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 .
Detailed Action
Claims 1-14 are pending and are now under consideration.
Priority
Applicants’ claim for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) is acknowledged. This application claims the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) to the US Provisional application: 63/547,609 filed on 11/07/2023.
Information disclosure statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/22/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statement is considered and initialed by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 (claims 2-14 depending therefrom) are objected to, due to the following informality: Claims 1-2 recite the term “Saccharomyces Cerevisiae (S. Cerevisiae) and Candida Tropicalis (C. Tropicalis)”. According to binomial nomenclature convention, species name should be in italics and written in smaller case and not “capitalized”; examiner suggests amending the claims to recite Saccharomyces cerevisiae (S. cerevisiae) and Candida tropicalis (C. tropicalis)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 102 (AIA )
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dhanasekeran et al., (Innovative Romanian food Technol., 2011, Vol. 8: 26-32), discloses a method for of Single Cell Protein (SCP) production comprising: co-culturing: Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida tropicalis utilizing vegetable waste as a substrate and supplementing the vegetable waste with a nutrient supplement (see Abstract; col. 1, ¶ 2, page 31; reproduced below):
PNG
media_image1.png
400
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Said pineapple waste was found to contain good amount of nutrients and favorable for growth of microorganisms; see page 28, col. 2, reproduced below:
PNG
media_image2.png
358
376
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 9-10, Dhanasekeran et al., disclose the following; see page 28, col. 2; reproduced below:
PNG
media_image3.png
304
384
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Dhanasekeran et al., (Innovative Romanian food Technol., 2011, Vol. 8: 26-32) is deemed to anticipate claims 1-2 and 9-10 as written and when given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Dhanasekeran et al., (Innovative Romanian food Technol., 2011, Vol. 8: 26-32) as applied to claims 1-2 and 9-10 (see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection above) and further in view of Hamed et al., (Egypt J. Microbiol., 1993, Vol. 28(1): 1-9), Abdullahi et al., (Turkish J. Agric. Technol., 2021, Vol. 9(6): 968-974) and Correia et al., (J. Sci. Indust. Res., 2007, Vol. 66: 259-262).
The disclosure of Dhanasekeran et al., is silent regarding includes pretreatment using acid and thermal hydrolysis; wherein the acid used in the hydrolysis is sulfuric acid (H2SO4); wherein the sulfuric acid is at a concentration between 2 and 6%; wherein the pretreating using acid and thermal hydrolysis is done between 120° and 160° C for 1 hour, and subsequently allowed to cool to room temperature; further comprising adjusting the pH level of the vegetable to 5.0 after pretreating (as in claims 3-8); and further comprising washing and drying the vegetable waste prior to pretreating; wherein the vegetable waste is dried at 60° C for 48 hours in a conventional oven; further comprising grinding the vegetable waste after washing and drying and prior to pretreating; wherein the vegetable waste is ground to a particle size of less than 1 mm (as in claims 11-14).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 9-10, Hamed et al., (Egypt J. Microbiol., 1993, Vol. 28(1): 1-9) also disclose bioconversion of wheat straw in a method for of Single Cell Protein (SCP) production comprising: co-culturing: Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida utilis; said method comprising wheat straw hydrolysed with 0.5N H2SO4 and increased production of Single-cell protein (SCP); applicants’ are directed to the following sections in Hamed et al., (Egypt J. Microbiol., 1993, Vol. 28(1): 1-9): Abstract; Materials and Methods, page 2; Results, page 5 & Table 3, page 6; and entire document.
Regarding claims 3-8 and 11-14, Abdullahi et al., (Turkish J. Agric. Technol., 2021, Vol. 9(6): 968-974) provide teaching, suggestion and motivation pretreatment using acid and thermal hydrolysis; wherein the acid used in the hydrolysis is sulfuric acid (H2SO4); wherein the sulfuric acid is at a concentration between 2 and 6%; wherein the pretreating using acid and thermal hydrolysis is done between 120° and 160° C for 1 hour, and subsequently allowed to cool to room temperature; further comprising adjusting the pH level of the vegetable to 5.0 after pretreating… wherein the vegetable waste is ground to a particle size of less than 1 mm;
i.e., Media preparation using fruit and vegetable wastes; certain relevant sections from Abdullahi et al., (Turkish J. Agric. Technol., 2021, Vol. 9(6): 968-974) is reproduced below:
see col.2, page 969
PNG
media_image4.png
626
380
media_image4.png
Greyscale
see page 970
PNG
media_image5.png
530
740
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Similarly, Correia et al., (J. Sci. Indust. Res., 2007, Vol. 66: 259-262) also provide teaching, suggestion and motivation pretreatment using acid and thermal hydrolysis; wherein the acid used in the hydrolysis is sulfuric acid (H2SO4); wherein the sulfuric acid is at a concentration between 2 and 6%; wherein the pretreating using acid and thermal hydrolysis is done between 120° and 160° C for 1 hour, and subsequently allowed to cool to room temperature; further comprising adjusting the pH level of the vegetable to 5.0 after pretreating… wherein the vegetable waste is ground to a particle size of less than 1 mm;
certain relevant sections from Correia et al., (J. Sci. Indust. Res., 2007, Vol. 66: 259-262) is reproduced below:
see col 2, page 259
PNG
media_image6.png
224
390
media_image6.png
Greyscale
col. 2, page 260
PNG
media_image7.png
344
386
media_image7.png
Greyscale
col. 1, page 261
PNG
media_image8.png
346
392
media_image8.png
Greyscale
As such, disclosure of strategy and methods including structural and functional elements for a method of Single Cell Protein (SCP) production comprising: co-culturing: Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Candida tropicalis vegetable waste as a substrate and supplementing the vegetable waste with a nutrient supplement, such as yeasts of interest depending on the experimental need in the claimed method comprising: pretreatment using acid and thermal hydrolysis; wherein the acid used in the hydrolysis is sulfuric acid (H2SO4); wherein the sulfuric acid is at a concentration between 2 and 6%; wherein the pretreating using acid and thermal hydrolysis is done between 120° and 160° C for 1 hour, and subsequently allowed to cool to room temperature; further comprising adjusting the pH level of the vegetable to 5.0 after pretreating… wherein the vegetable waste is ground to a particle size of less than 1 mm, such as that of references of Abdullahi et al., and Correia et al., teaching the advantages of said modifications, clearly suggests to a skilled artisan to modify the teachings of Dhanasekeran et al., or Hamed et al., and incorporate the structural and functional elements of Abdullahi et al., and Correia et al., and adopt the methods for obtaining desired optimal production of Single Cell Protein (SCP) in the claimed method, as provided in the combined teachings of Dhanasekeran et al., or Hamed et al., Abdullahi et al., and Correia et al., and the combined references also provide teaching, suggestion and motivation including the structural and functional elements of the instant invention and are well known in the art (for details see the rejection above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claimed method, as suggested by the teachings of Abdullahi et al., and Correia et al., and to modify the teachings of Dhanasekeran et al., or Hamed et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to make such change depending on the experimental need i.e., pretreatment using acid and thermal hydrolysis; wherein the acid used in the hydrolysis is sulfuric acid (H2SO4); wherein the sulfuric acid is at a concentration between 2 and 6%; wherein the pretreating using acid and thermal hydrolysis is done between 120° and 160° C for 1 hour, and subsequently allowed to cool to room temperature; further comprising adjusting the pH level of the vegetable to 5.0 after pretreating… wherein the vegetable waste is ground to a particle size of less than 1 mm, because a skilled artisan would realize such a modification would be useful to efficiently produce Single Cell Protein (SCP) in the claimed method. One of ordinary skill in the art has a reasonable expectation of success at adding the steps as suggested in the teachings of Abdullahi et al., and Correia et al., and are well known in the art. Therefore, the invention as a whole lack an inventive step over the prior art. The expectation of success is high, because the combined teachings of Dhanasekeran et al., or Hamed et al., Abdullahi et al., and Correia et al., also provide the structural and functional elements of the instant invention (Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation).
Regarding specific choice of pretreatment using acid and thermal hydrolysis and comprising adjusting the pH level of the vegetable to 5.0 after pretreating in the claimed method are also provided/suggested in the combination of references, and examiner also takes the position the following position; optimization of known variables, and the examiner finds support in: MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]: A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation Generally, differences in choice of pretreatment using acid and thermal hydrolysis and comprising adjusting the pH level of the vegetable to 5.0 after pretreating in the claimed method will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation". As to optimization results, a patent will not be granted based upon the optimization of result effective variables when the optimization is obtained through routine experimentation unless there is a showing of unexpected results which properly rebuts the prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,276,205 USPQ 215,219 (CCPA 1980). See also In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and In re Aller, 220 F2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233,235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, "it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions or two methods each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition or third method to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)”. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable Dhanasekeran et al., (Innovative Romanian food Technol., 2011, Vol. 8: 26-32) as applied to claims 1-2 and 9-10 (see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) rejection above) and further in view of Hamed et al., (Egypt J. Microbiol., 1993, Vol. 28(1): 1-9), Abdullahi et al., (Turkish J. Agric. Technol., 2021, Vol. 9(6): 968-974) and Correia et al., (J. Sci. Indust. Res., 2007, Vol. 66: 259-262).
Allowable Subject Matter/Conclusion
None of the claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached on 408-918-7584. 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.
/GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
