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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stich (US3068155A).
Regarding Claim 1, Stich teaches the following:
A quantity of yeast-containing mass is at rest in a tank 1 (col 2, line 7-8)(a fermentation system comprising a fermentation vessel)
PNG
media_image1.png
699
591
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An external loop (10, 10’, 13, 12, 14, and 4 in Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the fermentation vessel (Fig. 1, below)
The external loop comprises one or more inlet ports, one or more pumps (9) in fluid communication with the one or more inlet ports to pump fermentation broth from the fermentation vessel and one or more outlet ports to reintroduce the fermentation broth into the fermentation vessel, one or more outlet ports to reintroduce the fermentation broth into the fermentation vessel, a cooler 13 (cooling apparatus) and an aerator 4 in fluid communication with the cooling apparatus wherein the fermentation broth flows through the cooling apparatus and the aeration apparatus (see annotated Fig. 1, below). The fermentation broth is pushed through the external loop as seen in Figure 1, above, moving from the fermentation vessel to the pump, through the cooling apparatus, through area 14, through the aerator and back to the fermentation vessel at the outlet (near 11). Note: the area below plate 15 in Fig. 1 of Stich is what is being interpreted as the fermentation vessel.
PNG
media_image2.png
682
771
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Stich teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Stich further teaches the aeration apparatus to be upstream from the cooling apparatus 13 and pump 9 (see Fig. 1, above).
Regarding Claim 4, Stich teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Stich further teaches the diaphragm (part of the aerator) is supplied with gas or air which enters through the pores of the diaphragm into the passing mash (col 2, lines 16-19)(the aeration apparatus is configured to introduce an oxygen-containing gas into the fermentation broth, wherein the oxygen-containing gas comprises purified oxygen, air, or mixtures of oxygen with other gases).
PNG
media_image3.png
618
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Stich teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Stich further teaches the inlet of the cooling apparatus is in fluid communication with the outlet of the pump (see Fig. 1, below) and the cooling apparatus comprises one or more tubes (as seen in Fig. 1, below) through which fermentation broth can flow and the cooler is for regulating the temperature of the mash (col 2, lines 43-44)(heat exchanger in thermal communication with one or more tubes).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stich (US3068155A) in view of Nakao (US10596528B2).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Stich teaches all of the limitations of Claim 1 (see above). Stich does not explicitly teach the aeration apparatus to be a jet aerator, a surface aerator, or a fine bubble aerator.
Nakao teaches a nanobubble producing apparatus (fine bubble aerator) for use in liquid vats (col 6, lines 15-20). Nakao further teaches the nanobubbles have a median particle diameter to be equal to about 100 nm or less (col 4, lines 27-28) and the nano bubble producing apparatus can produce bubbles containing gasses such as oxygen (col 6, lines 63-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Stich with the nanobubble producing apparatus as taught by Nakao. One would have been motivated to make this modification as it would have provided effective aeration of the fermentation system of Stich with uniform diameter bubbles that allow for reproducible oxidation reactions (col 2, lines 7-20).
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stich (US3068155A) in view of Mothes et al. (WO2008092575A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Stich teaches all of the limitations of Claim 7 (see above). Stich does not explicitly teach the heat exchanger to comprise one or more heat pipes, wherein a proximal end of at least one heat pipe is in thermal communication with the one or more tubes, and wherein a distal end of the at least one heat pipe is in thermal communication with a coolant.
Mothes teaches alcoholic fermentation using columns (vessels)(page 4). Mothes further teaches a reinforcement section 31b (designed as a heat exchanger) to have a proximal end [bottom of 31b] in thermal communication with the tube of mash and a distal section [top of 31b] in thermal communication with the coolant in the cooling device 33 and the heat exchanger is in the form of heat pipes (page 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the heat exchanger of Stich with the heat exchanger as taught by Mothes. One would have been motivated to make this modification as the energy input to the heating device is greatly reduced (page 8).
Regarding Claim 10, Stich in view of Mothes teaches all of the limitations of Claim 8 (see above). Mothes further teaches the cooling fluid to be cooling water (chilled water)(page 7) and a cooling device 33 connected to the refining section 31b (heat exchanger)(page 8)(the coolant is in thermal communication with a chiller to maintain a temperature of the coolant below the temperature of the broth).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on page 4 that Stich does not teach a continuous external loop in which the fermentation broth travels, Stich teaches fermentation broth is pushed through the external loop as seen in Figure 1, above, moving from the fermentation vessel to the pump, through the cooling apparatus, through area 14, through the aerator and back to the fermentation vessel at the outlet (near 11). Note: the area below plate 15 in Fig. 1 of Stich is what is being interpreted as the fermentation vessel.
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 JONATHAN E LEPAGE whose telephone number is (571)270-3971. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/J.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1796
/MICHAEL A MARCHESCHI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights