DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application. Claims 18-20 have been withdrawn from further consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 1-17 are under consideration in this Office Action.
In view of the claim amendment and arguments filed 11/12/2026, the previous rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph; 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph; and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of US Patent 11186851, claims 1-12 of US Patent 11268062, claims 1-8 of US Patent 10683479, claims 1-10 of US Patent 12006377. The arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been considered but are not persuasive. Submitting a terminal disclaimer may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons. The claims and/or specification of each of the patents teach and/or suggest the claimed system as amended in the claims set filed 11/12/2025 for producing ethanol from grain in an ethanol plant comprising a fluor screen configured for receiving ground grain from the ethanol plant and separating fiber components of the grain from other components; and a cooking system comprising a jet cooker configured to receive steam from the ethanol plant and a high temperature cook tube configured to receive a slurry, the slurry comprising the fiber components, from the jet cooker and maintain said slurry at a temperature above 220F for 5 to 15 minutes to release embedded starch components for fermentation to ethanol. Thus, the teachings anticipate the claimed invention.
Claims 1-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application 17689620, claims 1-5 of copending Application 18734118. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons. The arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been considered but are not persuasive. Submitting a terminal disclaimer may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
The claims and/or specification of the copending applications teach and/or suggest the claimed system as amended in the claims set filed 11/12/2025 for producing ethanol from grain in an ethanol plant comprising a fluor screen configured for receiving ground grain from the ethanol plant and separating fiber components of the grain from other components; and a cooking system comprising a jet cooker configured to receive steam from the ethanol plant and a high temperature cook tube configured to receive a slurry, the slurry comprising the fiber components, from the jet cooker and maintain said slurry at a temperature above 220F for 5 to 15 minutes to release embedded starch components for fermentation to ethanol. Thus, the teachings anticipate the claimed invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claim is 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 extension fee 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 Christian L Fronda whose telephone number is (571)272 0929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternate Fridays between 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, 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 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.
/CHRISTIAN L FRONDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652