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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/27/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) for Taiwanese Application No. TW112134952, filed on 09/13/2023; which papers have been placed of record in the file. Please note that application is in a foreign language and thus cannot be verified.
Claim Status
Claims 1-5 were originally filed on 12/07/2023.
The amendment filed on 02/04/2026, amended claims 1-5.
The amendment filed on 05/27/2026, amended claims 1-5.
Non-Compliant Amendment
Claim 1, step d, has been amended to include the phrase “prepared in steps a-c”. However Applicants have fail to show the newly added subject matter by underlining the added text. See MPEP 714, 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c). See claim 1, filed on 02/04/2026; and amended claim 1, filed on 05/27/2026, respectively reproduced below for convenience.
PNG
media_image1.png
435
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
415
741
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required in response to this office action.
Response to Amendment
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 05/27/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1-5 based upon the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection as set forth in the last Office action.
Declarant’s arguments pertaining to the surprising and unexpected experimental results are appreciated. However, these arguments, in addition to the arguments pertaining to the cited prior art are not sufficient to overcome the obviousness rejection of claims 1-5, because the alleged surprising and unexpected results are not commensurate in scope with the claims at issue.
Pursuant under MPEP 716.02(d), whether the unexpected results are the results of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the “objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.”
Declarant attests that the “claimed process uses feathers with 46% water content, thermal hydrolysis at exactly 180°C and 13 kg/cm2 for 40 minutes, without any enzyme, chemical reagent, or additive, and without added water.” (see Declaration, filed 05/27/2026, pg. 1 last sentence, pg. 2, first sentence).
Therefore, Declarant’s arguments are being interpreted as that the instantly claimed method excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim; that the 70 kg of feathers processed have a natural water content of 46% water; and that the thermal hydrolysis was conducted in the absence of added water.
Declarant argues that the exact claimed hydrolysis parameters (i.e., 180°C and 13 kg/cm2 for 40 minutes) were not achieved through routine optimization (see Declaration, pg. 2, second paragraph). Declarant adds that the keratin hydrolysis peptide solution was developed through dedicated laboratory experimentation over multiple iterations (see Declaration, filed 05/27/2026, pg. 2, first paragraph). This attestation is being interpreted as multiple attempts at perfecting a method of hydrolyzing keratin present in feathers by altering parameters such as amount of feathers, presence or absence of added water, reaction time, temperature, and pressurization of the sealed container.
Per MPEP 2144.05(II)A, "[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 the instant case, the claimed method comprises a hydrolyzation step. Keratin hydrolysis a process known in the art, it is also common knowledge that hydrolysis is a chemical reaction which requires water, and the general conditions under which keratin hydrolysis is achieved are also known. Therefore, discovering that at the exact temperature of 180°C and 13 kg/cm2 for a duration of 40 minutes, 70kg of feathers whose water content is 46% water are hydrolyzed into a peptide solution comprising peptides with molecular masses between 500 and 4.000 Daltons, and a concentration in the range of 2.0 x105~4.5 x105 ppm, does not support the pantentability of the claimed method of making a keratin hydrolysis peptide solution.
The scope of the instant method of making a keratin hydrolysis peptide solution encompasses any hydrolysis method (e.g., thermal hydrolysis, chemical hydrolysis, enzymatic/microbial hydrolysis) in order to break down the feathers into its dominant protein component (i.e., keratin) and other unidentified peptides, which molecular masses are confirmed by mass spectrometry. Thereby, the instantly claimed method is unpatentable over the prior art because hydrolyzing the mixture as recited in step b, reads on thermal hydrolysis, chemical hydrolysis, enzymatic/microbial hydrolysis.
When reviewing the evidence provided in the specification, the specification does not support that the alleged unexpected results of enhanced fruiting weight and yield of coffee plants were achieve by applying a KHP solution prepared by hydrolyzing feathers with 46% water content, thermal hydrolysis at exactly 180°C and 13 kg/cm2 for 40 minutes, without any enzyme, chemical reagent, or additive, and without added water.
Instead, the instant specification discloses two embodiments, both embodiments comprise a hydrolyzation step; wherein the reaction parameters vary (i.e., temperature, pressure, amount of feathers (i.e., kg), feather water content (i.e., 50% water or 46% water), presence or absence of added water (i.e., 44 kg first embodiment). The only parameter that does not vary is the duration of the reaction (i.e., 40 minutes) (see instant specification, pp. 7-8).
It is also noted that both embodiments recite in step b) hydrolyzing the mixture. This limitation would naturally follow in the first embodiment, because in step a) 66 kg of feathers whose content is 50% water are mixed with 44kg of water.
However the second embodiment which corresponds to instant claim 1, recites: “a) preparing and putting 70 kg of feathers whose content is 46% water in a sealed container”. Therefore, as best understood, the preparation of feathers encompasses adding water to the feathers so that their water content is 46%, thus the mixture in step b) in the second embodiment is being interpreted as a mixture of feathers and water, wherein the feathers amount to 70kg and the water amounts to 46%. Additionally, Applicants confirmed in the remarks filed 02/04/2026 that the phrasing of “feathers whose water content is 46% water” is understood by a POSITA to mean the percentage of water present/retained by the feathers (see Remarks, field 02/04/2026, pg. 4, first paragraph).
Assuming arguendo that the water content of 70kg of dry feathers is equivalent to 46% of water, the instant specification fails to demonstrate hydrolysis of keratin present in feathers in the absence of water.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection of claims 1-5 has been maintained.
New Objections
Nucleotide and/or Amino Acid Sequence Disclosures
REQUIREMENTS FOR PATENT APPLICATIONS CONTAINING NUCLEOTIDE AND/OR AMINO ACID SEQUENCE DISCLOSURES
Items 1) and 2) provide general guidance related to requirements for sequence disclosures.
37 CFR 1.821(c) requires that patent applications which contain disclosures of nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences that fall within the definitions of 37 CFR 1.821(a) must contain a "Sequence Listing," as a separate part of the disclosure, which presents the nucleotide and/or amino acid sequences and associated information using the symbols and format in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825. This "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure may be submitted:
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system (see Section I.1 of the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System (https://www.uspto.gov/PatentLegalFramework), hereinafter "Legal Framework") as an ASCII text file, together with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file in a separate paragraph of the specification as required by 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
ii) the date of creation; and
iii) the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(1) on read-only optical disc(s) as permitted by 37 CFR 1.52(e)(1)(ii), labeled according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5), with an incorporation-by-reference of the material in the ASCII text file according to 37 CFR 1.52(e)(8) and 37 CFR 1.823(b)(1) in a separate paragraph of the specification identifying:
the name of the ASCII text file;
the date of creation; and
the size of the ASCII text file in bytes;
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(2) via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF file (not recommended); or
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(c)(3) on physical sheets of paper (not recommended).
When a “Sequence Listing” has been submitted as a PDF file as in 1(c) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(2)) or on physical sheets of paper as in 1(d) above (37 CFR 1.821(c)(3)), 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) requires a computer readable form (CRF) of the “Sequence Listing” in accordance with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.824.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed via the USPTO patent electronic filing system as a PDF, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the PDF copy and the CRF copy (the ASCII text file copy) are identical.
If the "Sequence Listing" required by 37 CFR 1.821(c) is filed on paper or read-only optical disc, then 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1)(ii) or 1.821(e)(2)(ii) requires submission of a statement that the "Sequence Listing" content of the paper or read-only optical disc copy and the CRF are identical.
Specific deficiencies and the required response to this Office Action are as follows:
Specific deficiency - This application fails to comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 because it does not contain a "Sequence Listing" as a separate part of the disclosure or a CRF of the “Sequence Listing.”.
Required response - Applicant must provide:
A "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure; together with
An amendment specifically directing its entry into the application in accordance with 37 CFR 1.825(a)(2);
A statement that the "Sequence Listing" includes no new matter as required by 37 CFR 1.821(a)(4); and
A statement that indicates support for the amendment in the application, as filed, as required by 37 CFR 1.825(a)(3).
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) a) or b) above, Applicant must also provide:
A substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52, 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125 inserting the required incorporation-by-reference paragraph, 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.
If the "Sequence Listing" part of the disclosure is submitted according to item 1) c) or d) above, applicant must also provide:
A CRF in accordance with 37 CFR 1.821(e)(1) or 1.821(e)(2) as required by 1.825(a)(5); and
A statement according to item 2) a) or b) above.
The original disclosure includes Table I, which depicts peptide sequences have not been properly identified by a SEQ ID NO. Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, the use of the term Dionex, UltiMate and Orbitrap Fusion Lumos, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: punctuation. Claim 1 includes multiple periods after each recitation of the four steps (i.e., a., b., c., d.). Per MPEP 608.01(m), “[p]eriods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). The punctuation mark (i.e., period) following each step should be substituted by closed parenthesis as in a), b), c) and d). Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
1. Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the Objection to claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn.
2. Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-5 (i.e., preamble recites method of using, however, body of claim recites method of making), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-5, has been withdrawn.
3. Applicants’ arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-5, have been considered but are not persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-5 has been maintained.
New Rejections in light of Amendment
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.
4. Claims 1-5 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 claimed method of making a KHP solution comprises three steps, wherein step a is drawn to “preparing the KHP solution by preparing and putting 70 kg of feathers, whose content is 46% water, in a sealed container”. It has not been clearly established what steps or actions constitute “preparing 70kg of feathers”. Thus an ordinary skilled artisan would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed method with respect to the preparation of the KHP solution, because it is not clear whether the preparation of the keratin source to be hydrolyzed (i.e., 70kg of the feathers) includes saturating the feathers with water so that their water content is increased to 46%, or whether the preparation step only includes getting 70kg of dry feathers ready to be placed in a sealed container.
Assuming arguendo that the keratin source is dry and amounts to 70kg of feathers wherein the moisture content of the 70kg of feathers amounts to 46% of water; then step b, which is drawn to “hydrolyzing the mixture” under specific parameters renders the instantly claimed method unclear and indefinite because it is unclear whether the 70 kg of feathers are mixed with an additional component, different than the naturally occurring components found in 70kg of dry feathers. Claims 2-5 are also indefinite because of their dependency upon a rejected claim.
5. Claims 1-5 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.
Step c, includes the phrase “at least 253 peptides as listed in the specification” as part of the method of making the KPH solution. However, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, per MPEP 2111.01 (II).
Furthermore, as indicated in MPEP 2173.05(s), where possible, claims are to be complete in themselves. Incorporation by reference to a specific figure or table “is permitted only in exceptional circumstances where there is no practical way to define the invention in words and where it is more concise to incorporate by reference than duplicating a drawing or table into the claim. Incorporation by reference is a necessity doctrine, not for applicant’s convenience.” Ex parte Fressola, 27 USPQ2d 1608, 1609 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993) (citations omitted). As such, recitation of “at least 253 peptides as listed in the specification” makes the claim incomplete. This rejection could be overcome by incorporating a Table that lists the at least 253 peptides with their respective SEQ ID NOs; or by indicating the SEQ ID NO of the peptides in a range from 1-253. Claims 2-5 are also included in this rejection because of their dependency upon a rejected claim.
6. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “A method of making and using a keratin hydrolysis peptide... comprising the steps of a) preparing the KHP solution…; b) hydrolyzing the mixture…; c) using a mass spectrometer to confirm the combination of peptides in the solution…; and d) applying the solution prepared in steps a-c to the leaf surface of the coffee plant.” However, claim 1 includes two different inventions (i.e., steps a-c, method of making; and step d, a method of using), thus the claim is indefinite because it fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as the invention. Since the body of the claim recites steps a-c which are drawn to a method of making a KHP solution, the claim as a whole is being interpreted as a method of making a KHP solution. Claims 2-5 are also included in this rejection because of their claim dependency upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 1, step d) has been amended to recite applying the solution prepared in steps a-c to the leaf surface of the coffee plant. Applicants stated in their remarks that “no new matter has been introduced” (See pg. 3 of the Remarks filed on 05/27/2026). However, the instant specification does not support that the subject matter of claim 1, step d was previously presented as the there is no mention of the solution prepared in steps a-c, being applied to the leaf surface of the coffee plant.
The specification is void of support that would clearly support the amendments to step d. The specification does not teach the specifically claimed solution prepared in steps a-c, being applied to the leaf surface of the coffee plant. Examination of the instant specification shows that a solution is applied to the leaf surface of the coffee plant. However, the specification does not support the envisioned method of using a KHP solution prepared in steps a-c. Positive recitation of applying the solution to the leaf surface of the coffee plant without any reference to whether the solution applied is a solution prepared in steps a-c; does not provide support in claiming a method of using a KHP solution on coffee plants for the enhancement of the fruiting weight and yield.
As such, the instantly claimed method of using a KHP solution comprising the step of applying the solution prepared in steps a-c to the leaf surface of the coffee plant, has not been adequately supported.
Maintained/Modified Rejections in light of Amendment
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.
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.
103 - KSR Examples of 'Rationales' Supporting a Conclusion of Obviousness
(Consistent with the "Functional Approach" of Graham)
Further regarding 35 USC 103(a) rejections, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (KSR) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.
Also, a reference is good not only for what it teaches by direct anticipation but also for what one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably infer from the teachings. (In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (Fed Cir. 1989); In re Bode 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA) 1976).
8. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2023/001946A1 International Publication Date: January 26th 2023 (herein after “Juarez”), in view of US 8,617,282 B2 Date of Patent: December 31st 2013 (herein after “Szoeke”), Chen et al. Bioresource Technology, Volume 99, Issue 9, June 2008, Pages 3337-3341 (here in after “Chen”) and Yin et al. Biomacromolecules, 2007, 8, pp. 800-806 (herein after “Yin”).
Regarding claim 1, Juarez teaches a process for converting keratin into a liquid mixture comprising peptides and/or amino acids (see Abstract); thereby constituting a method of making a keratin hydrolysis peptide (KHP) solution, as recited in instant claim 1. Juarez’s invention is suitable to be used in several technical fields such as, e.g., agriculture, for example as a bio-stimulant (see pg. 1, lines 4-5). Juarez teaches that the liquid mixture may be used to improve and/or stimulate one or more of germination, rooting, growth, flowering, curdling and maturation of plants and fruits (see pg. 11, lines 6-10). Furthermore, Juarez teaches that advantageously, the liquid mixture including peptides and/or amino acids obtained through the process of the invention, can be applied in its different variants to any type of plant, at any stage of plant development, on any soil and form of cultivation, and is also potentially usable in organic farming (see pg. 3, lines 10-14). Thereby constituting a method of using a KHP solution on coffee plants for the enhancement of fruiting weight and yield, as recited in instant claim 1.
With respect to step a., Juarez teaches Example 1 where 10000 g of keratin deriving from milled pig hair was processed (see pg. 12, lines 2-4). The keratin with a humidity between 40-60% was introduced into a solid state bioreactor (see pg. 12, line 11). Thereby constituting 46% water, i.e., % water content in the feathers/humidity, as interpreted by the Examiner in the 112b rejection to claim 1 above, and also constituting a sealed container. However, Juarez does not teach or suggest 70 kg of feathers, as recited in instant step a.
Szoeke teaches a method of preparing a fertilizer by processing feathers (see Abstract). Szoeke describes a production method with a high amount of organic substances with a stimulative and alternative melioration effect, with use of an additive containing keratin and swine dung (see column 2, lines 3-6). The production process itself is a separation of liquid swine dung with help of a phase separation into two parts—a solid part and a liquid part (see column 2, lines 6-7). The solid part of dung is mixed with substances including keratin, hair, or horns (see column 2, lines 7-8). The basic material, originating from Szoeke’s process, contains 5-50% of keratin substance (see column 2, lines 9-11). Szoeke teaches the production process as follows: substances containing keratin (i.e., feathers) are intermixed with hydrate of lime, and during a permanent mixing in an autoclave, the feathers undergo a process of a heat treatment under concomitant pressure change (see column 2, second paragraph). Szoeke adds that feathers pressed out of water, a step standardly done in poultry processing plant, with a humidity in a range from 25% to 29% (see column 3, lines 59-61). Therefore, out of 300 kg of moist feathers delivered from a poultry processing plant it is possible to obtain about 107 kg of dry feathers (300:2.8 ~107), meaning that in 300 kg of moist feathers there is about 193 liters of water (see column 3, lines 61-65). Szoeke also teaches that water, up to an amount of 1000 liters, is added into a container with a mixture under preparation that is a basis of a fertilizer (see column 5, lines 3-5); and that 1000 liters of keratin fertilizer with an additive of humic acids in a colloid form thus may contain 107 kg of feathers (see column 5, lines 12-13).
Pursuant to MPEP 2144.05 (I), a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metal Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held a proper rejection of a claim directed toward an alloy of having "0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium.) Therefore, the claimed 70kg of feathers would have been suggested to one skilled in the art.
From the teachings of the references, the Examiner recognizes that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process for converting keratin into a liquid mixture comprising peptides and/or amino acids as taught by Juarez, with the teachings of Szoeke in order to arrive at the claimed method of using a KHP solution, comprising instant step a.
One of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so because a method of preparing a fertilizer by processing feathers under permanent mixing conditions, heat treatment and concomitant pressure change was known to contain 5-50% of keratin substance. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that Juarez’s process for converting keratin into a liquid mixture comprising peptides and/or amino acids is suitable to be used in the agricultural field as a bio-stimulant; given that the liquid mixture improves and/or stimulates germination, rooting, growth, flowering, curdling and maturation of plants and fruits and can be applied to any type of plant and at any stage of plant development. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that Szoeke’s method of preparing a fertilizer by processing feathers yields 1000 liters of keratin fertilizer that may contain 107 kg of processed feathers. Therefore, modifying Juarez’s process for converting keratin into a liquid mixture comprising peptides and/or amino acids by increasing the amount of feathers to be processed to 107 kg as taught by Szoeke would support the claimed method of using a KHP solution, comprising step a; by constituting some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention, pursuant to KSR.
With respect to step b., Juarez’s method includes a steam explosion step, where the decomposed partially soluble keratin is treated in a continuous process, where the mixture reached a pressure of 2 bar and at a temperature of 120°C, and is kept at this pressure and temperature for 20 minutes (see pg. 12, lines 28-31). Juarez’s steam explosion treatment leads to a solubilization of the proteins, and modification of keratin protein structure (see pg. 13, lines 3-4). The solubilization of the protein material is evident, and this process leads to a mixture containing products that are more-bioavailable with respect to keratin (see pg. 13, lines 5-6). Juarez adds that steam explosion is a process in which biomass is treated with hot steam at a temperature from 110 °C to 160°C, under pressure from 1 to 5 bar, that results in a rupture of the keratin fibrous structure (see pg. 6, lines 24-27). However, Juarez does not expressly teach or suggest hydrolyzing the mixture in the container with a temperature and pressure setting of 180°C and 13 kg/cm2 for a duration of 40 minutes as recited in instant step b.
Chen teaches hydrolysis of biomass waste (such as feathers) to produce amino acids in sub-critical water (i.e., high-temperature and high-pressure water) with reaction temperatures from 180 to 320°C (see pg. 3337, Abstract). Chen’s results show that the controlling of reaction atmosphere, pressure, temperature and time of hydrolysis is very important to obtain high yield of amino acid (see pg. 3337, Abstract). Chen also reports amino acid yield in dependency on reaction temperature and time; in particular that the effect of reaction temperature and time was investigated for reaction time ranging from 1–50 min at a temperature range from 180 to 320°C (see pg. 3338, right column, second to last paragraph). Chen adds that at first the yield of amino acids increases with extension of reaction time, then decreases with continued extension of reaction time when time is extended to a certain value and suggests operation of the system at short reaction time and mild temperature condition (see pg. 3339, left column, paragraph 1). Moreover, the amino acid yield in dependency on reaction pressure was also investigated at a range of 3-30MPa, and it was determined that the reaction pressure can be adjusted by the relationship between reaction pressure and V/V0, where V is the volume of feed injected into vessel and V0 is the volume of vessel (see pg. 3339, left column, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the hydrolyzation parameters (i.e., temperature, pressure and duration) as recited in instant step b. because as taught by Chen, controlling of reaction atmosphere, pressure, temperature and time is very important to obtain high yield of amino acids during the hydrolysis of biomass waste such as feathers. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ. Therefore, it would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal temperature, pressure and time needed to achieve the desired KHP solution. Thus, an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the temperature, pressure and time taught by Juarez to solubilize the proteins, and modify the keratin protein structure thereby resulting in a liquid mixture comprising peptides and/or amino acids. An ordinary skilled artisan would have been able to utilize the teachings of Chen to obtain various hydrolysis parameters with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters (i.e., 180°, 13kg/cm2, and a duration of 40 minutes), the optimization of the hydrolysis step as recited in instant step b would have been obvious before the effective filing date of Applicant's invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so because it was well-known that hydrolysis of biomass waste, such as feathers in high-temperature and high-pressure water (i.e., sub-critical water) breaks down keratin and produces amino acids. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that hydrolysis parameters such as temperature, pressure and time/duration of the reaction were known to influence the yield of the target products (i.e., amino acids) as taught by Chen. Also, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that Juarez’s method includes a steam explosion step, which leads to solubilization of the proteins and modification of the keratin protein structure. Therefore, the claimed invention, as a whole, would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because the combined teachings of the prior art are fairly suggestive of the claimed invention, by constituting some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention, pursuant to KSR.
With respect to step c. Juarez teaches that the liquid fraction of the keratin hydrolysate comprises peptides having a molecular weight comprised between 150 Da and 10.000 Da and/or free amino acids (see pg. 3, lines 29-31). MPEP 2144.05(I) states that "[i]n the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges discloses by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Therefore, the claimed molecular mass range would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the prior art range (i.e., 150 Da and 10.000 Da) lies within the claimed range (i.e., 500 and 4000 Da). However, Juarez does not expressly teach or suggest using a mass spectrometer to confirm the combination of peptides in the solution, as recited in instant step c.
Yin explores the hydrolysis of keratin in water under specific pressure-temperature conditions where the hydrolysis through scission of the protein chain yields oligopeptides (see pg. 800, abstract). Yin shows Fig. 1, depicting MALDI-ToF analysis of the solutions which indicates the presence of peptide sequences (see pg. 803, left column, bottom paragraph). Thereby constituting using a mass spectrometer to confirm the combination of peptides in the solution as recited in step c. Assuming an average of molecular weight of 100 for each amino acid, the obtained peptides are between a sequence of 10 to 18 amino acids in length, suggesting that on hydrolysis a considerable proportion of the amino acid sequence is conserved (see pg. 803, left column, bottom paragraph). 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 teachings of Juarez by incorporating MALDI-ToF analysis of Yin, in order to arrive at the instantly claimed method, comprising step c. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so because it was well known that MALDI-ToF analysis is a technique used to indicate the presence of peptide sequences. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that Yin explored the hydrolysis of keratin in water under specific pressure-temperature conditions. Thereby modifying the method of Juarez with the teachings of Yin would support the claimed method of using a KHP solution, wherein a mass spectrometer is used to confirm the combination of peptides in the solution by constituting some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention, pursuant to KSR.
With respect to step d. Juarez teaches that the liquid mixture including peptides and/or amino acids obtained, can be applied through different methods such as: foliar application (see pg. 3, lines 10-12 and 15); thereby constituting the claim limitations recited in instant step d. applying the solution to the leaf surface of the coffee plant.
Regarding claims 2-3, Juarez teaches the liquid mixture including peptides and/or amino acids obtained through the process that can be applied in its different variants to any type of plant, at any stage of plant development (see pg. 3, lines 10-13). Thereby constituting where the solution is applied to the leaf surface of the coffee plant at the growth stage of early budding, as recited in instant claim 2. Additionally, the liquid mixture is advantageously effective in promoting germination, rooting, growth, flowering, fruit setting and maturation of plants and their fruits (see pg. 3, lines 8-10); thereby constituting where the solution is applied to the leaf surface of the coffee plant at the growth stage of fruiting, as recited in instant claim 3.
Regarding claims 4-5, Juarez does not expressly teach or suggest where the solution is diluted with water by volume to the ratio of 1:250-1000.
As previously mentioned, Szoeke teaches adding water, up to an amount of 1000 liters, into a container with a mixture under preparation that is a basis of a fertilizer (see column 5, lines 3-5); and that 1000 liters of keratin fertilizer with an additive of humic acids in a colloid form thus may contain 107 kg of feathers (see column 5, lines 12-13). As such, the combined teachings of Juarez and Szoeke suggest the claim limitations as recited in instant claims 4-5, where the solution is diluted with water by volume at the ratio of 1:250-1000.
