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 .
Final Rejection
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12-15 and 17-20 are pending. Claims 1, 13 and 14 are independent. Claims 1, 13-15 and 20 are amended in the response filed 10/2/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The claim language to “sequentially administering” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the term sequentially in light of the specification [0013] copied herein:
PNG
media_image1.png
188
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.Response to Amendment
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-8, 12-15 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cates et al. (US 7,727,726 B2) is withdrawn in light of Applicants amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 9-11 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cates et al. (US 7,727,726 B2) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 12-15 and 17-20 above, and further in view of Jacquess et al. (US 20200095517 A1) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
The rejection of claims 9-11 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cates et al. (US 7,727,726 B2) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 12-15 and 17-20 above, and further in view of Alameda et al. “Starch-soiled stainless steel cleaning using surfactants and α-amylase” Journal of Food Engineering, volume 160, pages 56-64 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s cancellation of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s urge the criticality to the sequential administration of the alpha amylase and the nonionic surfactant to show superior and unexpected results in their response on pages 1-5. In response the 19% weight loss is due to the combination of the alpha amylase and the nonionic surfactant and that is neither superior nor unexpected as the prior art made of record has already established cleaning with both the claimed alpha amylase and the nonionic surfactant. Further Applicant’s arguments to criticality of sequential administration of the enzyme is not found persuasive because the claims are read in light of the specification US20220389365A1 [0013] defining that the steps described as sequential may be rearranged or performed concurrently. Thus, arguments to the claim language of sequential when term is defined in the specification to any rearrangement cannot be found critical nor persuasive.
Applicant’s further urge that Alameda et al. teach away from the claimed alpha amylase and nonionic surfactant combination as having poor cleaning ability. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, page 60, section 3.1 specifically guide one of ordinary skill to the contrary where surfactants are able to alter the a-amylase activity due to both enzyme–surfactant and/or surfactant– starch interactions, therefore affecting the removal of starchy soil in food-industry equipment. Then at the last paragraph on page 60, section 3.1 on the left, Alameda et al. reinforce that enzymes are usually more stable in aqueous solutions of nonionic surfactants. Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly, the prior art made of record are pertinent to the claims as presented for examination and the amended claims are addressed below.
New Grounds of Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cates et al. (US 7,727,726 B2) in view of Alameda et al. “Starch-soiled stainless steel cleaning using surfactants and α-amylase” Journal of Food Engineering, volume 160, pages 56-64.
Claim 1 method for cleaning a process screen, comprising: sequentially administering (i) an enzyme selected from an amylase enzyme, a protease enzyme, a lipase enzyme, or any combination thereof, is met by Cates et al. Cates et al. teaching administering the enzyme to a process screen by way of a cleaning stream that is separate from any process stream of the biomass-based processing by teaching their screening system must be cleaned frequently and requires that the continuous flow of mash out of the slurry tank be diverted to a second set of piping while the screen is cleaned. See [col.7,ln.40-47]. Cates et al. guide one of ordinary skill to cleaning a process screen with an alpha amylase via a process stream that is purposely diverted away from the biomass based processing. See also example 10 in col.27, where Cates et al. disclose continuing to add liquid amylase to the ribbon mixer. See col.27,ln.45-47. Cate et al.’s slurry comprises the recycled stillage, the corn amylase and the additional liquid amylase which liquefaction is done prior to entering the fermentation tank and instead done in the pipes (col.2ln.40-45) which prior art method encompasses the claim language to a cleaning process stream separate from the biomass process.
Cates teach adding an enzyme to a process stream to clean a process by specifically teach a process for cleaning a screening system to remove and filter starch balls (see col.7,ln.35-45) using alpha-amylase enzyme. See col.7,ln.60-col.8,ln.10. Cates et al. teach intermittently administering alpha amylase enzyme to the corn with water in the a slurry tank prior to liquefaction which prevents the process screen to deposit with starchy doughballs and a more complete dispersal of the alpha amylase enzyme through the biomash and suggests decreasing an liquid enzyme addition rate such that it would necessarily encompass a dropwise trickle until it was stopped within an amount of time optimally necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to modify Cate et al. because col.10,ln.50-55 guide one of ordinary skill to an enzyme addition rate with respect to the amount of time necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity thus, guiding one of ordinary skill to add the liquid amylase and slowly decrease the addition of the liquid amylase until it is it stopped over a period of 75 minutes, but suggest that this modification can also be done in 30 minutes. See example 10, col.27,ln.40-46 and col.10,ln.50-55.
Cates et al. teach amylase enzyme delivered by using transgenic grain expressing the starch-digesting enzyme depicted by Fig 1B where the amylase is outside of any tank. Cates et al. guide one of ordinary skill to starch-digesting enzyme delivery by transgenic plant material allows for the integral association of the starch-digesting enzyme with the starchy substrate early in the milling process. Starch-digesting enzyme delivered through the addition of transgenic plant material effectively incorporates the starch-digesting enzyme into the milled plant material and facilitates the break-down of starch. col.7,ln.45-55. It is the Examiner’s position that this transgenic delivery method encompasses the claim language to administering the enzyme to a process screen by way of a cleaning stream that is separate from any process stream of the biomass based processing because Cates et al. teach the screening system must be cleaned frequently and requires that the continuous flow of mash out of the slurry tank be diverted to a second set of piping while the screen is cleaned. See [col.7,ln.40-47]. Cates et al. guide one of ordinary skill to cleaning a process screen with an alpha amylase via a process stream that is purposely diverted away from the biomass based processing. See also example 10 in col.27, where Cates et al. disclose continuing to add liquid amylase to the ribbon mixer. See col.27,ln.45-47. Cate et al.’s slurry comprises the recycled stillage, the corn amylase and the additional liquid amylase encompass the claim language to a process stream separate from the biomass process.
Claim 1 limitation to wherein the process stream is a process stream that is exposed to fiber separation or protein separation; provided that the enzyme and the surfactant-containing composition are not administered directly to a fermentation unit or a liquefaction unit of the biomass-based processing, is met by Cates et al. administering the enzyme to a process stream and not to any fermentation and/or liquefaction units, as explained in col.2,ln.40-50 copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
126
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
describes that Cates et al. liquefaction is performed without the use of a slurry tank or a liquefaction tank and instead is performed in pipes or centrifuge prior to entering the heat exchanger or fermentation tank. This teaching along with Figure 1B
PNG
media_image3.png
602
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
explicitly illustrating that the amylase is not administered directly to a fermentation or liquefaction unit in the biomass process and instead is administered to the milled corn prior to reaching any unit. See also Cates et al. administering their liquid enzyme to the ribbon mixer in example 10, thereby meeting the limitation to not administered the enzyme directly to a fermentation unit or a liquefaction unit of the biomass based processing.
Claim 1 limitation to wherein administering the enzyme comprises pulse dosing the enzyme into the process stream for a period of X seconds every y minutes with no administration of the enzyme between periods of X seconds, wherein X and y independently range from 1 to 500 and wherein the pulse dosing is repeated is met by
Cates et al. teaching an embodiment where alpha-amylase as the first digesting enzyme and glucoamylase is the second digesting enzyme. See col.17, lines 14-18 copied herein:
PNG
media_image4.png
110
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The sequential administering and pulse dosing the amylase enzyme is met by Cates et al. teaching an embodiment where alpha-amylase as the first digesting enzyme and glucoamylase is the second digesting enzyme. See col.17, lines 14-18 copied herein:
PNG
media_image4.png
110
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
guiding one of ordinary skill to an embodiment where the first and second enzymes can be an amylase because one of ordinary skill reading Cates et al. above can understand that “any combination of starch digesting enzymes” can include an embodiment where the amylase as the first and the ‘same’ amylase is also the second digesting enzyme. And col.10,ln.40-55 describe that the additional enzymes are delivered as liquid enzymes an performed at the intermittent times and temperatures as explained in col.10.
Cates et al. col.15,ln.20-col.16,ln.25 suggest a method encompassing the claimed intermittent addition of enzyme (col.10,ln.40-55 by teaching the saccharification comprises adding glucoamylase (see col.15,ln.21-24) to the milled corn containing alpha amylase.(col.15,ln.61) (which meets language to sequentially administering enzyme).
cooling the starch liquefact to about 40 degrees C. to provide a cooled Starch liquefact, (which meets language to not administering enzyme) It is well understood that the cooling will take some y minutes, not explicitly detailed in the specification but implied through the concept of cooling over time.
Col.15,ln.45-50 teach suitable added enzymes include protease, phytase, cellulase, hemicellulase, exo- and endo-glucanase, xylanase, pullulanase and the process comprises adding one or more reagents from the group consisting of an additional starch-digesting enzyme, a yeast extract, an antibiotic, and yeast.
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 13-14 and 17-18, Cates et al. do not explicitly teach pulse dosing the enzyme into the process stream for a period of x seconds every y minutes with no administration of the enzyme between periods of x seconds, wherein x and y independently range from 1 to 500 and wherein the pulse dosing is repeated. Instead, Cates et al. exemplify continuing to add the liquid amylase and then slowly decreasing the amount of liquid amylase until it is it stopped over a period of 1 hour 15 minutes. See example 10, col.27,ln.40-46 along with Cate et al. col.10,ln.50-55 guiding one of ordinary skill to modify their exemplified liquid enzyme addition rate with respect to the amount of time necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity.
It would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at a method of cleaning a process screen comprising administering an enzyme by pulse dosing the enzyme as required by claims 1, 4-5, 13-14 and 17-18, because Cates et al. teach intermittently administering alpha amylase enzyme to the corn with water in the slurry prior to liquefaction which prevents the process screen to deposit with starchy doughballs and a more complete dispersal of the alpha amylase enzyme through the biomash and suggests decreasing a liquid enzyme addition rate such that it would necessarily encompass a dropwise trickle until it was stopped within an amount of time optimally necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to modify Cate et al. because col.10,ln.50-55 guide one of ordinary skill to an enzyme addition rate with respect to the amount of time necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity thus, guiding one of ordinary skill to add the liquid amylase and slowly decrease the addition of the liquid amylase until it is it stopped over a period of 75 minutes, but suggest that this modification can also be done in 30 minutes. See example 10, col.27,ln.40-46 and col.10,ln.50-55.
Regarding claim 1 limitation that the process stream is exposed to fiber separation or protein separation, col.6,ln.45-65 describes the claim process stream that is exposed to fractionation into starchy fraction and fiber fractions specifically teaching the remaining slurry consisting of fiber, starch and protein is finely ground and screened to separate the fiber from the starch and protein. See col.6,ln.55.
Cates et al. do not teach a surfactant-containing composition comprising a non-ionic surfactant to a process stream produced during biomass-based processing as required by the independent claims 1, 13 and 14.
Alameda et al. teach the addition of surfactants at varying enzyme concentrations significantly increased detergency at lower temperatures ie 30 oC and thus provides for more effective starch breakdown and removal. See page 61, left col. lines 5-6. Alameda et al. abstract and figure 5 illustrate the cleaning of dry starch adhered to stainless steel using surfactants and alpha-amylase allowed for milder washing conditions improving starch removal.
It would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cates et al. with the claimed surfactant as taught by Alameda et al. because the addition of a surfactant with an enzyme allows for improved starch breakdown and removal. One of ordinary skill in the art is motivated to combine the teachings of Cates et al. with that of Alameda et al. since both are in the analogous art of breaking down starch.
Regarding claim 2 and 15, that the amylase enzyme containment unit is fluidly coupled to the cleaning stream, see example 10, line 5-27 describing that the ground corn amylase and the ground other starch containing plant material were combined with stillage (15%-40% of the liquid added to the ground plant material), water in a ribbon mixer (ICM). The slurry from the ribbon mixer flowed into a continuous flow slurry tank held at approximately 85 degrees C. On average, a sample that enters the ribbon mixer takes about 25 minutes to exit the slurry tank which is Examiner’s position that Cates et al. is describing the clamed fluid coupling.
Cates et al. teach a process for cleaning a screening system to remove and filter starch balls (see col.7,ln.35-45) using alpha-amylase enzyme (encompassing the claims 7 and 20) as the starch digesting enzyme in the starchy plant material to form an admix in a concentration of 0.1%-100% (encompassing the claim 6 and 19). See col.7,ln.60-col.8,ln.10. Col.2,ln.40-50 teach liquefaction of a mash is performed without the use of a tank.
With respect to claims 13 and 14 limitation to a process screen being located between the liquifaction unit and the fermentation unit, is met by Cates et al. teaching in col.7,ln.37-45 their ethanol plants employ a screening system prior to entry of the mash into the jet cooker. The screens of Cates et al. does not clog the jet cooker nor the other pipes used to transport the processed mash from one tank to another along with the teaching in col.2,ln.40-50 that liquification is done in the pipes, it is reasonable to presume that there is a screen located between the liquefaction unit and the fermentation unit because Cates et al. employ a screening system prior to entry of their mash into the jet cooker and does not clog any unit or pipe between the tanks.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cates et al. (US 7,727,726 B2) in view of Jacquess et al. (US 20200095517 A1).
Claim 1 method for cleaning a process screen, comprising: sequentially administering (i) an enzyme selected from an amylase enzyme, a protease enzyme, a lipase enzyme, or any combination thereof, is met by Cates et al. Cates et al. teaching administering the enzyme to a process screen by way of a cleaning stream that is separate from any process stream of the biomass-based processing by teaching their screening system must be cleaned frequently and requires that the continuous flow of mash out of the slurry tank be diverted to a second set of piping while the screen is cleaned. See [col.7,ln.40-47]. Cates et al. guide one of ordinary skill to cleaning a process screen with an alpha amylase via a process stream that is purposely diverted away from the biomass based processing. See also example 10 in col.27, where Cates et al. disclose continuing to add liquid amylase to the ribbon mixer. See col.27,ln.45-47. Cate et al.’s slurry comprises the recycled stillage, the corn amylase and the additional liquid amylase which liquefaction is done prior to entering the fermentation tank and instead done in the pipes (col.2ln.40-45) which prior art method encompasses the claim language to a cleaning process stream separate from the biomass process.
Cates teach adding an enzyme to a process stream to clean a process by specifically teach a process for cleaning a screening system to remove and filter starch balls (see col.7,ln.35-45) using alpha-amylase enzyme. See col.7,ln.60-col.8,ln.10. Cates et al. teach intermittently administering alpha amylase enzyme to the corn with water in the a slurry tank prior to liquefaction which prevents the process screen to deposit with starchy doughballs and a more complete dispersal of the alpha amylase enzyme through the biomash and suggests decreasing an liquid enzyme addition rate such that it would necessarily encompass a dropwise trickle until it was stopped within an amount of time optimally necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to modify Cate et al. because col.10,ln.50-55 guide one of ordinary skill to an enzyme addition rate with respect to the amount of time necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity thus, guiding one of ordinary skill to add the liquid amylase and slowly decrease the addition of the liquid amylase until it is it stopped over a period of 75 minutes, but suggest that this modification can also be done in 30 minutes. See example 10, col.27,ln.40-46 and col.10,ln.50-55.
Cates et al. teach amylase enzyme delivered by using transgenic grain expressing the starch-digesting enzyme depicted by Fig 1B where the amylase is outside of any tank. Cates et al. guide one of ordinary skill to starch-digesting enzyme delivery by transgenic plant material allows for the integral association of the starch-digesting enzyme with the starchy substrate early in the milling process. Starch-digesting enzyme delivered through the addition of transgenic plant material effectively incorporates the starch-digesting enzyme into the milled plant material and facilitates the break-down of starch. col.7,ln.45-55. It is the Examiner’s position that this transgenic delivery method encompasses the claim language to administering the enzyme to a process screen by way of a cleaning stream that is separate from any process stream of the biomass based processing because Cates et al. teach the screening system must be cleaned frequently and requires that the continuous flow of mash out of the slurry tank be diverted to a second set of piping while the screen is cleaned. See [col.7,ln.40-47]. Cates et al. guide one of ordinary skill to cleaning a process screen with an alpha amylase via a process stream that is purposely diverted away from the biomass based processing. See also example 10 in col.27, where Cates et al. disclose continuing to add liquid amylase to the ribbon mixer. See col.27,ln.45-47. Cate et al.’s slurry comprises the recycled stillage, the corn amylase and the additional liquid amylase encompass the claim language to a process stream separate from the biomass process.
Claim 1 limitation to wherein the process stream is a process stream that is exposed to fiber separation or protein separation; provided that the enzyme and the surfactant-containing composition are not administered directly to a fermentation unit or a liquefaction unit of the biomass-based processing, is met by Cates et al. administering the enzyme to a process stream and not to any fermentation and/or liquefaction units, as explained in col.2,ln.40-50 copied herein:
PNG
media_image2.png
126
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
describes that Cates et al. liquefaction is performed without the use of a slurry tank or a liquefaction tank and instead is performed in pipes or centrifuge prior to entering the heat exchanger or fermentation tank. This teaching along with Figure 1B
PNG
media_image3.png
602
496
media_image3.png
Greyscale
explicitly illustrating that the amylase is not administered directly to a fermentation or liquefaction unit in the biomass process and instead is administered to the milled corn prior to reaching any unit. See also Cates et al. administering their liquid enzyme to the ribbon mixer in example 10, thereby meeting the limitation to not administered the enzyme directly to a fermentation unit or a liquefaction unit of the biomass based processing.
Claim 1 limitation to wherein administering the enzyme comprises pulse dosing the enzyme into the process stream for a period of X seconds every y minutes with no administration of the enzyme between periods of X seconds, wherein X and y independently range from 1 to 500 and wherein the pulse dosing is repeated is met by
Cates et al. teaching an embodiment where alpha-amylase as the first digesting enzyme and glucoamylase is the second digesting enzyme. See col.17, lines 14-18 copied herein:
PNG
media_image4.png
110
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The sequential administering and pulse dosing the amylase enzyme is met by Cates et al. teaching an embodiment where alpha-amylase as the first digesting enzyme and glucoamylase is the second digesting enzyme. See col.17, lines 14-18 copied herein:
PNG
media_image4.png
110
468
media_image4.png
Greyscale
guiding one of ordinary skill to an embodiment where the first and second enzymes can be an amylase because one of ordinary skill reading Cates et al. above can understand that “any combination of starch digesting enzymes” can include an embodiment where the amylase as the first and the ‘same’ amylase is also the second digesting enzyme. And col.10,ln.40-55 describe that the additional enzymes are delivered as liquid enzymes an performed at the intermittent times and temperatures as explained in col.10.
Cates et al. col.15,ln.20-col.16,ln.25 suggest a method encompassing the claimed intermittent addition of enzyme (col.10,ln.40-55 by teaching the saccharification comprises adding glucoamylase (see col.15,ln.21-24) to the milled corn containing alpha amylase.(col.15,ln.61) (which meets language to sequentially administering enzyme).
cooling the starch liquefact to about 40 degrees C. to provide a cooled Starch liquefact, (which meets language to not administering enzyme) It is well understood that the cooling will take some y minutes, not explicitly detailed in the specification but implied through the concept of cooling over time.
Col.15,ln.45-50 teach suitable added enzymes include protease, phytase, cellulase, hemicellulase, exo- and endo-glucanase, xylanase, pullulanase and the process comprises adding one or more reagents from the group consisting of an additional starch-digesting enzyme, a yeast extract, an antibiotic, and yeast.
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 13-14 and 17-18, Cates et al. do not explicitly teach pulse dosing the enzyme into the process stream for a period of x seconds every y minutes with no administration of the enzyme between periods of x seconds, wherein x and y independently range from 1 to 500 and wherein the pulse dosing is repeated. Instead, Cates et al. exemplify continuing to add the liquid amylase and then slowly decreasing the amount of liquid amylase until it is it stopped over a period of 1 hour 15 minutes. See example 10, col.27,ln.40-46 along with Cate et al. col.10,ln.50-55 guiding one of ordinary skill to modify their exemplified liquid enzyme addition rate with respect to the amount of time necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity.
It would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at a method of cleaning a process screen comprising administering an enzyme by pulse dosing the enzyme as required by claims 1, 4-5, 13-14 and 17-18, because Cates et al. teach intermittently administering alpha amylase enzyme to the corn with water in the slurry prior to liquefaction which prevents the process screen to deposit with starchy doughballs and a more complete dispersal of the alpha amylase enzyme through the biomash and suggests decreasing a liquid enzyme addition rate such that it would necessarily encompass a dropwise trickle until it was stopped within an amount of time optimally necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to modify Cate et al. because col.10,ln.50-55 guide one of ordinary skill to an enzyme addition rate with respect to the amount of time necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity thus, guiding one of ordinary skill to add the liquid amylase and slowly decrease the addition of the liquid amylase until it is it stopped over a period of 75 minutes, but suggest that this modification can also be done in 30 minutes. See example 10, col.27,ln.40-46 and col.10,ln.50-55.
Regarding claim 1 limitation that the process stream is exposed to fiber separation or protein separation, col.6,ln.45-65 describes the claim process stream that is exposed to fractionation into starchy fraction and fiber fractions specifically teaching the remaining slurry consisting of fiber, starch and protein is finely ground and screened to separate the fiber from the starch and protein. See col.6,ln.55.
Cates et al. does not explicitly include a surfactant as required by the independent claims 1, 13, 14. Examiner notes that Cates et al. col.19,In.1-15 and col.15,In.5-20 teach a process that has amylase and ethanol in the same slurry tank, and ethanol is a solvent having surfactant properties. However, Cates et al. does not explicitly include a surfactant as required by the instantly amended claims 1, 13 and 14.
In the analogous art, Jaquess et al. (US 2020/0095517 A1) teach that it is commonly known to include multiple protease, amylase and lipase enzymes, as part of a pre-mixture, added separately, or added in any order and in addition to the enzymes Jacqess et al. teach the claimed surfactants can be used in enzyme preparations. See page 5, [0064].
It would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cates et al. with a surfactant as required by claims 9-11 and 21 because Jacquess et al. teach the claimed surfactants can be used in enzyme preparations for starch liquefactions as taught by Cates et al. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Cates et al. with that of Jacquess et al. since both are in the analogous art of enzymatic starch liquefaction.
Regarding claim 2 and 15, that the amylase enzyme containment unit is fluidly coupled to the cleaning stream, see example 10, line 5-27 describing that the ground corn amylase and the ground other starch containing plant material were combined with stillage (15%-40% of the liquid added to the ground plant material), water in a ribbon mixer (ICM). The slurry from the ribbon mixer flowed into a continuous flow slurry tank held at approximately 85 degrees C. On average, a sample that enters the ribbon mixer takes about 25 minutes to exit the slurry tank which is Examiner’s position that Cates et al. is describing the clamed fluid coupling.
Cates et al. teach a process for cleaning a screening system to remove and filter starch balls (see col.7,ln.35-45) using alpha-amylase enzyme (encompassing the claims 7 and 20) as the starch digesting enzyme in the starchy plant material to form an admix in a concentration of 0.1%-100% (encompassing the claim 6 and 19). See col.7,ln.60-col.8,ln.10. Col.2,ln.40-50 teach liquefaction of a mash is performed without the use of a tank.
With respect to claims 13 and 14 limitation to a process screen being located between the liquifaction unit and the fermentation unit, is met by Cates et al. teaching in col.7,ln.37-45 their ethanol plants employ a screening system prior to entry of the mash into the jet cooker. The screens of Cates et al. does not clog the jet cooker nor the other pipes used to transport the processed mash from one tank to another along with the teaching in col.2,ln.40-50 that liquification is done in the pipes, it is reasonable to presume that there is a screen located between the liquefaction unit and the fermentation unit because Cates et al. employ a screening system prior to entry of their mash into the jet cooker and does not clog any unit or pipe between the tanks
Cates et al. do not explicitly teach pulse dosing the enzyme into the process stream for a period of x seconds every y minutes with no administration of the enzyme between periods of x seconds, wherein x and y independently range from 1 to 500 and wherein the pulse dosing is repeated. Instead, Cates et al. exemplify continuing to add the liquid amylase and then slowly decreasing the amount of liquid amylase until it is it stopped over a period of 1 hour 15 minutes. See example 10, col.27,ln.40-46 along with Cate et al. col.10,ln.50-55 guiding one of ordinary skill to modify their exemplified liquid enzyme addition rate with respect to the amount of time necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity.
It would have been nonetheless obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at a method of cleaning a process screen comprising administering an enzyme by pulse dosing the enzyme as required by the independent claims because Cates et al. teach intermittently administering alpha amylase enzyme to the corn with water in the slurry prior to liquefaction which prevents the process screen to deposit with starchy doughballs and a more complete dispersal of the alpha amylase enzyme through the biomash and suggests decreasing a liquid enzyme addition rate such that it would necessarily encompass a dropwise trickle until it was stopped within an amount of time optimally necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity in general. One of ordinary skill is motivated to modify Cate et al. because col.10,ln.50-55 guide one of ordinary skill to an enzyme addition rate with respect to the amount of time necessary for the liquid amylase addition to lower the viscosity thus, guiding one of ordinary skill to add the liquid amylase and slowly decrease the addition of the liquid amylase until it is it stopped over a period of 75 minutes, but suggest that this modification can also be done in 30 minutes. See example 10, col.27,ln.40-46 and col.10,ln.50-55.
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 PREETI KUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-1320. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/PREETI KUMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761