not following SI conventions. A space should be between a number and percentage symbol. In the recitation of “50%”, the term should be amended to “50 %”. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0022]
Objected to for not following SI conventions. A space should be between a number and degrees symbol. In the recitation of “185°C”, the term should be amended to “185 °C”. Appropriate correction is required.
Paragraph [0024]
Objected to for not following SI conventions. A space should be between a number and degrees symbol. In the recitation of “180°C”, the term should be amended to “180 °C”. Appropriate correction is required.
Objected to in the recitation of “without water” and “with feathers’ water content being 46%”. It is unclear how one can perform hydrolysis without water. If no addition water was added and only the water content of the feathers was used, which introduces a large amount of water into the system, to improve clarity, the term should be amended to “without added water, using only the water contained in the feathers”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to in the recitation of “50%” and “195°C”. Following SI conventions, the terms should be amended to “50 %” and “195 °C. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to in the recitation of “whereby the weight… and is then treated by the steps of”. To enhance clarity and to be consistent with commonly used claim language, the term should be amended to recite “wherein the weight…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to in the recitation of “claim 1 whereby the mixture…”. To enhance clarity and to be consistent with commonly used claim language, the term should be amended to recite “…claim 1, wherein the mixture…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to in the recitation of “…claim 4 whereby the mixture…”. To enhance clarity and to be consistent with commonly used claim language, the term should be amended to recite “…claim 4, wherein the mixture…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 and 6 are objected to in the recitation of “solution of claim… further filtered and concentrated…”. To enhance clarify and to be consistent with commonly used claim language, the term should be amended to recite “solution of claim 2/5, wherein said solution is further filtered and concentrated…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 5 are objected to in the recitation of “whereby the mixture…is done by specifically mixing… of water and… of feathers”. To enhance the clarity and to be consistent with commonly used claim language, the term should be amended to recite “wherein the mixture… is obtained by mixing… kg of water and… kg of feathers”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to in the recitation of “50%” and “185°C”. Following SI conventions, the terms should be amended to “50 %” and “185 °C”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim 7 is objected to in the recitation of “46%” and “180°C”. Following SI conventions, the terms should be amended to “46 %” and “180 °C”. Appropriate corrections are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-8 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.
Claims 1 and 4 (claims 2-3, 5-6 dependent thereon) are rejected as being indefinite in the recitation of “feathers of 50% water content mixed into the water”, yet claim 2 recites 44 kg of “water” and 66 kg of “feathers” without explicitly saying whether that 66 kg is wet feathers, dry feather mass or feather mass plus its internal water counted separately. Claim 5 has the same issue as claim 2, where it recites, 40 kg of “water” and 50 kg of “feathers”. A person of skill in the art cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether the ratios are water (including water in the feathers): total feather mass or added water only: feather mass, or something else, the claim boundary is unclear. Correction is required.
Claims 1 and 4 (claims 2-3, 5-6 dependent thereon) are indefinite in the recitation of “…peptide (KHP) solution comprising water and feathers of… mixed into the water” for the following reasons. The preamble refers to a peptide solution. The term “…peptide (KHP) solution comprising water and feathers of… mixed into the water” implies that the solution comprises water and feathers. That is not a peptide solution. In addition, while the claims also refer to steps for treating a water and feather mixture and the hydrolysis of said mixture to obtain peptides, there is no statement indicating the solution of the preamble is the solution that results from the hydrolysis of the water and feather mixture. In addition, there is no antecedent basis for “the water” in the phrase “mixed into the water”. Correction is required.
Claims 1 and 4 (claims 2-3, 5-6 dependent thereon) are rejected as being indefinite in the recitation of “whereby the weight ratio of water and feathers mixture is set at…and is then treated by the steps of…” for the following reasons. It is unclear if the ratio is the ratio of water to feather mixture, or if the ratio is the ratio of water to feathers. If the term “ratio” refers to water to feather mixture, it is unclear as to which is the feather mixture being referred to. Moreover, the term “and is then treated by the steps of” is unclear because one cannot determine what is being treated by the steps recited. For examination purposes, no patentable weight will be given to the term “whereby the weight ratio of …is set at 2:3/4:5”. Correction is required.