In light of the foregoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the above claims would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC 103. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/27/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
In response to Applicants’ arguments pertaining to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection to claims 1-5; in particular point A and point B (see Remarks, filed 05/27/2026, pp. 3-5); it appears Applicants are arguing that the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection utilized an obvious to try rationale to render the claimed method obvious. However, although option (E)"Obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (see pg. 11, above); is one of the listed rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness; it was omitted from the instant conclusion of obviousness because it does not pertain to the claimed method.
As stated in the action mailed on 03/23/2026 at pp. 9, 12 and 13, the applied rationale that supports the instantly claimed method is option (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Additionally, the above rationale is supported by routine optimization as noted on pg. 10-11 of the action mailed on 03/23/2026 and as reiterated herewith. Hydrolysis is a chemical process which reacts organic matter with water in order to break up the matter into simpler compounds, thus parameters such as reaction time, temperature, pressure and keratin source content would be adjusted by a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to achieve the desired results. For instance, the applied art, i.e., Chen, teaches that controlling reaction atmosphere, pressure, temperature and time is very important to obtain high yield of amino acids during the hydrolysis of biomass waste such as feathers.
In response to Applicants’ argument, i.e., the four references present many combinatorial possibilities: the claimed invention is a needle in a haystack (see Remarks, filed 05/27/2026, pp. 6-8); have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicants are respectfully reminded that per MPEP 2111.03(I), the transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thereby, since the method of making and using a KHP solution comprises four steps which do not exclude additional, unrecited elements such as the ones described in variables 1-7 (see Remarks, filed 05/27/2026, pp. 6-7), then the instantly claimed method is not a needle in a haystack.
In response to Applicants’ argument, i.e., The references individually and collectively teach away from the claimed invention (see Remarks, filed 05/27/2026, pp. 8); have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Pursuant to MPEP 2123 (II), “[d]isclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Therefore the individual and collective teachings of Juarez, Soeke and Yin are not a reverse teaching that stands in opposition to the claimed invention as Applicants attest. Rather they are preferred embodiments.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection above, the rationale to combine the cited art includes some teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify or combine the prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Thus the combined teachings of Juarez, Soeke and Yin are suggestive of the instantly claimed method.
In response to Applicants’ argument, i.e., unexpected results provide independent objective evidence of non-obviousness (see Remarks, filed 05/27/2026, pp. 9-10); have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Pursuant to MPEP 716.02(c)(II), expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention, just as unexpected results are evidence of unobviousness thereof." In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 538, 152 USPQ 602, 604 (CCPA 1967).
In the instant case, the results displayed in Table II depict an increase in fruit weight, fruit count per branch and fruit weight per branch, in plants treated with a diluted KHP solution at budding and fruiting growth stages, versus plants which were only watered (i.e., CK Group, check group) at budding stage (see instant specification, pg. 9, para[0041], and Table II). Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would expect an increase in fruit weight and fruit yield and overall plant growth in a plant which has received nutritional enhancement (i.e., diluted KHP solution), versus a plant which was only water at the budding stage of growth.
Therefore, the alleged surprising and unexpected results (i.e., increase in fruit count and bruit weight) are expected results from applying a solution comprising hydrolyzed keratin peptides and at least 253 unidentified other peptides ranging in molecular masses between 500 and 4,000 Daltons. Accordingly, Applicants’ results are evidence that the claimed method is obvious.
In response to Applicants’ argument, i.e., the Examiner’s analysis constitutes impermissible hindsight reconstruction (see Remarks, filed 05/27/2026, pg. 10); have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
It is the Examiner’s understanding that Applicant is suggesting that the Examiner’s position fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the prior art does not lead an artisan to the instant invention (see Remarks, filed 05/27/2026, pg. 10, second paragraph). If Applicant means to suggest that the Examiner arrived at the instantly claimed invention via the use of improper hindsight, this is not persuasive because any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, Applicant fails to identify a single aspect of the claimed invention that was not taught, disclosed, or suggested by the prior art relied upon by the Examiner.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claims 1-5 has been maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAUDIA E ESPINOSA whose telephone number is (703)756-4550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-5:30 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, LIANKO GARYU can be reached at (571) 270-7367. 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.
/CLAUDIA ESPINOSA/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1654
/JULIE HA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1654
Prosecution Insights