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
The amendment of 11/11/2025 has been entered (claim set as filed on 11/11/2025). Claims 1-28 are pending in this US patent application. Claims 1-28 are currently under examination and were examined on their merits.
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.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2015/0164114 A1, published on 06/18/2015), hereinafter ‘Lee’, in view of Ratanapariyanuch et al. (“Protein Concentrate Production from Thin Stillage”, published on 11/28/2016, J. Agric. Food Chem. 2016, Vol. 64, pages 9488-9496), hereinafter ‘Ratanapariyanuch’, and in view of Veit et al. (US 2010/0221804 A1, published on 09/02/2010), hereinafter ‘Veit’, as evidenced by Collins (US 2012/0125859 A1, published on 05/24/2012), hereinafter ‘Collins’.
Lee’s general disclosure relates to methods for producing a high protein corn meal from a whole stillage byproduct produced in a corn dry-milling process for making ethanol (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claim 1, pertaining to a method, Lee teaches a method for reducing an unfermentable solids content in a protein portion at a back end of a starch-containing grain dry milling process for making a biochemical (“a method for producing a high protein corn meal from a whole stillage byproduct includes, in a com dry-milling process for making ethanol, separating the whole stillage byproduct into an insoluble solids portion and a thin stillage portion. The thin stillage portion is separated into a protein portion and a water soluble solids portion.”; see abstract), the method comprising:
after distillation, which produces a whole stillage byproduct, separating the whole stillage byproduct at the back end of the starch-containing grain dry milling process, into an insoluble solids portion, which includes fiber, and a stillage portion, which includes protein (“A method for producing a high protein corn meal from a whole stillage byproduct comprising: in a corn dry-milling process for making alcohol, separating the whole stillage byproduct, via constituent particle sizes, into an insoluble solids portion and a thin stillage portion, which includes protein”, “centrifuging, via a decanter centrifuge, the residuals or whole stillage leftover from distillation so as to separate the insoluble solids portion or "wet cake", which includes fiber, from the liquid portion or "thin stillage" portion, which includes protein, oil, etc.”; paragraph [0027], see claim 1; it is noted that ‘thin stillage’ corresponds to the instant ‘stillage portion’);
adding a wash to the stillage portion and separating the stillage portion into a water soluble solids portion and a protein portion, wherein the addition of the wash improves separation of water soluble solids from the protein portion (“remaining thin stillage portion is then piped and subjected to a nozzle centrifuge … The nozzle centrifuge 252 can be provided with washing capabilities so that fresh water, along with the thin stillage portion, can be supplied to the nozzle centrifuge 252. The additional fresh water allows for easier separation of the thin stillage into its protein portion and water soluble solids portion.”; paragraph [0079]). The Examiner notes that whole stillage contains unfermentable undissolved and dissolved components, as evidenced by Collins (“Whole stillage contains all of the non-fermentable components of the corn kernels including germ, protein, gluten, fiber as well as fats and oils and a small amount of starch in addition to dead yeast cells. Whole stillage typically contains 9%-14% totals solids of which 4% to 10% are suspended solids and 4% to 5% are dissolved solids”; paragraph [0004]). Therefore, the instant stillage portion separated from the whole stillage by centrifugation as taught by Lee (see above) intrinsically contains unfermentable soluble solids, and centrifugation of the stillage portion as taught by Lee (see above) leads to a water soluble solids portion intrinsically comprising unfermentable water soluble solids. The Examiner further notes that the addition of a wash to the stillage portion increases dissolution of water soluble solids, and therefore the added wash intrinsically facilitates separation of a larger concentration of unfermentable soluble solids into the water soluble solids portion;
Lee further teaches
dewatering the protein portion to separately provide a centrate portion (“The underflow protein portion from the nozzle centrifuge is further piped and subjected to decanter centrifuge 254 to dewater the protein portion.”; paragraph [0080]; see Fig. 2), and a dewatered protein portion that defines a high protein grain meal that includes at least 40 wt % protein on a dry basis (“The final dried protein product defines a high protein corn meal that includes at least 40 wt% protein on a dry basis”; paragraph [0080]; see Fig. 2).
recovering the dewatered protein portion to define the high protein grain meal that includes at least 40 wt % protein on a dry basis , wherein the recovered protein portion remains separate from the whole stillage byproduct (“The dewatered protein portion is then dried, such as by being sent to a dryer 256”, “The final dried protein product defines a high protein corn meal that includes at least 40 wt% protein on a dry basis and which may be sold as pig or chicken feed”; paragraph [0080]; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 15, pertaining to separating the stillage portion, Lee teaches wherein the stillage portion comprises separating the stillage portion into only a water soluble solids portion and a protein portion (“nozzle centrifuge or a cyclone apparatus to
separate the thin stillage portion into a protein portion and a water soluble solids portion.”; “The additional fresh water allows for easier separation of the thin stillage into its protein portion and water soluble solids portion.”, “nozzle centrifuge or a cyclone apparatus to separate the thin stillage portion into a protein portion and a water soluble solids portion; paragraphs [0010] and [0079]; see claim 1 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, pertaining to the protein portion, Lee teaches wherein recovering the protein portion comprises drying the protein portion to define the high grain protein meal (“The final dried protein product defines a high protein corn meal that includes at least 40 wt% protein on a dry basis and which may be sold as pig or chicken feed”; paragraph [0080]; see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, pertaining to the stillage portion, Lee teaches wherein separating the stillage portion into a water soluble solids portion and a protein portion occurs before any evaporating step (“the overflow water soluble solids portion, which includes oil as well as minerals and soluble proteins, is piped from the nozzle centrifuge 252 and subjected to a set of three evaporators”; paragraph [0081], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 7 and 21, pertaining to separating oil, Lee teaches separating oil from the water soluble solids portion to provide an oil portion (“the water soluble solids portion can be piped and subjected to an optional oil recovery centrifuge 261, as is known in the art, so that oil can be removed therefrom”; paragraph [0081]).
Regarding claims 8 and 22, pertaining to the high protein grain meal, Lee teaches wherein the high protein grain meal includes at least 50 wt% protein on a dry basis (“In another embodiment, the high protein corn meal includes at least 50 wt% protein on a dry basis.”; paragraph [0080]).
Regarding claims 9 and 23, pertaining to separating oil, Lee teaches separating oil from the water soluble solids portion to provide an oil portion after subjecting the separated water soluble solids portion to evaporation via an evaporator (“The evaporators 260a-c evaporate the liquid portion of the water soluble solids portion. Thereafter, the water soluble solids portion can be piped and subjected to an optional oil recovery centrifuge 261, as is known in the art, so that oil can be removed therefrom.”; paragraph [0081], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 10 and 24, pertaining to separating oil, Lee teaches wherein separating the oil from the water soluble solids portion includes subjecting the water soluble solids portion to an oil recovery device to separate the oil from the water soluble solids portion to recover the oil portion (“the water soluble solids portion can be piped and subjected to an optional oil recovery centrifuge 261, as is known in the art, so that oil can be removed therefrom.”; paragraph [0081], see Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 11 and 25, pertaining to the whole stillage byproduct, Lee teaches wherein separating the whole stillage byproduct into an insoluble solids portion and a stillage portion includes subjecting the whole stillage byproduct to a filtration centrifuge, a decanter centrifuge, a pressure screen, or a paddle screen to separate the whole stillage byproduct into the insoluble solids portion and the stillage portion (“wherein separating the whole stillage into an insoluble solids portion and a thin stillage portion includes subjecting the whole stillage to a filtration centrifuge, a decanter centrifuge, a pressure screen, or a paddle screen to separate the whole stillage into the solids portion and the thin stillage portion.”; see claim 2).
Regarding claims 12 and 26, pertaining to separating the stillage portion, Lee teaches wherein separating the stillage portion into a water soluble solids portion and a protein portion includes subjecting the stillage portion to a centrifuge or a cyclone apparatus to separate the stillage portion into the water soluble solids portion and the protein portion. (“The thin stillage is next subjected to a nozzle centrifuge or a cyclone apparatus to separate the thin stillage portion into a protein portion and a water soluble solids portion.”; paragraph [0010], see claim 6).
Regarding claim 14 and 28, pertaining to the high protein grain meal, Lee teaches wherein the high protein grain meal is a high protein com meal (“method for producing a high protein corn meal”; paragraph [0008], see claim 1 and Fig. 2).
Additionally, Lee teaches wherein “A typical corn dry mill process consists of four major steps: grain handling and milling, liquefaction and saccharification, fermentation, and co-product recovery.” (paragraph [0004]).
Lee does not teach
wherein the stillage portion wash is a counter current wash that is received from a later step in the method (instant claim 1).
adding a first wash water to the separated protein portion followed by dewatering the protein portion to separately provide a centrate portion, which
includes first wash water, and a dewatered protein portion, wherein at least a portion of the centrate portion including the first wash water defines at least a portion of the counter current wash received from the later step in the method (instant claim 1).
separating the remaining portion of the centrate portion into a solids portion and a liquid portion; and combining the solids portion with the first wash water that is added to the separated protein portion and utilizing the liquid portion as backset in a step at a front end of the starch containing grain dry milling process (instant claims 2 and 16).
adding a second wash water to the dewatered protein portion and, thereafter, dewatering the dewatered protein portion to provide a dewatered protein portion and another centrate portion defining at least another portion of the counter current wash (instant claims 3 and 17).
wherein the centrate portion derived from the first protein wash defines both a portion of the counter current wash and a portion of backset, which is utilized in a step at a front end of the starch-containing grain dry milling process (instant claims 4 and 18).
wherein the water soluble solids portion is recycled back to an earlier step in the method for reuse in the dry milling process (instant claims 13 and 27).
Ratanapariyanuch’s general disclosure relates to two-stage fermentation (TSF) of saccharified wheat with a consortium of endemic lactobacilli produced CO2 and induced colloid separation of fermented solution to produce a protein concentrate (PC) (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 16, pertaining to adding wash water to the separated protein portion, Ratanapariyanuch teaches washing steps including the addition of wash water to increase protein content of a protein concentrate, and to remove solubles from the protein concentrate (“protein concentrate (PC)”, “Washing and drying processes were explored to improve protein content, extend storage life of slurry, and yield converted stillage for compound recovery. Centrifuging and washing slurry afforded a PC and clarified solution. PC protein content increased to 60% (w/w, db).”, “Slurry washing involves centrifugation in a decanter and then mixing slurry with water followed by decanting again. Centrifugation accelerates the particle sedimentation rate,14 and centripetal force could generate pressure that removes liquid surrounding particles and generates sediment with increased density. Water added to sediments could also extract soluble compounds from liquid surrounding centrifuged sediments and enable their recovery.”; page 9488, right column, paragraph 2; see abstract). Ratanapariyanuch further teaches wherein “[b]ased on protein content and the concentration of organic solutes from washing slurry I observed in laboratory-scale processing, it was concluded that washing twice was sufficient to increase protein content to 60% (w/w, db)” (page 9489, right column, paragraph 3).
Veit’s general disclosure relates to a system that includes a “pretreatment apparatus for converting raw plant materials into sugars and a fermenter for fermenting the sugars to produce a beer including ethanol.”, wherein “[a] distillation apparatus separates the beer into the ethanol and a whole stillage, and a separator then separates the whole stillage into a thin stillage and wet distillers grains”, further wherein “[a] biogas apparatus processes a first portion of the thin stillage to produce biogas and a biogas effluent, and converts a percentage of the non-fermentable solids and organic acids in the thin stillage into biogas.” (see entire document, including abstract).
Regarding claims 1-4, 13, 16-18, and 27, pertaining to using liquid byproducts from downstream steps of the method, Veit teaches reuse of liquids from later process steps in order to reduce water usage (“Backset refers to liquids, with or without solids, that are produced as a result of subsequent process steps, and are then recycled back for use in earlier process steps.”; “Backset is understood by those in the art to describe water-containing byproducts of a process that are recycled from downstream to upstream process steps, at least in part to reduce fresh water usage.”; paragraphs [0003] and [0015]).
While Lee does not teach wherein adding a first wash water to the separated protein portion followed by dewatering the protein portion to separately provide a centrate portion, which includes first wash water, and a dewatered protein portion, (instant claim 1), and adding a second wash water to the dewatered protein portion and, thereafter, dewatering the dewatered protein portion to provide a dewatered protein portion and another centrate portion (instant claims 3 and 17), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined Lee’s method with the wash steps and centrifugation steps taught by Ratanapariyanuch, in order to create a method wherein first wash water is added to the separated protein portion followed by dewatering the protein portion to separately provide a centrate portion, which includes first wash water, and a dewatered protein, and wherein a second wash water is added to the dewatered protein portion and, thereafter, dewatering the dewatered protein portion to provide a dewatered protein portion and another centrate portion. One would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the protein concentration of the dewatered protein portion and to further remove water soluble solids. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining Lee’s and Ratanapariyanuch’s teachings, since both references are directed to preparing a protein concentrate derived from fermentation (see above).
While modified Lee does not teach separating a portion of the centrate portion derived from the first wash step into a solids portion and a liquid portion, and combining the solids portion with the first wash water that is added to the separated protein portion (instant claims 2 and 16), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined modified Lee’s method with Ratanapariyanuch’s teachings on separating protein from solubles, in order to create a method comprising separating a portion of the centrate portion derived from the first wash step into a solids portion and a liquid portion, and combining the solids portion with the first wash water that is added to the separated protein portion. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to recover protein lost during the wash step, and therefore increase the protein yield from the stillage portion and increase the protein concentration in the protein portion by recombining the solids portion derived from the centrate with the protein portion. A skilled artisan would have expected success based on Ratanapariyanuch’s teachings since both references are directed to increasing the protein content in the obtained protein portion (see above).
While modified Lee does not teach wherein the stillage portion wash is a counter current wash that is received from a later step in the method (instant claim 1), wherein at least a portion of a first protein wash derived centrate including the first wash water defines at least a portion of the counter current wash received from the later step in the method (instant claim 1), wherein the liquid portion derived from the remaining portion of the first protein wash derived centrate is utilized as backset in a step at a front end of the starch containing grain dry milling process (instant claims 2 and 16), wherein a second protein wash derived centrate portion defines at least another portion of the counter current wash (instant claims 3 and 17), wherein the centrate portion derived from the first protein wash defines both a portion of the counter current wash and a portion of backset, which is utilized in a step at a front end of the starch-containing grain dry milling process (instant claims 4 and 18), and wherein the water soluble solids portion is recycled back to an earlier step in the method for reuse in the dry milling process (instant claims 13 and 27), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have combined modified Lee’s method with Veit’s teachings on reusing downstream produced liquids in upstream process steps, in order to create a method wherein the stillage portion wash is a counter current wash that is received from a later step in the method, wherein at least a portion of a first protein wash derived centrate including the first wash water defines at least a portion of the counter current wash received from the later step in the method, wherein the liquid portion derived from the remaining portion of the first protein wash derived centrate is utilized as backset in a step at a front end of the starch containing grain dry milling process, wherein a second protein wash derived centrate portion defines at least another portion of the counter current wash, wherein the centrate portion derived from the first protein wash defines both a portion of the counter current wash and a portion of backset, which is utilized in a step at a front end of the starch-containing grain dry milling process, and wherein the water soluble solids portion is recycled back to an earlier step in the method for reuse in the dry milling process. One would have been motivated to do so, in order to establish a superior method wherein water usage is reduced, therefore resulting in cost savings and water protection. Since the water soluble solids portion, the centrates, and the liquid portion derived from the first wash derived centrate, have reduced insoluble components due to the centrifugation steps (see above), and protein of interest contained in the stillage portion has been separated from the water soluble solids portion, the centrates, and the derived liquid portion, it would have been obvious to have used said liquids in any upstream step of the method or at a front-end of the starch-containing grain dry milling process to reduce the use of fresh water. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in combining modified Lee’s teachings with Veit’s teachings on reusing downstream liquids, since both references are directed to the production of ethanol using a fermentation process (see above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has traversed the previous rejection of claims 1-28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Ratanapariyanuch, and in view of Veit. Applicant’s arguments in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
In Applicant’s reply, Applicant states that “Lee washes its thin stillage portion, which includes the protein, at nozzle centrifuge 252 with fresh water and no additional washings are considered or needed” (remarks, page 11), that Ratanapariyanuch teaches “centrifuging a thin stillage slurry (without any added wash water) to provide a protein concentrate and clarified solution, and then and only then washing the protein concentrate by mixing with water followed by decanting again needed” (remarks, page 11), and that Veit “fails to disclose or suggest that its (biogas effluent) backset would/should be sent to be used specifically with thin stillage let alone specifically at the nozzle centrifuge 252 of Lee” (remarks, page 13). Applicant concludes that “the combination of Lee, Ratanapariyanuch, and Veit fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention” (remarks, page 14).
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references to create a method comprising the claimed counter current wash and wash steps of the protein portion, the Examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Lee provides a method for reducing an unfermentable solids content in a protein portion at a back end of a starch-containing grain dry milling process for making the biochemical ethanol, the method including an added wash to the stillage portion and separating the stillage portion into a water soluble solids portion and a protein portion, wherein the addition of the wash improves separation of water soluble solids from the protein portion (Lee, paragraph [0079], see Fig. 2). Ratanapariyanuch teaches washing steps including the addition of wash water to increase protein content of a protein concentrate and to remove solubles from the protein concentrate (Ratanapariyanuch, page 9488, right column, paragraph 2; see abstract). Veit teaches the reuse of liquids from later process steps in earlier process steps in order to reduce water usage (Veit, paragraphs [0003] and [0015]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have combined Lee’s and Ratanapariyanuch’s teachings to create a method to include additional wash steps for the protein portion for the benefit of further removing water soluble solids from the protein portion.
Further, It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have combined modified Lee’s teachings with Veit’s teachings to have created a method comprising a counter current wash using recycled water from downstream steps instead of fresh water for separating water soluble solids from the protein portion, for the benefit of reducing fresh water usage, thus resulting in cost savings and water protection.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDRA ZINGARELLI whose telephone number is (703)756-1799. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/SANDRA ZINGARELLI/Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653