Claim 1 (claims 2-3 dependent thereon) is rejected as being indefinite in the recitation of “contain at least 253 peptides… where their molecular masses are between 593.3 and 3,828.0 Daltons” for the following reason. it is unclear if the molecular mass is for each peptide or the total number of peptides present in the solution. Correction is required.
Claims 4 and 7 (claims 5-6 and 8 dependent thereon) are rejected as being indefinite in the recitation of “contain at least 253 peptides…whereby their molecular masses are between… (593.3 and 3,508.9, claim 4 and 705.9 and 3,194.7, claim 7) Dalton” for the following reason. it is unclear if the molecular mass is for each peptide or the total number of peptides present in the solution. Correction is required.
Claims 1, 4 and 7 (claims 2-3, 5-6 and 8 dependent thereon) are rejected as being indefinite in the recitation of “at least 253 peptides as listed in the specification” for the following reasons. The term “as listed in the specification” can be interpreted as exemplary language (i.e., such as). Therefore, it is unclear if the 253 peptides are necessarily those in Figure 1. In addition, as set forth in MPEP § 2173.05(s), where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves and incorporation by reference to a section of the specification such as a Figure or a Table is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention. If the intended peptides have a sequence identifier provided in the sequence listing, it is suggested the claim be amended to refer to specific sequence identifiers associated with the desired peptides. For examination purposes, no patentable weight will be given to the term “using a mass spectrometer …molecular masses are between… Daltons”. Correction is required.
Claim 7 (claim 8 dependent thereon) is indefinite in the recitation of “…peptide (KHP) solution comprising 70 kg of feathers...” for the following reasons. The term “...peptide (KHP) solution comprising 70 kg of feathers” implies that the solution comprises feathers. That is not a peptide solution. In addition, while the claim also refers to steps for treating feathers and the hydrolysis of said feathers to obtain peptides, there is no indication that the solution of the preamble is the solution that results from the hydrolysis of the feathers. Correction is required.
Claims 3, 6 and 8 are indefinite in the recitation of “concentrated to X ppm concentration” for the following reasons. As written, it is unclear as to which is the compound that should have the recited concentration of X ppm in the peptide solution. Moreover, in view of the fact that claims 1, 4 and 7 refer to a combination of at least 253 peptides, even if one assumes that the X ppm concentration recited refers to peptides, it is unclear if the X ppm concentration refers solely to the 253 peptides or any peptide in the solution. For examination purposes, claims 3, 6 and 8 will be considered as duplicates of claims 2, 5, and 7, respectively. Correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nurdiawati et al. (International Journal of Recycling of Organic Waste in Agriculture, Volume 8, pages 221-232, February 15, 2019) , in view of Yin et al. (Biomacromolecules, Volume 8, Issue 3, pages 800-806, January 2007).
Regarding steps a. and b. of claims 1, 4 and 7, Nurdiawati et al. teaches production of liquid feather hydrolysates produced by hydrothermal treatment (HTT) in a sealed reactor under two different operating conditions (160 °C, 0.6 MPa and 180 °C, 0.9 MPa) at a biomass: water ratio of 1:3 (10 kg of feathers and 30 kg of water) for a duration of 30 minutes (see Preparation of liquid products). Nurdiawati et al. does not teach hydrolysis of feathers using a feather: water ratio of 2:3, 44 kg of feathers and 66 kg of water, 4:5, 40 kg and 50 kg of water, or 70 kg of feathers with a water content of 46 %. Nurdiawati et al. does not teach hydrolyzing the mixture at a setting of 195 °C, 16 kg/cm2, 185 °C, 12 kg/cm2, or 180 °C, 13 kg/cm2. Such conditions represent routine optimization of the mixture concentration and hydrothermal severity (temperature and pressure) within the known subcritical-water processing regime taught by Nurdiawati et al.
Regarding step c. of claims 1, 4 and 7, Nurdiawati et al. does not teach using a mass spectrometer to confirm the keratin peptide solution contains at least 253 peptides between molecular masses of 593.3 and 3,828.0 Dalton, 593.3 and 3,508.9 Dalton, or 705.9 and 3,194.7 Dalton.
Regarding steps a. and b. of claims 1, 4 and 7, Yin et al. teaches the hydrolysis of feathers in water under hydrothermal conditions of 180 °C – 220 °C at about 22 bar (~22 kg/cm2) in a sealed steel vessel for 30, 60, 90 and 120 minutes (page 801, Methods Used, Table 1). Yin et al. does not explicitly teach stirring of the feathers and water mixture in a sealed container.
Regarding step c. of claims 1, 4 and 7, Yin et al. teaches that the hydrolysis results in oligopeptides that have molar masses around 1 and 1.8 kDa (1,000 and 1,800 Dalton) which was confirmed by MALDI-ToF-MS (See Figure 1). Yin et al. further teaches that it is possible to yield shorter keratin peptides by exploring the pressure-temperature phase diagram of water (page 801, introduction paragraph 3, lines 32-33). Yin et al. does not teach a keratin peptide solution that contains at least 253 peptides.
Claims 1-8 of the instant application as interpreted are directed to a keratin hydrolysis peptide (KHP) solution that is made by mixing different amounts of feathers and water, stirred in a sealed container, hydrolyzing said mixture according to specific temperature, pressure, and time duration parameters, and using a mass spectrometer to confirm peptide content.
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 hydrothermal treatment (HTT) of feathers taught in Nurdiawati et al. in view of the process-optimization teachings of Yin et al. to employ a sealed vessel operated at 180-195 °C and corresponding pressures of 12-16 kg/cm2, and the recited feather-to-water ratios (2:3 or 4:5 or using 70 kg of feathers with a water content of 46 %). While neither Nurdiawati et al. nor Yin et al. expressly teach the specific ratio of water-to-feather, or the specific temperature, pressure and time duration recited in the claims, both references disclose hydrothermal feather/protein hydrolysis at elevated temperature and pressure, showing temperature, pressure and time duration are variables that affect the extent of hydrolysis and properties of the resulting hydrolysate. In view of these teachings, it would have been a matter of routine experimentation to arrive to the recited temperature and pressure conditions. With regard to the recited ratios of water-to-feather, one of skill in the art would use different ratios depending on the desired concentration of peptides and/or the desired amount of solution of peptides. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to modify the HTT method taught in Nurdiawati et al. in view of Yin et al. by adjusting the temperature, pressure, time duration and water-to-feather ratio into the claimed ranges, because Yin et al. teaches that these process parameters affect the extent of hydrolysis and properties of the resulting protein hydrolysates and therefore invites routine optimization of such result-effective variables to obtain workable or improved conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the method of hydrothermal treatment taught in Nurdiawati et al. in view of Yin et al. by adjusting the temperature, pressure, time duration and water-to-feather ratio into the claimed ranges, because the prior art teaches that these process parameters are result-effective variables that predicably affect the extent of hydrolysis and properties of the resulting protein hydrolysate (p – T phase diagram of water), and thus their optimization within the disclosed ranges would be expected to yield workable conditions without undue experimentation. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8 provisionally are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims ("B") as listed in the table below in copending application numbers ('A") as listed in the table below (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sets of claims pertain to a method of preparing a keratin hydrolysis peptide solution from mixing feathers and water in a sealed container, hydrolyzing said mixture according to specific temperature, pressure, and time duration parameters, and using a mass spectrometer to confirm peptide content. The claims of the instant application in which each copending applications claims apply to are in column "C' as listed in the table below.
Claims 1-8 of the instant application as interpreted are directed to a keratin hydrolysis peptide (KHP) solution that is made by mixing different amounts of feathers and water, stirred in a sealed container, hydrolyzing said mixture according to specific temperature, pressure, and time duration parameters, and using a mass spectrometer to confirm peptide content.
Claims 1-8 of the present application are patentably indistinct from claims 1, 4 and 7 of copending application no. 18/898,195. Application no. 18/898,195 is directed to methods of using a keratin hydrolysis peptide (KHP) solution to promote rice absorption of fertilizer. The KHP solution is prepared by mixing different amounts of feathers and water, hydrolyzing in a sealed container at specific temperature, pressure, and time duration parameters, and using a mass spectrometer to confirm peptide content, which require the same steps as claims 1-8 of the present application. Therefore, the peptide solutions of claims 1-8 of the present application are deemed obvious variations of the method of claims 1, 4 and 7 of copending application no. 18/898,195 in view of the fact that the peptide solutions being made by the method claims of copending application no. 18/898,195 are the peptide solutions of claims 1-8.
The instant claims differ from the copending claims in that both claim sets have slightly different but still qualitatively similar numerical amounts with regard to molecular masses of peptides in the solutions and concentration ranges of the solutions. Promoting rice absorption merely recite an intended use of an otherwise fully defined composition and does not impose any structural limitation on the product itself, it is not entitled to patentable weight under the claim-interpretation principles of MPEP § 2111.02. The limitation “stirring the feathers and water mixture” in the instant claims and the term ‘mixing” in the copending applications both describe the same conventional operation of combining ingredients in a sealed container. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation these terms would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as describing patentably indistinct subject matter.
Claims 1-7 of the present application are not patently distinct from the KHP solutions recited in claims 1, 4 and 7 of copending application no. 18/639,751. Application no. 18/639,751 is directed to methods of using a keratin hydrolysis peptide (KHP) solution to promote growth of soybeans. The KHP solution is prepared by mixing different amounts of feathers and water, hydrolyzing in a sealed container at specific temperature, pressure, and time duration parameters, and using a mass spectrometer to confirm peptide content which require the same steps as claims 1-7 of the present application. Therefore, the peptide solutions of claims 1-7 of the present application are deemed obvious variations of the method of claims 1, 4 and 7 of copending application no. 18/639,751 in view of the fact that the peptide solutions being made by the method claims of copending application no. 18/639,751 are the peptide solutions of claims 1-7.
The instant claims differ from the copending claims in that both claim sets have slightly different but still qualitatively similar numerical amounts with regard to molecular masses of peptides in the solutions and concentration ranges of the solutions.
Claims 1-6 of the present application are not patently distinct from the KHP solutions recited in claims 1 and 5 of copending application no. 18/536,211 and 18/428,193, claims 1 and 4 of copending application no. 18/645,307, 18/645,293, 18/533,181, 18/774,885, and 18/778,049 and claims 1 and 6 of copending application no. 18/758,140. The instant claims differ from the copending claims in that both claim sets have slightly different but still qualitatively similar numerical amounts with regard to molecular masses of peptides in the solutions and concentration ranges of the solutions. The copending applications method claims require preparation of a KHP solution by the same hydrolysis conditions and composition parameters as recited in the present composition claims. Therefore, the peptide solutions of claims 1-6 of the present application are deemed obvious variations of the method of claims of copending applications 18/536,211, 18/428,193, 18/645,307, 18/645,293, 18/533,181, 18/774,885, 18/778,049, and 18/758,140 in view of the fact that the peptide solutions being made by the method claims of copending applications 18/536,211, 18/428,193, 18/645,307, 18/645,293, 18/533,181, 18/774,885, 18/778,049, and 18/758,140 are the peptide solutions of claims 1-6.
Claims 1-3 of the present application are not patently distinct from the KHP solution recited in claim 1 of copending application no. 18/403,246, 18/412,615, 18/412,611, 18/418,259, 18/902,317, 18/639,950 and 18/409,792. The instant claims differ from the copending claims in that both claim sets have slightly different but still qualitatively similar numerical amounts with regard to molecular masses of peptides in the solution and concentration ranges of the solution. The copending applications method claims require preparation of a KHP solution by the same hydrolysis conditions and composition parameters as recited in the present composition claims. Therefore, the peptide solution of claims 1-3 of the present application are deemed an obvious variation of the method of claims of copending applications 18/403,246, 18/412,615, 18/412,611, 18/418,259, 18/902,317, 18/639,950 and 18/409,792 in view of the fact that the peptide solution being made by the method claims of copending applications 18/403,246, 18/412,615, 18/412,611, 18/418,259, 18/902,317, 18/639,950 and 18/409,792 is the peptide solution of claims 1-3.
Claims 4-6 of the present application are not patently distinct from the KHP solutions recited in claim 1 of copending application no. 18/642,007, 18/645,354, 18/642,445, and 18/827,519. The instant claims differ from the copending claims in that both claim sets have slightly different but still qualitatively similar numerical amounts with regard to molecular masses of peptides in the solution and concentration ranges of the solution. The copending applications method claims require preparation of a KHP solution by the same hydrolysis conditions and composition parameters as recited in the present composition claims. Therefore, the peptide solution of claims 4-6 of the present application are deemed an obvious variation of the method of claims of copending applications 18/642,007, 18/645,354, 18/642,445, and 18/827,519 in view of the fact that the peptide solution being made by the method claims of copending applications 18/642,007, 18/645,354, 18/642,445, and 18/827,519 is the peptide solution of claims 4-6.
Claims 4-8 of the present application are not patently distinct from the KHP solutions recited in claims 1 and 5 of copending application no. 18/534,628, 18/658,834, 18/537,395, and 18/758,198, claims 1 and 4 of copending application no. 18/658,824, claims 1 and 7 of copending application no. 18/671,848 and 18/389,780, and claims 1 and 6 of copending application no. 18/748,493. The instant claims differ from the copending claims in that both claim sets have slightly different but still qualitatively similar numerical amounts with regard to molecular masses of peptides in the solutions and concentration ranges of the solutions. The copending applications method claims require preparation of a KHP solution by the same hydrolysis conditions and composition parameters as recited in the present composition claims. Therefore, the peptide solution of claims 4-8 of the present application are deemed an obvious variation of the method of claims of copending applications 18/534,628, 18/658,834, 18/537,395, 18/758,198, 18/658,824, 18/671,848, 18/748,493 and 18/389,780 in view of the fact that the peptide solutions being made by the method claims of copending applications 18/534,628, 18/658,834, 18/537,395, 18/758,198, 18/658,824, 18/671,848, 18/748,493 and 18/389,780 are the peptide solutions of claims 4-8.
Claims 7-8 of the present application are not patently distinct from the KHP solution recited in claim 1 of copending application no. 18/671,837, 18/536,214 and 18/409,790. The instant claims differ from the copending claims in that both claim sets have slightly different but still qualitatively similar numerical amounts with regard to molecular masses of peptides in the solution and concentration ranges of the solution. The copending applications method claims require preparation of a KHP solution by the same hydrolysis conditions and composition parameters as recited in the present composition claims. Therefore, the peptide solution of claims 7-8 of the present application are deemed an obvious variation of the method of claims of copending applications 18/671,837, 18/536,214 and 18/409,790 in view of the fact that the peptide solution being made by the method claims of copending applications 18/671,837, 18/536,214 and 18/409,790 is the peptide solutions of claims 7-8.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 of the present application are not patently distinct from the KHP solutions recited in claims 1 and 4 of copending application no. 18/643,738 and claims 1 and 5 of copending application no. 18/643,756. The instant claims differ from the copending claims in that both claim sets have slightly different but still qualitatively similar numerical amounts with regard to molecular masses of peptides in the solutions and concentration ranges of the solutions. The copending applications method claims require preparation of a KHP solutions by the same hydrolysis conditions and composition parameters as recited in the present composition claims. Therefore, the peptide solutions of claims 1-3 and 7-8 of the present application are deemed an obvious variation of the method of claims of copending applications 18/643,738 and 18/643,756 in view of the fact that the peptide solution being made by the method claims of copending applications 18/643,738 and 18/643,756 are the peptide solutions of claims 1-3 and 7-8.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to adjust the hydrolysis conditions as part of routine optimization procedure as is customary in the art, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so to achieve the desired degree of hydrolysis reaction efficacy in a method of preparing a peptide solution from feathers in aqueous solution based on the copending claims' suggestions of hydrolysis reactions for preparing keratin hydrolysis peptide solutions for enhancing crop yields and quality.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Co-pending Application Number (“A”)
Co-pending Claim Numbers (“B”)
18/527787
Claims (“C”)
18/898,195
1,4,7
1-8
18/639,751
1,4,7
1-7
18/536,211
1,5
1-6
18/428,193
1,5
1-6
18/645,307
1,4
1-6
18/645,293
1,4
1-6
18/533,181
1,4
1-6
18/774,885
1,4
1-6
18/778,049
1,4
1-6
18/758,140
1,6
1-6
18/403,246
1
1-3
18/412,615
1
1-3
18/412,611
1
1-3
18/418,259
1
1-3
18/902,317
1
1-3
18/639,950
1
1-3
18/409,792
1
1-3
18/642,007
1
4-6
18/645,354
1
4-6
18/642,445
1
4-6
18/827,519
1
4-6
18/534,628
1,5
4-8
18/658,834
1,5
4-8
18/537,395
1,5
4-8
18/758,198
1,5
4-8
18/658,824
1,4
4-8
18/671,848
1,7
4-8
18/389,780
1,7
4-8
18/748,493
1,6
4-8
18/671,837
1
7-8
18/536,214
1
7-8
18/409,790
1
7-8
18/643,738
1,4
1-3, 7-8
18/643,756
1,5
1-3, 7-8
18/408,257
1
1-6
Claims 1-6 provisionally are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending application no. 18/408,257 in view of Yin et al. (Biomacromolecules, Volume 8, Issue 3, pages 800-806, January 2007)
The instant claims differ from 18/408,257 in that the claims 1-3 comprise of a KHP solution wherein the mixture is 44 kg of water and 66 kg of feathers at a temperature and pressure setting of 195 °C and 16 kg/cm2, while 18/408,257 claims a KHP solution comprising of 40 kg of water and 50 kg of feathers. The instant claims differ from 18/408,257 in that the claims 4-6 comprise a KHP solution (40 kg of water and 50 kg of feathers) that is hydrolyzed at a temperature and pressure setting of 185 °C and 12 kg/cm2, while 18/408,257 claims a KHP solution hydrolyzed at a temperature and pressure setting of 195 °C and 16 kg/cm2 for 40 minutes. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in view of Yin et al. to change the ratio of water-to-feathers and the hydrolysis conditions to obtain the number of peptides, the molecular masses of peptides and the concentration of solution desired. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated with reasonable expectation of success to experiment with the water-to-feather ratio and hydrolysis conditions because these are result-effective variables that are common in the art as taught by Yin et al.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12527269. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sets of claims pertain to a method of preparing a keratin hydrolysis peptide solution from mixing feathers and water in a sealed container, hydrolyzing said mixture according to specific temperature, pressure, and time duration parameters, and using a mass spectrometer to confirm peptide content.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALTON EDWARD KIEFER whose telephone number is (571)272-1235. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5 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, Robert Mondesi can be reached at 408 918-7584. 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.
/DALTON EDWARD KIEFER/Examiner, Art Unit 1652
/DELIA M RAMIREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652