DETAILED ACTION
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 Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-6 and 14-15, and of species microorganism deposited under accession number CECT 30381, and enzyme subtilisin, in the reply filed on 8/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 7-13 and 15 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 14 are being examined in this application, insofar as they read on the elected species of microorganism deposited under accession number CECT 30381, and enzyme subtilisin.
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 4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 is indefinite as it is unclear what microorganisms are being claimed that are deposited under the claimed accession numbers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laba et al (Waste Biomass Valor. 2017;8:527-537.) in view of Yu et al (US 2015/0197783 A1; 7/16/2015.).
The instant claims recite a process for converting keratin into a liquid mixture comprising peptides and/or amino acids comprising the following steps: a) decomposing a keratin containing material in presence of at least one species of microorganism apt to decompose keratin, said species of microorganism being a consortium of microorganisms able to grow using keratin as the sole carbon and nitrogen source, to obtain a decomposed keratin containing material; b) treating the decomposed keratin containing material to obtain a modified keratin containing material; c) treating said modified keratin containing material with at least a proteolytic enzyme to obtain a keratin hydrolysate, said keratin hydrolysate comprising a liquid fraction and a solid fraction, said solid fraction comprising two further fractions: a soluble fraction and a not-soluble fraction; and d) treating said keratin hydrolysate to obtain a liquid mixture comprising peptides and/or amino acids, said treating comprising a step of separating said liquid fraction from said solid fraction.
Laba teaches a method for converting pig bristle (pig hair) waste to a hydrolysate containing amino acids (Abstract), comprising culturing keratinolytic bacteria B. cereus with pig bristle (said species of microorganism being a consortium of microorganisms able to grow using keratin as the sole carbon and nitrogen source, to obtain a decomposed keratin containing material), performing autoclaving (steam sterilization, treating the decomposed keratin containing material to obtain a modified keratin containing material) (p.530 col left – para 1), culturing B. cereus, pig bristle and enzyme solution (treating said modified keratin containing material with at least a proteolytic enzyme to obtain a keratin hydrolysate, see Laba et al. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2013;22(4):1101-1109., which is fully incorporated in Laba 2017 as reference #16), filtering (said keratin hydrolysate comprising a liquid fraction and a solid fraction) and centrifuging the mixture (separating a liquid fraction from a solid fraction) (p.530 col left – para 2), and obtaining bristle hydrolysate containing amino acids (p.530 col right – para 2, Table 5).
Laba does not teach the method wherein said solid fraction comprising two further fractions: a soluble fraction and a not-soluble fraction (claim 1), and the enzyme is subtilisin (claim 6).
However, Laba does teach the method comprises treating a modified keratin containing material with at least a proteolytic enzyme to obtain a keratin hydrolysate. Since Laba does teach the same method step as claimed, the keratin hydrolysate of Laba comprises a solid fraction that further comprises a soluble fraction and a not-soluble fraction. In addition, Yu teaches a method of producing keratin hydrolysate (Title), comprising using a subtilisin as preferred protease (para 0091-0093), and separating hydrolysate samples into two fractions, a soluble fraction (the supernatant) and an insoluble fraction (the precipitate) (para 0370), wherein the degree of hydrolysis based on solubilized protein in the supernatant after centrifugation is determined (para 0381-0382).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate subtilisin, since Laba and Yu both disclose a method for producing keratin hydrolysate comprising the use of enzyme, and Yu specifically discloses that subtilisin is a preferred enzyme for hydrolyzing keratin. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to incorporate subtilisin with a reasonable expectation for successfully converting pig bristle waste to a hydrolysate containing amino acids.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laba et al (Waste Biomass Valor. 2017;8:527-537.) in view of Yu et al (US 2015/0197783 A1; 7/16/2015.) as applied to claims 1, 6 and 14 above, further in view of Zhao et al (Bioresource Technology. 2015;192:547-555.).
References cited above do not teach a solid-state microbial keratin decomposition step (claim 2), and steam explosion (claim 3).
However, Laba and Yu both teach a method for producing keratin hydrolysate, Laba does teach performing autoclaving (steam sterilization) (p.530 col left – para 1) and Yu does teach that steam sterilization facilitates the subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis (para 0060). Zhao teaches solid-state fermentation is considered as a promising process for production of various products (p.547 col right – para 1), and steam explosion sterilization shortens sterilization time, improves the fermentability of solid medium, and promote the economy of solid-state fermentation (p.554 col left – para 3).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a solid-state microbial keratin decomposition step and steam explosion, since Laba and Yu both disclose a method for producing keratin hydrolysate comprising steam sterilization, and Zhao specifically discloses that solid-state fermentation is considered as a promising process for production of various products, and steam explosion sterilization improves solid-state fermentation performance. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference to incorporate a solid-state microbial keratin decomposition step and steam explosion, with a reasonable expectation for successfully converting pig bristle waste to a hydrolysate containing amino acids.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN Y FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3541. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571)272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Lynn Y Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights