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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
When there are drawings, there shall be a “brief description of the several views of the drawings” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.74.).
The section heading “brief description of the several views of the drawings” as set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.74 is missing. Please correct.
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 1-14, 16 and 17 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 recites the limitation "step c)" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step c)".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "step d)" in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step d)".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "step d)" in line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step d)".
The phrase “milling food residue(s)” in claim 2, line 5 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear what is the difference between “milling food residue(s)” and residues that are not “milling food residue(s)”.
The phrase “restaurant food residue(s)” in claim 2, line 7 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear what is the difference between residue(s) from a restaurant and residue(s) from a home kitchen.
The phrase “supermarket food residue(s)” in claim 2, lines 8-9 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear what is the difference between residue(s) from a supermarket and residue(s) from a garden or farm.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said microalgae" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "microalgae".
Claim 4 recites the limitation "an oleaginous microorganism" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the oleaginous microorganism".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a first microorganism" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the first microorganism".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "filamentous fungi" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the filamentous fungi".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "bacteria" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the bacteria".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "step c)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step c)".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "step c)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step c)".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "step f)" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step f)".
Claim 16 recites the limitation "bread food residue" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the bread food residue".
Claim 17 recites the limitation "an oleaginous yeast" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the bread food residue".
Clarification and/or correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Glad et al. (US 2006/0089283).
Regarding Claim 15, Glad (‘283) teaches a composition comprising cellulase; lichenase; xylanase; arabinanase; amylase and protease (See claims 31, 40, 41.).
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al., A novel variable pH control strategy for enhancing lipid production from food waste: Biodiesel versus docosahexaenoic acid; Energy Conversion and Management, Volume 189, 1 June 2019, Pages 60-66 in view of Ma et al., An integrated engineering system for maximizing bioenergy production from food waste; Applied Energy Volume 206, 15 November 2017, Pages 83-89.
Regarding Claim 1, Gao (2019) teaches a method for producing microbial lipids (See Abs., Section 2 and FIGs 4, 5 where microbial lipids, including DHA are produced.),
PNG
media_image1.png
370
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
576
872
media_image2.png
Greyscale
said method comprising the steps: a) providing a first substrate, wherein said first substrate is a food residue(s) (See Abs., Section 2 where food waste from a university is processed.); b) cultivating a first microorganism from filamentous fungi with said first substrate, and thereby allowing said first microorganism to produce at least one enzyme and an enzymatically treated first substrate (See Abs., Section 2 where food waste is used.); and f) harvesting said microbial lipids produced in step d) (See Abs., Section 2.3.) (See Abs., Section 2.), however, fails to expressly disclose cultivating a second microorganism, wherein said second microorganism is an oleaginous microorganism, with a medium comprising said enzymatically treated first substrate.
However, Gao (2019) teaches using a method as taught by Ma (2017) (See Section 2.2.).
Ma (2017) teaches using a food waste was collected from a canteen at Nanyang Technological University, as does Gao (2019), wherein Aspergillus oryzae was used to produce fungal mash with the food waste as substrate (See Section 2 and FIG-1.).
PNG
media_image3.png
374
670
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Gao (2019) and Ma (2017) before them to cultivate a second microorganism, wherein said second microorganism is an oleaginous microorganism, with a medium comprising said enzymatically treated first substrate since Gao (2019) expressly states it uses the process as taught by Ma (2017) to provide a source of microbial lipids.
Regarding Claim 2, Gao (2019) teaches wherein said food residue(s), is restaurant food residue(s) (See Abs., Section 2.).
Regarding Claim 3, Gao (2019) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein said filamentous fungi are selected from Ceratocystis sp.; Trichoderma sp.; Aspergillus sp.; Neurospora sp.; Fusarium sp.; Thermomyces sp.; Aureobasillium sp.; Ischnoderma sp.; Polyporus sp.; Pycnoporus sp.; Phanerochaete sp.; and Xylaria sp; wherein said bacteria are selected from Clostridium sp.; Halobacillus sp.; Halomonas sp.; Rhodothermus sp.; Streptomyces sp.; and Bacillus sp.; and/or wherein said microalgae are selected from Chlorella sp.; Scenedesmus sp.; Dunaliella sp.; Haematococcus sp.; Crypthecodinium sp.; Schizochytrium sp.; and Tetraselmis sp.
However, Gao (2019) teaches using a method as taught by Ma (2017) (See Section 2.2.) and Ma (2017) teaches using filamentous Aspergillus sp. fungi to provide beneficial products from the same type of food waste (See Section 2.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Gao (2019) and Ma (2017) before them to use Aspergillus sp. fungi as taught by Ma (2017) to provide beneficial products from food waste since Gao (2019) expressly states it uses a process as taught by Ma (2017) to process the same type of food waste to provide a source of microbial lipids.
Regarding Claim 4, Gao (2019) teaches wherein said second microorganism is an oleaginous microorganism selected from oleaginous yeasts; wherein said oleaginous yeasts is Rhodosporidium sp. (See Abs. Section 2.) and Ma (2017), as referred to by Gao (2019). teaches said oleaginous fungi being Aspergillus sp (See Section 2.).
Regarding Claim 5, Gao (2019) teaches wherein said second microorganism is an oleaginous yeast Rhodosporidium toruloides (See Abs, Section 2.).
Regarding Claim 6, Gao (2019) teaches wherein said step b) of said method comprises cultivating a first microorganism of filamentous fungi with said first substrate, and thereby allowing said first microorganism to produce at least one enzyme, an enzymatically treated first substrate, and protein biomass and/or aroma compounds (See Abs, Section 2.).
Regarding Claim 7, Gao (2019) teaches wherein said method further comprises a step of harvesting said protein biomass and/or said aroma compounds (See Abs, Section 2.).
Regarding Claim 8, Gao (2019) teaches wherein said medium further comprises an additional carbon source, nitrogen source, trace metal, and/or vitamin (See Table 2.).
PNG
media_image4.png
446
370
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 9, Gao (2019) teaches wherein said method further comprises a step of pretreating said first substrate chemical hydrolysis of said substrate(s) (See Abs, Section 2 and FIG-1 of Ma (2017).).
Regarding Claim 10, Gao (2019) teaches wherein said method comprises said step e) of performing said purely enzymatic treatment of said cultivated second microorganism without any solvent-based extraction or chemicals-based demulsification, wherein said purely enzymatic treatment of said cultivated second microorganism is a treatment of said microorganism with a hydrolase, alone, (See Abs, Section 2 and Section 2 of Ma (2017).).
Regarding Claim 11, Gao (2019) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein said method comprises step c) of obtaining said at least one enzyme and pretreating said second substrate with said at least one enzyme, wherein said pretreating comprises contacting said second substrate with said at least one enzyme in the form of a liquid enzyme preparation obtained from culturing said first microorganism.
However, Gao (2019) teaches using a method as taught by Ma (2017) (See Section 2.2.) and Ma (2017) teaches obtaining said at least one enzyme and pretreating said second substrate with said at least one enzyme, wherein said pretreating comprises contacting said second substrate with said at least one enzyme in the form of a liquid enzyme preparation obtained from culturing said first microorganism to provide beneficial products from food waste (See Section 2.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Gao (2019) and Ma (2017) before them to obtain said at least one enzyme and pretreating said second substrate with said at least one enzyme, wherein said pretreating comprises contacting said second substrate with said at least one enzyme in the form of a liquid enzyme preparation obtained from culturing said first microorganism as taught by Ma (2017) to provide beneficial products from food waste since Gao (2019) expressly states it uses the process as taught by Ma (2017) to provide a source of microbial lipids.
Regarding Claim 12, Gao (2019) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein said at least one enzyme contains one or more activities selected from enzyme activities of cellulase; lichenase; xylanase; arabinanase; amylase; pullulanase; protease; galactanase; mannanase; rhamnogalacturonan hydrolase; rhamnogalacturonan lyase; xyloglucanase; hemicellulase; amyloglucosidase; beta-glucosidase; pectinase; and laminarinase.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for selecting any enzyme over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Gao (2019) and Ma (2017) before to select known enzyme as claimed so they can be used to process the wide variety of wastes found from a canteen. The selection would have been with the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, Gao (2019) teaches wherein said method is a method of producing microbial lipids and preparing foodstuff therefrom, wherein said method further comprises a step g) of preparing a foodstuff comprising the microbial lipid harvested in step f) (See Abs, Sections 2 and 3.).
Regarding Claim 14, Gao (2019) teaches a method for the production of a foodstuff wherein said method comprises use of a microbial lipid (See Abs, Sections 2 and 3.).
Regarding Claim 15, Gao (2019) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose a composition comprising at least five enzymes selected from cellulase; lichenase; xylanase; arabinanase; amylase, e.g., α-amylase; limit dextrinase; pullulanase; protease; galactanase; mannanase; rhamnogalacturonan hydrolase; rhamnogalacturonan lyase; xyloglucanase; amyloglucosidase; beta-glucosidase; pectinase; and laminarinase.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for selecting any combination of enzymes over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Gao (2019) and Ma (2017) before to select known enzymes as claimed so they can be used in combination to process the wide variety of wastes found from a canteen. The selection of the combination would have been with the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, Gao (2019) teaches the method discussed above where the food waste comes from a university canteen, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the food residue is bread food residue.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that bread would be one the food products served at a canteen and thus would be part of the food waste and thus usable to provide valuable products instead of wasting.
Regarding Claim 17, Gao (2019) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein said second microorganism is an oleaginous yeast selected from Cutaneotrichosporon sp.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for selecting any yeast over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Gao (2019) and Ma (2017) before to select known yeast as claimed so they can be used to process the wide variety of wastes found from a canteen. The selection of yeast would have been with the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 January 30, 2026