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 Status
Claims 1-6 are currently pending.
Claims 1-6 are being examined on the merits.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119-(a) -(d) for Application No. TW112150444, filed on 12/22/2023; as reflected in the filing receipt issued on 05/22/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
There was not an information disclosure statement provided.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is missing a comma (“,”) between “claim 1 and “wherein”.
Claim 3 is missing a comma (“,”) between “claim 1 and “wherein”.
Claim 5 is missing a comma (“,”) between “claim 4 and “wherein
Claim 6 is missing a comma (“,”) between “claim 5 and “wherein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 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 states “Preparing the KHP solution by mixing 50 kg of feathers whose content is 50% water and 40 kg of water in a sealed container”, it is unclear if the claim language is referring to water content within the feathers themselves or if the water is mixed with the feathers. In addition, the claim language seems to recite that the “mixing” of feather and water would result in KHP solution preparation, which causes confusion as to what KHP solution constitutes.
Claims 1 and 4 step c state “contain at least 253 peptides as listed in the specification”. However, there is not a peptide listing in the instant specification making it unclear which peptides are being claimed. Paragraph 0032 of the specification states “the confirmation of some of the 253 peptides is further done by referencing the BIOPEP-UWM database” in the specification. However, there is no support for specifying the peptides that were confirmed by the database.
Claims 1 and 4 step c state “the concentration is in the range of 2.0 x 105 ~ 4.5 x 105 ppm”. The term “concentration” is limiting the claims as it is unclear if concentration refers to the peptides, proteins, or fragments thereof.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the solution is diluted…” which is not clear if it is a further method step or is limiting the usage of the KHP solution in step d of claim 1, or is it intended use of the KHP made. All solutions produced are capable of being diluted.
Claims 2,3,5, and 6 are dependent on claims 1 and 4, and do not clarify the issues discussed above, and thus are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over of Kawashima (JP H08198693; August 06,1996; December 28,1994) in view of Cheng et al. (Bioresource Technology; Volume 99, Issue 9; pages 3337-3341; June 2008) and Yin et al (Biomacromolecules, 2007, 8, pages 800-806) and Nurdiawati et al (Environ. Prog. Sustainable Energy, Volume 37: July 2018, pages 375-382), and Kumura et al (WO2015/095306: June 25, 2015; December 17, 2014)
Kawashima et al, throughout the reference, teaches using hydrolyzed feather solution (paragraph 0010) as fertilizer.
For claims 1 and 4, step a: Kawashima teaches the conversion of washed chicken feathers into hydrolyzed keratin, where the reaction takes place in a pressure cooker with water added, which reads on the step a of the claims.
For step b, Kawashima teaches the reaction of feathers and water was performed in a pressure vessel for were hydrolyzed for at a temperature ranged 100°C to 120°C for 30 minutes to 1 hour (page 4 paragraph 0010). Hydrolysis process yields liquid comprising polypeptides used as fertilizer thereby constituting a keratin hydrolysis peptide (KHP) solution (paragraph 6 and 7).
For claims 1 and 4, step d: Kawashima teaches the mixture may be used as a fertilizer or for foliar application. Moreover, Kawashima teaches that there is immediate effect of foliar spray (page 3, paragraph 007). Thereby constituting a method of using and preparing a KHP solution for use in soil containing plants for improving growth.
For claims 2, 3, 5 and 6: Kawashima teaches adjusting the concentration of liquid obtained by hydrolysis to an appropriate level (page 7 paragraph 0007). Kawashima reference teaching read on claims 2, 4, 6 and 8 since the claim recitation of “diluted with water…” can be interpreted as intended use of the KHP solution as discussed above under 112 b rejection. The Kawashima reference’s hydrolyzed feature solution would be capable of being diluted, and thus reads on the instant claims.
Kawashima does not explicitly teach the starting amount of feather and water and the duration, pressure, temperature, confirmation using a mass spectrometer, and applying to soybean seedlings when the third trifoliate leaf recited in steps a, b, c and d of claims 1 and 4.
However, Cheng et al throughout teaches hydrolysis/dissolution of keratin from animal waste.
For claims 1 and 4: Cheng teaches a superheated state of water in pressurized vessel effective for hydrolysis/dissolution of keratins from animal waste such as chicken feathers comprising peptides (reference introduction last paragraph on page 801), which suggests a keratin hydrolysis peptide solution. Results show that controlling temperature, pressure, and time of hydrolysis is critical for high yield of amino acids collection. Reference demonstrates that at increased reaction time, temperature yields (data shown if figures 1-4 page 3339) more amino acids which are identified and recorded (reference page 3338, right column, last two paragraphs and figures on 3339 and 3340).
For claims 1 and 4 steps a and b: Cheng also establishes that amino acid yield is dependent on time and pressure, which was investigated by the authors at 0 to 40 minutes and pressure range of 0 to 30 MPa (1.1768 MPa is converted to be 12 kg/cm2) (reference figure1-3 3339 and 3340), which reads on the pressure recited in claims 1 and 4 steps a and b as reference used feather hydrolysate in a pressurized vessel, at pressure and time ranges that the instantly claimed fall within. It was determined that the pressure at which the reaction occurs can be adjusted directly in relation to volume injected into the vessel (reference page 3339, last paragraph of last column).
For step b of claims 1 and 4: Nurdiawati teaches chicken feather hydrolysis subject to elevated temperature range of 140°C to 200°C to retrieve proteins. Feather to water ratio of 1:5 with hydrolysis reaction time of 30 minutes, was proven to solubilize feather protein as high as 83%, which indicate feather proteins as a source of plant fertilizer (Introduction second paragraph page 376), which reads on step b of claims 1 and 4.
Step a of claims 1 and 4 are unclear as previously stated and is interpreted as a 1:1 or 1:3 ratio feathers to water. Thereby consulting a method of preparing KHP derived from feathers hydrolyzed in water at a 185°C and 180°C under pressure for a duration of time. Reference suggests high yield of proteins, peptides and the combination thereof, indicating its ability to fertilize plants, which speaks to mitigating damage for plant growth. The range of feather to water ratio also speaks to varied peptide concentration in water of the keratin hydrolysate.
For claims 1 and 4 step c, Yin et al discusses hydrolysis of feather keratin in water at a range of pressure values and temperatures, where breaking the protein chain by hydrolysis yields oligopeptides (page 800 abstract). The authors use mass spectroscopy to confirm peptide combination with MALDI-ToF analysis of the hydrolyzed solution (page 808 left column last paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to start with any desired amounts of feathers and adding the right amount of water for the purpose of achieving desired hydrolyzed feather solution, because Nurdiawati teaches the feather to water ratio can be optimized to achieve high protein contents in the hydrolysis product for the purpose of making an advantageous plant fertilizer.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using feather keratin hydrolysis peptide solution in a controlled pressurized vessel with measured temperature and time to produce more peptide yield as taught by Cheng et al and Nurdiawati et al. Optimizing hydrolysis parameters (temperature, pressure, and duration) would have been obvious to of an ordinary skilled in the art, as taught by Cheng et al that controlling the reactions pressure, temperature, and time is critical for obtaining high return of amino acids during hydrolysis of feather waste. Also adjusting feather to water ratio would result in increased concentration of peptides for as fertilizing plant source taught by Nurdiawati et al. The motivation of one of ordinary skill in the art would be obvious to modify the above mentioned achieve optimal results for keratin peptides for steps a and b of instant claims 1 and 4 as plant fertilizer, which would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate using MALDI-ToF analysis to determine the peptide content of keratin solution as taught by Yin et al, because MALDI-TOF analysis is routine and known in the art to determine the peptide content for a sample, as it offers the advantage of providing accurate results for peptide combination and yield. The motivation of one of ordinary skill in the art would be obvious to use the mass spectrometer to confirm peptide combination and molecular masses and concentration (Claim 1 and 5 step c).
Kumura et al throughout the reference teaches the application of fertilizer to increase crop yield. Reference more specifically teaches treatment of soybean at several growing stages (line 29-36 page 5), which is demonstrated exhibit accelerated growth effects. Reference also teaches fertilizer treatment spraying on trifoliated leaves resulted increased yield.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the hydrolyzed feather product to soybean seedlings at the trifoliated stage, because Kumura et al teaches soybean plant at several stages of growth fertilizer supports development and the Kawashima reference teaches the advantage of applying feather hydrolysis product as fertilizer to provide nutrient for plant protection and growth.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success of achieving such modifications since Kawashima, Cheng, Yin and Nurdiawati all teach hydrolysis of feather using pressurized techniques, and applying the resulting product to plants as fertilizer.
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 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No.18/642,487 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant Claim 1 is drawn to a method of using a keratin hydrolysis peptide (KHP) solution to mitigate the damages to soybean plants caused by herbicide, comprising the steps of:
Preparing the KHP solution by mixing 50 kg of feathers whose content is 50% water and 40 kg of water in a sealed container;
hydrolyzing the mixture in the container with a temperature and pressure setting of 185°C and 12 kg/cm² for a duration of 80 minutes;
using a mass spectrometer to confirm the combination of peptides in the solution to contain at least 253 peptides as listed in the specification where their molecular masses are between 500 and 4,000 Daltons, and the concentration is in the range of 2.0 x10⁵ ~ 4.5 X 10⁵ ppm; and
applying the KHP solution by spraying to leaves of the soybean seedlings when the third trifoliate leaf is fully unrolled.
Reference claim 1 is drawn to, a method of using a keratin hydrolysis peptide (KHP) solution to promote the growth of cotton plants under low light conditions, comprising the steps of:
Preparing the KHP solution by placing 70 kg of feathers whose content is 46% water in a sealed container;
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;
using a mass spectrometer to confirm the combination of peptides in the solution to contain at least 253 peptides as listed in the specification where their molecular masses are between 500 and 4,000 Daltons, and the concentration is in the range of 2.0 x10⁵ ~ 4.5 X 10⁵ ppm; and
applying the KHP solution by leaf spray.
The scope of the above cited application claims are overlapping and the differences are considered to be obvious. The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is in the amount of feathers or temperature and pressure and duration. These differences are anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust. All other limitations between the instant claims and pending claims of the reference application are essentially identical.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/639/,950. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 recited above.
Reference claim 1 is drawn to a method of using a keratin hydrolysis peptide (KHP) solution to promote the germination and growth of soybeans, comprising the steps of:
a. Preparing the KHP solution by mixing 66 kg of feathers whose content is 50% water and 44 kg of water in a sealed container;
b. hydrolyzing the mixture in the container with a temperature and pressure setting of 195°C and 16 kg/cm² for a duration of 40 minutes;
c. using a mass spectrometer to confirm the combination of peptides in the solution to contain at least 253 peptides as listed in the specification where their molecular masses are between 500 and 4,000 Daltons, and the concentration is in the range of 2.0 x10⁵ ~ 4.5 X 10⁵ ppm; and
d. infusing the solution to soil containing soybean seeds or seedlings where the solution is diluted with water by volume at desired ratios.
The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is in the amount of feathers or temperature and pressure and duration.
The scope of the above cited application claims are overlapping and the differences are considered to be obvious. The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is in the amount of feathers or temperature and pressure and duration. These differences are anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust. All other limitations between the instant claims and pending claims of the reference application are essentially identical.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/658,834. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims.
Instant claim 1 recited above.
Reference Claim 1 is drawn to a method of using keratin hydrolysis peptide (KHP) solution to promote the growth of soybean under low temperature conditions, comprising the steps of:
Preparing the KHP solution by mixing 50 kg of feathers whose content is 50% water and 40 kg of water in a sealed container;
hydrolyzing the mixture in the container with a temperature and pressure setting of 185℃ and 12 kg/cm2 for a duration of 80 minutes;
using a mass spectrometer to confirm the combination of peptides in the solution to contain at least 253 peptides as listed in the specification where their molecular masses are between 500 and 4,000 Daltons, and the concentration is in the range of 2.0 x105 ~ 4.5 x105 ppm; and
infusing the KHP solution to the soil containing the soybean seeds or leaf-spraying to the young soybean seedlings.
The scope of the above cited application claims are overlapping and the differences are considered to be obvious. The differences between the instant claim 1 and the reference claim 1 is in the amount of feathers or temperature and pressure and duration. These differences are anticipated and/or are well within the capabilities of the person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust. All other limitations between the instant claims and pending claims of the reference application are essentially identical.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASMINE A EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-9796. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00EST.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571) 272-5539. 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.
/J.A.E./ Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights