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 .
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Generally, the claim is narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. That is the claimed method steps are confusing as it is not clear what is actually being performed in the individual steps, but rather the objective/result of the step.
For example, the first step would appear to be dissolving gelatin in water the result of which is two phases. The next step would be separating the phases and so forth.
Thus it is suggested that the claimed method steps be amended to rearrange the language such that the action being performed by the individual step is recited first followed by the result/objective of the step. That is – each step would being with a verb, e.g, dissolving, separating, cooling, removing, separating, etc., followed by the result of the active verb. This would allow easier reference in subsequent steps, thus avoiding the lack of antecedent basis problems currently in the claim.
The claim is rendered vague and indefinite by the term “(leaves)” in line 6. It is unclear how this term is related to the preceding term “particles”. Is this an example of particles? If so it renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the term particles are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The claimed method is rendered vague and indefinite by the phrase “the method related to the production of gelatine from animal tissues, which includes processing steps and has a widespread use in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, medicine and photographic products, especially in the food industry, and is adapted to shorten the holding time of animal tissues that will be kept in an acid or alkaline environment during the pretreatment stage applied in the classical method, to increase the extraction efficiency and to improve the functional properties of gelatin, before process step a;”. It is unclear how this is meant to limit the claimed method. What classical method? No antecedent basis for “the classical method”. What “pretreatment stage”. No antecedent basis. Does “processing steps” refer to those specifically recited in the claimed method, or are there additional steps?
The claim recites the limitation " the skin or gelatine which is the raw material of bones". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites the limitation " the ultrasound system". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The claim recites the limitation " the inflating". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Given the extensiveness of the indefiniteness issue, a thorough review of the claim language is recommended.
Prior Art
It would appear from the Written Opinion of the Internation Search Authority that the closest prior art discloses the steps of:
a) drying: the fish skin is dried under the condition of 75 ~ 85 °C until the moisture content is less than 15% by weight;
b) cleaning: use clean water to clean the fish skin obtained in step a);
c) degreasing: using fish ether to degrease the fish skin obtained in step b), the degreasing time is 7-9 hours, and the fat content is less than 1% by weight;
d) removal of impurities:soak the degreased fish skin with a NaCl solution of 1% concentration and stir at the same time. The time for soaking and stirring is 1 hour;
e) cleaning: use deionized water to clean the fish skin obtained in step d), and remove NaCl;
f) ultra-high pressure treatment: take the fish skin obtained in step c) at a rate of 5ml of deionized water per 1g of fish skin, add deionized water to the fish skin, and place it under the condition of 380 420MPa for ultra- high pressure treatment, the processing time is 20 ~ 25 minutes;
g) gel extraction: beat the fish skin obtained in step f), and add deionized water to the fish skin slurry at a ratio of 10 ml of deionized water pcr 1 g of fish skin, at a temperature of 58-62 C and a pH of 6.0 Heat treatment under the conditions of rubber extraction, rubber extraction time is 4 hours;
h) centrifugation: centrifuge the solution obtained in step g) at 4000 rpm for 30 minutes;
j) drying: take the centrifugal supernatant obtained in step h), and dry it under the condition of 50-55 C until the moisture content is less than 14% by weight to obtain the finished fish skin gelatin.
However, the reference does not disclose the inflation of the collagen by exposing the raw material of bones ohmic system, the ultrasound system, high hydrostatic pressure system, high pressure homogenization system and microwave
system technology selected from a group consisting of single, double, triple or quadruple combinations. Therefore, it is critical that this aspect is clear in the claimed method as it would appear to be what distinguishes it from the prior art.
“[W]here there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 35 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 USC 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claims or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” MPEP 2173.06 II.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL G FIEBIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 5712720947. 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.
/RUSSELL G FIEBIG/Examiner, Art Unit 1655