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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 13 January 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Claims 26-48 are pending. Claims 1-25 have been cancelled. The previous 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims. The previous 103 rejections have been modified in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The terminal disclaimer filed 27 May 2025 with respect to US patent 11,166,478 has been approved and therefore the previous double patenting rejections over US 11,166,478 have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26-43 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 26, that Lee (US 2012/0064213 A1) does not teach "after distilling, separating the whole stillage into three portions having a solid portion, a slurry portion, and a liquid portion, wherein the slurry portion contains fiber and zein protein" recited in the independent Claim 26. Applicant argues Figure 2 of Lee discloses only a two portion separation, not a three portion separation having a solid portion, a slurry portion and a liquid portion as instantly claimed. Remarks filed 01/13/2026, pp7-8.
The argument is persuasive and the 103 rejection of claim 26 over Lee has been withdrawn. Lee Figure 2 discloses after distilling the whole stillage is separated into insoluble solids (solid portion) and thin stallage after step 40, filtration centrifuge. Lee further discloses in Figure 2, the thin stillage can be separated into a water soluble solids portion (slurry portion) and a protein portion (liquid portion) after step 252. Lee discloses the whole stillage byproduct can be further processed to produce animal feed [0027].
Lee does not disclose the slurry portion (soluble solids portion of Figure 2) will comprise fiber and zein proteins. The zein proteins of Lee would be in the liquid portion (protein portion of Figure 2) and the fibers would be in either the insoluble solids portion of Lee or in the slurry, depending on the solubility properties of the fibers.
With respect to claim 39, Lee does not disclose the animal feeds of points e), f) and g) of claim 39. The method of making an animal feed from whole stillage with the proportion of fiber, protein and oils recited in claim 39 parts e), f), and g) for ruminants, chickens and pigs, or fish and pets, respectively, are not disclosed by Lee and the specific proportions recited are not obvious in view of the prior art.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 45-47 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Claims 44 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2012/0064213 A1).
Regarding claim 44, Lee discloses Figure 2 is a flow diagram of a method and system for producing a high protein corn meal from a whole stillage byproduct produced via a corn dry-milling process for making ethanol which is depicted in Figure 1 [0012]- [0013]. The dry-milling process of Figure 1 discloses milling corn to produce a ground meal (step 12) liquefying the ground meal (step 16), fermenting the liquefied ground meal (step 20), distilling and generating the whole stillage after the fermenting step (step 24 and resulting whole stillage). Figure 2 discloses after distilling the whole stillage is separated into insoluble solids (first stream) and thin stillage after step 40, filtration centrifuge. Lee discloses further separating the thin stillage into the protein portion (second stream) and the water soluble solids (third stream) after nozzle centrifugation (Fig. 2 step 252). Lee discloses the protein portion is subject to a decanter centrifuge (Fig 2, step 254).
Lee discloses that in Figure 2 where a single filtration centrifuge is depicted (step 40), a plurality of filtration centrifuges may be used in line for separating the whole stillage byproduct. Lee further discloses the filtration centrifuge can be replaced by paddle screens (screen filtration) or a decanter centrifuge which are all devices known in the art to separate whole stillage byproduct into the insoluble solids portion and the thin stillage portion [0075]. Lee discloses a product of the disclosed method is an animal feed for pigs and chickens [0027].
Lee does not disclose an embodiment with a separating process comprising a three sectional separating device having a first and second screen filtration in a first and second sections and a decanter in the third section.
However, Lee discloses the replacement of a plurality of in line filtration centrifuges with paddle screens or decanter centrifuges. Lee also discloses these are all devices known in the art to separate whole stillage byproduct. It is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06 I. In the instant case paddle screens and decanter centrifuges are both known in the art to separate whole stillage byproduct. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the paddle screens (first and second screen filtration) and decanter centrifuge of Lee in order to separate the whole stillage byproduct of Lee since both are known in the art to separate whole stillage byproduct. Since Lee also discloses separation methods can be used in line [0075], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art to supply the paddle screens and decanter centrifuge in line as well which meets the claim limitations of having the paddle screens and decanter centrifuge in a first, second and third section.
Regarding claim 48, Lee discloses in Figure 2 the thin stillage is further separated into a protein portion and a water soluble solids portion (after step 252). This separation results in three streams the insoluble solids stream (large particle stream) (after step 40), the protein portion (a protein dewatering stream) and a water soluble solids stream (fine particle stream) (after step 252).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 January 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 26, that Lee does not teach, for example, "after distilling, separating the whole stillage into three portions having a solid portion, a slurry portion, and a liquid portion, wherein the slurry portion contains fiber and zein protein" recited in the independent Claim 26. Applicant argues Figure 2 of Lee discloses only a two portion separation, not a three portion separation having a solid portion, a slurry portion and a liquid portion as instantly claimed. Remarks pp7-8.
The argument is persuasive and the 103 rejection of claim 26 over Lee has been withdrawn. Lee Figure 2 discloses after distilling the whole stillage is separated into insoluble solids (solid portion) and thin stallage after step 40, filtration centrifuge. Lee further discloses in Figure 2, the thin stillage can be separated into a water soluble solids portion (slurry portion) and a protein portion (liquid portion) after step 252. Lee discloses the whole stillage byproduct can be further processed to produce animal feed [0027].
Lee does not disclose the slurry portion (soluble solids portion of Figure 2) will comprise fiber and zein proteins. The zein proteins of Lee would be in the liquid portion (protein portion of Figure 2) and the fibers would be in either the insoluble solids portion of Lee or in the slurry, depending on the solubility properties of the fibers.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 44, that it has been acknowledged that Lee does not disclose an embodiment with a separating process comprising a three sectional separating device having a first and second screen filtration in a first and second sections and a decanter in the third section. Then, the Office Action asserts that these devices are known in the art. Applicants respectfully assert that the Office Action should provide support that the limitation, which is acknowledged as not taught by Lee, is obvious. Remarks p9.
This argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s attention is drawn to the rejection of claim 44, a portion of which is copied below. The obviousness rationale, that it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known for the same purpose, for the three sectional separating device of the instant claims is detailed below.
Lee discloses the replacement of a plurality of in line filtration centrifuges with paddle screens or decanter centrifuges. Lee also discloses these are all devices known in the art to separate whole stillage byproduct. It is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06 I. In the instant case paddle screens and decanter centrifuges are both known in the art to separate whole stillage byproduct. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combined the paddle screens (first and second screen filtration) and decanter centrifuge of Lee in order to separate the whole stillage byproduct of Lee since both are known in the art to separate whole stillage byproduct. Since Lee also discloses separation methods can be used in line [0075], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary sill in the art to supply the paddle screens and decanter centrifuge in line as well which meets the claim limitations of having the paddle screens and decanter centrifuge in a first, second and third section.
Applicant argues, with respect to claim 44, the same arguments apply as described on Remarks pp7-8 with respect to Lee not disclosing the three portion separation. Remarks p9.
This argument is not persuasive. Instant claim 44 is drawn to methods comprising the recited method steps, which allows for additional method steps to be present in the prior art used for the 103 rejection. Therefore, the recited three portions of the instant claims are not patentable distinct from the three portions of Lee merely because Lee discloses additional steps in order to obtain the recited three portions of the instant claims.
Lee Figure 2 discloses after distilling the whole stillage is separated into insoluble solids (solid portion) and thin stallage after step 40, filtration centrifuge. Lee further discloses in Figure 2, the thin stillage can be separated into a water soluble solids portion (slurry portion) and a protein portion (liquid portion) after step 252. Lee discloses the whole stillage byproduct can be further processed to produce animal feed [0027].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE GLIMM whose telephone number is (571)272-2839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10:30-6:30 ET.
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.
/Michele L Jacobson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/C.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1793