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 .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the remarks and amendments filed on 6/29/26. Claim 4 has been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 3, 5-15, 17, 22-24, and 26 have been amended. Claims 1-3 and 5-26 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wysocki EP_1500683_A1.
1. Regarding Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 26, Wysocki discloses a biodegradable molding and its method (Title) (corresponds to claimed biodegradable disposable article and method thereof) made from particles (Abstract) from the residue of wheat bran (corresponds to claimed food waste of instant claims 1, 21) (paragraph 0039) (corresponds to claimed unmodified and naturally occurring food waste). Applicants state in their Specification (Table 4) that wheat bran has 39.44 wt% hemicellulose (corresponds to claimed limitation of instant Claims 1, 17), 8.21 wt% of cellulose (corresponds to claimed range of instant Claims 1, 3), 7.91 wt% of soluble carbohydrates (corresponds to claimed range of instant Claims 1, 5, 6), and 3.13 wt% of lignin (corresponds to claimed range of instant Claims 1, 8); thereby meeting the claimed concentrations. Wysocki further discloses that said particles can range from 0.005 mm to 3 mm (paragraph 0039), milling thereof (corresponds to claimed agitating) (paragraph 0039), and the molding can be carried out a temperature of up to 450°C (corresponds to claimed limitation of instant Claims 2, 16, 19, 26) (paragraph 0043). Wysocki discloses that the pressure during molding can be up to 150 MPa (1529.57 kg/cm2) (paragraphs 0044-0047), which doesn’t meet the claimed limitation.
2. However, the Examiner respectfully submits that the process limitation of having a pressure of at least about 5000 kg/cm2 claimed in instant claims 1, 2, and 26 is not essential to a determination of patentability of the product claimed in the claim. The patentability of product-by-process claims is based on the product itself. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
3. The Examiner submits that it appears that the product, of Wysocki, is essentially the same as that of instant Claims 1, 2, and 26. Moreover, Wysocki discloses how the variation of pressure can lead to lower energy consumption (paragraph 0010) and how other factors such as time and temperature are directly related to the pressure (paragraph 0008), as well as the method of sieving and milling can contribute to the stiffness and strength of the product after being compressed (paragraph 0039). Given this, the Examiner respectfully submits that it would be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to know how to vary the pressure based on other related factors (temperature, time, sieving, milling) in achieving the desired stiffness and strength. Applicants have not indicated in their Specification how the instantly claimed pressure results in unexpected or surprising properties.
4. Regarding Claims 9 and 11, Applicants state that wheat bran has protein in the amount of 16.33 wt% (Table 4).
5. Regarding Claims 12-14, Applicants state that wheat bran has fat in the amount of 4.15 wt% (Table 4).
6. Regarding Claim 15, Applicants state that wheat bran has ADF content of 11.34 wt% (Table 4).
7. Regarding Claim 22, the heating used during the methods outlined above would seemingly result in trace moisture content.
8. Regarding Claims 23-25, Applicants state that wheat bran has protein in the amount of 16.33 wt% (Table 4). Applicants state that wheat bran has fat in the amount of 4.15 wt% (Table 4). Wheat bran as well as when mixed with barley bran (Wysocki: Claim 14) is known to have pectin in small amounts that would be expected to meet the claimed range. Applicants state its wheat bran has 8.21 wt% of cellulose (Table 4).
9. Regarding Claim 7, given that Wysocki discloses using wheat bran in combination with barley bran too (claim 14), it would be expected for the soluble carbohydrate to meet the claimed range with this combination.
10. Regarding Claim 10, Wysocki discloses using oat hulls (Claim 14) too, which is known to have a protein concentration of less than about 10 wt%.
11. Regarding Claim 18, Wysocki discloses how the variation of pressure can lead to lower energy consumption (paragraph 0010) and how other factors such as time and temperature are directly related to the pressure (paragraph 0008), as well as the method of sieving and milling can contribute to the stiffness and strength of the product after being compressed (paragraph 0039). Given this, the Examiner respectfully submits that it would be expected for one of ordinary skill in the art to know how to vary the pressure based on other related factors (temperature, time, sieving, milling) in achieving the desired stiffness and strength. Applicants have not indicated in their Specification how the instantly claimed pressure results in unexpected or surprising properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants state: Wysocki teaches against increasing the pressure as allegedly stated in paragraphs 0008 and 0010.
The Examiner respectfully submits that Wysocki states “Bran that is sieved and milled in this manner possesses a much narrower particle size distribution and renders stiffer and stronger products after compression moulding” (paragraph 0039). Moreover, it also states that what was found to produce good results was a pressure of up to 150 MPa (paragraphs 0044-0047). However, this is not a teaching away from considering higher pressures. The paragraphs of 0008 and 0010 do not discount or teach away from increasing pressure due to other factors. This is clear from the use of “such as lower temperature and/or lower pressure” in paragraphs 0008 and 0010. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art could vary the temperature for that purpose while increasing pressure due to achieving a narrower particle size distribution (paragraph 0039) or as Wysocki states elsewhere: “The skilled person will be able to choose suitable process variables such as temperature, pressure, compressive force, moisture content of the fibre particles such as the bran as well as the grain size are chosen, in dependence on moulding size, wall thickness and shape of final products, based upon common general knowledge and the information disclosed in the present description and claims.” (paragraph 0040).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAHSEEN KHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1140. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Saturdays 08:00AM-10:00PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 5712701547. 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.
/TAHSEEN KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights