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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12-15 and 17-20 and 22 are pending. Claim 22 is new. Claims 1, 13 and 14 are independent. Independent claims 1, 13-14 are amended 5/12/2026.
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) in view of Alameda et al. “Starch-soiled stainless steel cleaning using surfactants and α-amylase” Journal of Food Engineering, volume 160, pgs. 56-64 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
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) in view of Jacquess et al. (US 20200095517 A1) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-8, 12-15 and 17-20 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 17-18, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fowlie (US 11,612,916 B2) in view of Jacquess et al. (US 2020/0095517 A1).
With respect to claim 1 method for cleaning a process screen, Fowlie abstract teach pulse dosing is used to administer a cleaning formulation into a fluid process stream flowing through structural components of a processing facility. One of ordinary skill will understand that the structural components of Fowlie would include process screen of the preamble because Fowlie teach process screen cleaning in Fig.4 and col.3,ln.24-25.
Claim 1 to sequentially, and not concurrently, administering the cleaning composition is taught in col.13,ln.20-35 and guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed embodiment of sequential administering of the cleaning composition.
Examiner notes that Fowlie guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed pulse dose cleaning of a process stream (see title and abstract) where the cleaning formulation comprising surfactant is dosed 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 (see also col.3,ln.5-15) And claim 1 limitation to wherein the pulse dosing is repeated and the enzyme is administered at a continuous rate throughout each period of X seconds. See abstract and col.4,ln.5-20 teaching continuous low dose administration of cleaning formulation on primary, secondary and tertiary process screens of a fiber separation unit on flow rate.
Claim 1 (ii) a surfactant-containing composition comprising a non-ionic surfactant to a process stream produced during biomass-based processing is taught by the detergent of Fowlie. See col.13,ln.30 and col.5,ln.30.
Claim 1 is wherein the process stream is a process stream that is exposed to fiber separation or protein separation is met by the abstract teaching the same and claim 6.
Fowlie do not teach (i) an enzyme selected from an amylase, a protease, or a lipase. Fowlie et al. also do not teach wherein administering the enzyme comprises pulse dosing the enzyme. Finally Fowlie do not teach claim 1 limitation 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.
In the analogous art of cleaning starch containing materials like corn, Jaquess et al. teach a method for oil recovery from biomass including adding at least one lipase to a biomass prior to or during a fermenting of the biomass (see abstract) and 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]. Also, the non-ionic surfactants are used as part of a separation aid composition. [0070]. And one or more surfactants can optionally be used as part of a separation aid composition.
One of ordinary skill reading Jacquess et al. figure 1 understands that the enzyme is added to the mix slurry in step 106. Thus, claim 1 limitation 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 Jacquess et al. teaching in [0058] copied herein:
PNG
media_image1.png
782
694
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Guiding one of ordinary skill to add the enzyme before being introduced to a fermenter unit or a liquefaction unit. It is the Examiner’s position that the process 100 under the abstract is to biomass processing steps guiding one of ordinary skill to several options to add the enzyme and the surfactant that do not include adding them to a fermenter or a liquefaction unit. See the figure under the abstract drawing the amylase is added to a mix slurry step or a liquefaction step but not to a fermenter or liquefaction unit. See also [0036] teaching an embodiment that the use of the particular lipase is initiated preferably at the beginning of fermentation by adding it to a mixing tank (with water) to form a lipase containing solution, where the solution is delivered (e.g, by a line pipe) to the fermenter as initiation of or before ) fermentation is started. The surfactant is added in a separation step. See figure along with claim 4.
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 is suggested by Jacques et al. teaching in [0031]:
PNG
media_image2.png
284
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 1 limitation to wherein the pulse dosing is repeated and the enzyme is administered at a continuous rate and concentration throughout each period of X seconds. Is met by [0038] teaching 0.1-0.5U of lipase can be added upto a dose of about 2U suggesting one of ordinary skill the pulse dosing as required by the claim.
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 the cleaning composition of Fowlie with the claimed enzyme selected from an amylase, a protease, or a lipase as required by claim 1 because Jacquess et al. teach the utility of lipase and amylase enzymes in the processing of biomass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claim 1 pulse dosing the enzyme as suggested by Fowlie teaching pulse dosing of a cleaning formulation into a fluid process tream flowing through structural components of a processing facility in general and Jacquess et al. establishing that enzymes are commonly used intermittently with surfactants to clean starch containing material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at the claim 1 limitation 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 because Jacquess et al. guide one of ordinary skill to add the enzyme before being introduced to a fermenter unit or a liquefaction unit. It is the Examiner’s position that the process 100 under the abstract is to biomass processing steps guiding one of ordinary skill to several options to add the enzyme and the surfactant that do not include adding them to a fermenter or a liquefaction unit. See the figure under the abstract drawing the amylase is added to a mix slurry step or a liquefaction step but not to a fermenter or liquefaction unit. See also [0036] teaching an embodiment that the use of the particular lipase is initiated preferably at the beginning of fermentation by adding it to a mixing tank (with water) to form a lipase containing solution, where the solution is delivered (e.g, by a line pipe) to the fermenter as initiation of or before ) fermentation is started. The surfactant is added in a separation step. See figure along with claim 4. One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine the teachings of Fowlie with Jacquess et al. since both are in the analogous art of cleaning corn starch process stream.
With respect to claim 2 limitation, wherein administering the enzyme comprises administering the enzyme from an enzyme containment unit to the process stream, wherein the enzyme containment unit is fluidly coupled to the process stream is met by Jacquess et al. teaching in [0036] that the lipase is initiated preferably at the beginning of fermentation by adding it to a mixing tank ( with water ) to form a lipase containing solution , where the solution is delivered ( e.g. , by a line pipe ) to the fermenter as initiation of or before ) fermentation is started.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fowlie and arrive at the claim 2 because Jacquess et al. teach adding an enzyme solution fluidly coupled (via line pipe) to the process stream that would add the lipase before going into the fermenting process.
With respect to claim 4 limitation to wherein X and y independently are from 15 to 90 is met by Fowlie claim 1 (col.20,ln.16).
With respect to claim 5 limitation to wherein X = y = 30 is met by both Fowlie in col.7,ln.61 and Jaquess et al. teaching in [0031].
With respect to claim 6 Fowlie teach an amount of cleaning formulation is administered into the process stream to provide a concentration of 15 ppm to 1,500 ppm (see col.8,ln15-25) of the cleaning formulation in the process stream during the period of X seconds, (see col.7,ln.45-65) however, Fowlie does not teach claim 6 limitation wherein the enzyme composition consists of the enzyme or the enzyme and a solvent. Examiner notes that Jacquess et al. teach that the starch material can be converted to sugars with one enzyme or multiple enzymes (see page 1, [0003] middle of paragraph) motivating one of ordinary skill to the claim 6 language to an enzyme composition consisting of the single enzyme. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fowlie to arrive at the claim 6 because Jacquess et al. suggest adding a single enzyme is sufficient to convert the starch material to sugars in the biomass.
With respect to claim 7 limitation to wherein the amylase enzyme is an α-amylase, see Jacquess et al. Figure under the abstract disclosing process 100 using alpha amylase enzyme. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fowlie with the claim 7 amylase enzyme because Jacquess et al. suggest adding α-amylase in biomass processing.
With respect to claim 8 limitation to wherein the enzyme (of claim 1) is separate from any composition comprising an enzyme used in any liquefaction, fermentation, and/or saccharification step of the biomass-based processing is disclosed by Jacquess et al. Figure under the abstract disclosing process 100 using alpha amylase enzyme in a mix slurry which is separate from the lipase and glucoamylase enzymes added in fermentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fowlie with the claim 8 because Jacquess et al. suggest adding a separate enzyme to the mix slurry and different enzymes to the fermentation units.
Claim 12 limitation to wherein the method further comprises administering the enzyme to one or more process screens used in a fiber separation unit of the biomass- based processing is met by Fowlie teaching pulse dosing is used to administer a cleaning formulation into a fluid process stream flowing through screens of a fiber separation unit (see col.4,ln.5-20) in general and Jacquess et al. teaching enzymes are commonly used in biomass processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrive at claim 12 Fowlie teaching pulse dosing is used to administer a cleaning formulation into a fluid process stream flowing through screens of a fiber separation unit in general and Jacquess et al. teach enzymes are commonly used in biomass starch processing.
With respect to independent claim 13 method for cleaning a process screen, Fowlie abstract teach pulse dosing is used to administer a cleaning formulation into a fluid process stream flowing through structural components of a processing facility. One of ordinary skill will understand that the structural components of Fowlie would include process screen of the preamble because Fowlie teach process screen cleaning in Fig.4 and col.3,ln.24-25.
Claim 13 to sequentially, and not concurrently, administering the cleaning composition is taught in col.13,ln.20-35 and guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed embodiment of sequential administering of the cleaning composition.
Examiner notes that Fowlie guide one of ordinary skill to the claimed pulse dose cleaning of a process stream (see title and abstract) where the cleaning formulation comprising surfactant is dosed 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 (see also col.3,ln.5-15) And claim 13 limitation to wherein the pulse dosing is repeated and the enzyme is administered at a continuous rate throughout each period of X seconds. See abstract and col.4,ln.5-20 teaching continuous low dose administration of cleaning formulation on primary, secondary and tertiary process screens of a fiber separation unit on flow rate.
Claim 13 (ii) limitation to a surfactant-containing composition comprising a non-ionic surfactant to a process stream produced during biomass-based processing is taught by the detergent of Fowlie. See col.13,ln.30 and col.5,ln.30.
Claim 13 limitation to wherein the process stream is a process stream that is exposed to fiber separation or protein separation is met by the abstract teaching the same and claim 6.
Fowlie do not teach claim 13(ii) an amylase enzyme. Fowlie et al. also do not teach wherein administering the enzyme comprises pulse dosing the enzyme. Finally Fowlie do not teach claim 1s limitation 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.
Jacques et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fowlie with the independent claim 13 method of pulse dosing the enzyme into the process stream located between the liquefaction unit and the fermentation unit; and the enzyme and the surfactant-containing composition are administered upstream of the process screen as required by claim 13 and suggested by Fowlie teaching pulse dosing of a cleaning formulation into a fluid process stream flowing through all structural components of a processing facility in general and Jacquess et al. intermittently adding enzymes with surfactants to clean starch containing material.
With respect to independent claim 14, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fowlie with the claim 14 method of pulse dosing the amylase into the process stream located between the liquefaction unit and the fermentation unit; and the amylase enzyme and the surfactant-containing composition are administered to the process screen by way of a cleaning stream that is separate from any process stream of the biomass- based processing, as required by claim 14 because Fowlie teach pulse dosing of a cleaning formulation into a fluid process stream flowing through all structural components of a processing facility in general and Jacquess et al. teach amylase enzyme are added intermittently with surfactants to clean starch containing material and Jacquess et al. suggest adding a separate enzyme to the mix slurry and different amylase enzymes to the fermentation units.
With respect to claim 15, see Jacquess et al. teaching in [0036] that the lipase is initiated preferably at the beginning of fermentation by adding it to a mixing tank ( with water ) to form a lipase containing solution , where the solution is delivered ( e.g. , by a line pipe ) to the fermenter as initiation of or before ) fermentation is started. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fowlie by administering the enzyme from an enzyme containment unit to the process stream, wherein the enzyme containment unit is fluidly coupled to the process stream because Jacquess et al. teach adding an enzyme solution fluidly coupled (via line pipe) to the process stream that would add the lipase before going into the fermenting process in a similar processing of biomass.
With respect to claim 17 limitation to wherein X and y independently are from 15 to 90 is met by Fowlie claim 1 (col.20,ln.16).
With respect to claim 18 limitation to wherein X = y = 30 is met by both Fowlie in col.7,ln.61 and Jaquess et al. teaching in [0031].
With respect to claim 20 limitation wherein the amylase enzyme is an α-amylase, see Jacquess et al. Figure under the abstract disclosing process 100 using alpha amylase enzyme. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fowlie with the claim 20 amylase enzyme because Jacquess et al. suggest adding α-amylase in biomass processing.
With respect to claim 22 limitation wherein the process stream is downstream of a liquefaction unit and a fermentation unit see Fowlie Figure under the abstract teaching the process stream flowing thru structural components downstream from the liquefaction unit and the fermentation unit, namely, distillation, centrifugation, evaporation and oil separation.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Fowlie (US 11,612,916 B2) and Jacquess et al. (US 2020/0095517 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 12-15 and 17-18, 20 and 22 above and further in view of Doner et al. (US 6.147,206).
With respect to claim 19 Fowlie teach an amount of cleaning formulation is administered into the process stream to provide a concentration of 15 ppm to 1,500 ppm (see col.8,ln15-25) of the cleaning formulation in the process stream during the period of X seconds, (see col.7,ln.45-65) however, Fowlie does not teach claim 19 limitation wherein the enzyme composition consists of the amylase or the amylase and a solvent. Examiner notes that Jacquess et al. teach that the starch material can be converted to sugars with one enzyme or multiple enzymes (see page 1, [0003] middle of paragraph) motivating one of ordinary skill to the claim 19 language to an enzyme composition consisting of the single enzyme.
In the analogous art of cleaning corn fiber, Doner et al. establish the state of the art that it is commonly known that liquefacation with alpha-amylase until substantially all, the starch is soluble is commonly known. See col.4,ln.50-65.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Fowlie to arrive at the claim 19 because Jacquess et al. suggest adding a single enzyme is sufficient to convert the starch material to sugars in the biomass and Doner et al. teach liquefacation consisting of alpha-amylase until all the starch is soluble is commonly known.
One of ordinary skill is motivated to combine Fowlie, Jacquess and Doner et al. because all are in the analogous art of convert the starch material to sugars in biomass.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights