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 .
Support for the amendments is within the instant application specification.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 1/20/2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 9/26/2025 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-29, 31-34 are pending.
Claims 11-19, 21-22 stand withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 20, 23-29, 31-34 are now under examination.
Applicant’s remarks filed on 1/20/2026 in response to the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 9/26/2025 have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive to overcome at least one of the rejections and/or objections as previously applied.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in the instant action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 4-5, 8, 26-27 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph are withdrawn in view of Applicant amendment of claims 1, 5, 27, 31 to recite ‘and blends thereof,’ claims 4, 8 to add ‘comprising’ language.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-9, 20, 23-27, 28-29, 31 on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of claims 1, 5, 27, 31 to recite ‘and blends thereof.’
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 20, 24-26, 28-29 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebaka et al (2014, Available online 15 November 2014. Bioresources and Bioprocessing, 10.1186/s40643-014-0022-8, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Lebaka} in view of Burphan et al (2018, Available online 30 August 2018. Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-018-31558-4, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Burphan} as evidenced by Gouado et al. (2007, Available online 18 July 2007, EJCN, doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602841, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Gouado}, Medicinenet (2022, What Is Horse Gram, and Is It Good for Your Health,? https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_horse_gram_and_is_it_good_for_your_health/article.htm, examiner cited) {herein Medicinenet} and Crop Trust (2024, Finger millet, https://www.croptrust.org/pgrfa-hub/crops-countries-and-genebanks/crops/finger-millet/, cited on PTO-892 filed 3/13/2024) {herein Finger Millet} is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claims 1, 20, 25, 31 to remove the recitation ‘lutein.’
The rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebaka et al (2014, Available online 15 November 2014. Bioresources and Bioprocessing, 10.1186/s40643-014-0022-8, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Lebaka} in view of Burphan et al (2018, Available online 30 August 2018. Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-018-31558-4, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Burphan}, as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 20, 24-26, 28-29, and further in view of Martinez-Gomez et al. (2020, Available online 4 March 2020. Biomolecules, doi.org/10.3390/biom10030400, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Martinez-Gomez} as evidenced by Gouado et al. (2007, Available online 18 July 2007, EJCN, doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602841, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Gouado}, Medicinenet (2022, What Is Horse Gram, and Is It Good for Your Health,? https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_horse_gram_and_is_it_good_for_your_health/article.htm, examiner cited) {herein Medicinenet} and Crop Trust (2024, Finger millet, https://www.croptrust.org/pgrfa-hub/crops-countries-and-genebanks/crops/finger-millet/, cited on PTO-892 filed 3/13/2024) {herein Finger Millet} is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 20 to remove the recitation ‘lutein.’
The rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebaka et al (2014, Available online 15 November 2014. Bioresources and Bioprocessing, 10.1186/s40643-014-0022-8, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Lebaka} in view of Burphan et al (2018, Available online 30 August 2018. Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-018-31558-4, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Burphan}, and in further view of Martinez-Gomez et al. (2020, Available online 4 March 2020. Biomolecules, doi.org/10.3390/biom10030400, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Martinez-Gomez} as evidenced by Gouado et al. (2007, Available online 18 July 2007, EJCN, doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602841, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Gouado}, Medicinenet (2022, What Is Horse Gram, and Is It Good for Your Health,? https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_horse_gram_and_is_it_good_for_your_health/article.htm, examiner cited) {herein Medicinenet} and Crop Trust (2024, Finger millet, https://www.croptrust.org/pgrfa-hub/crops-countries-and-genebanks/crops/finger-millet/, cited on PTO-892 filed 3/13/2024) {herein Finger Millet} is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 31 to remove the recitation ‘lutein.’
The rejection of claims 5, 27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lebaka et al (2014, Available online 15 November 2014. Bioresources and Bioprocessing, 10.1186/s40643-014-0022-8, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Lebaka} in view of Burphan et al (2018, Available online 30 August 2018. Scientific Reports, 10.1038/s41598-018-31558-4, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Burphan} as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 20, 24-26, 28-29, in further view of Pontonio et al (2019, Frontiers in Microbiology, Examiner cited) {herein Pontonio} as evidenced by Gouado et al. (2007, Available online 18 July 2007, EJCN, doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602841, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Gouado}, Medicinenet (2022, What Is Horse Gram, and Is It Good for Your Health,? https://www.medicinenet.com/what_is_horse_gram_and_is_it_good_for_your_health/article.htm, examiner cited) {herein Medicinenet} and Crop Trust (2024, Finger millet, https://www.croptrust.org/pgrfa-hub/crops-countries-and-genebanks/crops/finger-millet/, cited on PTO-892 filed 3/13/2024) {herein Finger Millet} is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 to remove the recitation ‘lutein.’
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 6-7, 9, 32 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonarski et al (Date of Publication: 18 August 2020 , LWT-Food Science and Technology, Examiner cited) {herein Leonarski}. The new rejection is necessitation by Applicant amendment of claim 1 to remove the recitation ‘lutein.’
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 32 are drawn to a method of increasing ethanol yield comprising adding a composition that contains at least one plant-based antioxidant in an amount effective to increase ethanol yield by at least 0.5% during an ethanol production process, wherein the at least one plant-based antioxidant is selected from the group consisting of spearmint extract, green tea extract, rosemary extract, acerola extract, tocopherols, and blends thereof, and wherein the at least one plant-based antioxidant counteracts heat and/or ethanol stress in yeast during fermentation-at temperatures of at least 37°C or above.
With respect to claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 32, Leonarski teaches a method for increasing ethanol concentration by utilizing a composition comprised of yeast, water, green tea extract and acerola extract (abstract; page 1, column 1, para 1; page 2, column 1, para 4-5). The acerola extract has important polyphenolic compounds, which contribute to a high antioxidant activity (page 2, column 1, para 1). The acerola extract was carried out at concentrations of 1, 3, 5% (w/v) to yield extracts with varied total phenolic content (page 2, column 1, para 7). Ethanol production is increased by more than 0.5% overtime (fig 1B and 1D). In addition, Leonarski teaches the starter culture (yeasts) were maintained in a liquid solution of green tea extract at 100C (page 2, column 1, para 4-5) before the addition of acerola extract. Since Leonarski teaches the structure of ‘a method of increasing ethanol yield comprising adding a composition that contains at least one plant-based antioxidant in an amount effective to increase ethanol yield by at least 0.5% during an ethanol production process,’ it is the Examiner’s position that Leonarski would necessarily teach, ‘wherein the at least one plant-based antioxidant counteracts heat and/or ethanol stress in yeast during fermentation-at temperatures of at least 37°C or above,’ as recited in the instant application claim 1. Although the reference of Leonarski does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 2 (wherein the composition contains the at least one plant-based antioxidant in an amount ranging from 1 mg/L to 5000 mg/L.), MPEP 2144.05 states"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)." One of ordinary skill would desire to optimize the amount of antioxidant depending on the particular application. It would be routine for one to arrive at the amount of antioxidant for the application they intend on using the method. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious.
Claims 4-5 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonarski et al (2021, LWT-Food Science and Technology, Examiner cited) {herein Leonarski} in view of Pontonio et al (2019, Frontiers in Microbiology, cited on PTO-892 dated 9/26/2025) {herein Pontonio}. The new rejection is necessitation by Applicant amendment of claim 1 to remove the recitation ‘lutein.’
As amended, claim 4 is drawn to wherein the composition further comprises at least one synthetic antioxidant in an amount ranging from 0.0001 mg/L to 100 mg/L.
As amended, claim 5 is drawn to wherein the at least one synthetic antioxidant is selected from the group consisting of tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ),butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), and blends thereof.
The teachings of Leonarski as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 32 are set forth in the 103 rejection above.
However, Leonarski does not teach the method of claims 4-5 and 27, wherein the at least one synthetic antioxidant is selected from the group consisting of tert- butylhydroquinone (TBHQ), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), or blends thereof (claims 4-5).
With respect to claims 4-5, Pontonio teaches a synthetic antioxidant, BHT, used in pomegranate juice for its radical scavenging activity (page 4, column 1, para 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Leonarski et al of a method of a method for increasing ethanol concentration by utilizing a composition comprised of yeast, water, green tea extract and acerola extract (abstract; page 1, column 1, para 1; page 2, column 1, para 4-5) or combine the teachings of Pontonio because Pontonio teaches a synthetic antioxidant, BHT, used in pomegranate juice for its radical scavenging activity (page 4, column 1, para 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to either use the teachings of Leonarski et al. by itself or combine the teachings of Pontonio because Pontonio provides the motivation for Leonarski to utilize BHT as a synthetic antioxidant during fermentation as Pontonio teaches BHT scavenges radical cations during fermentation (figure 2), thereby significantly inhibiting linoleic acid peroxidase (abstract) which could lead to premature spoilage. One of ordinary skill in the art knowing the benefit of antioxidants both natural and synthetic based on the teachings of Leonarski and Pontonio would have a reasonable expectation of success that utilizing the synthetic antioxidant BHT taught by Pontonio would enhanced the fermentation process as Pontonio teaches fermentation with BHT reduces the free radicals in juice based fermented product (Pontonio: fig 2) thereby resulting in a product that is suitable for consumption (Pontonio: abstract). In addition, utilizing a synthetic antioxidant such as BHT would reduce the costs associated with fermentation as synthetic antioxidants typically have longer shelf-lives, thereby result in a more cost effective fermentation process.
One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to make and use the claimed method for increasing ethanol yield by adding synthetic antioxidant, BHT, because Leonarski provides the basic method of increasing ethanol yield utilizing a plant-based antioxidant (green tea extract and acerola extract) and its uses and methods of making it. Reference Pontonio provides the teaching of using a synthetic antioxidant, BHT, for its radical scavenging activity (page 4, column 1, para 1). Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the above invention. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 8 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonarski et al (2021, LWT-Food Science and Technology, Examiner cited) {herein Leonarski} in view of Martinez-Gomez et al. (2020, Available online 4 March 2020. Biomolecules, doi.org/10.3390/biom10030400, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Martinez-Gomez}. The new rejection is necessitation by Applicant amendment of claim 1 to remove the recitation ‘lutein.’
As amended, claim 8 is drawn to wherein the composition is added to a mixture comprising a grain, a water, and a yeast (claim 8).
The teachings of Leonarski as applied to claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 32 are set forth in the 103 rejection above.
However, Leonarski does not teach wherein the composition is added to a mixture comprising grain, though it teaches adding to a water and a yeast (claim 8).
With respect to claim 8, Martinez-Gomez teaches corn is an adjuvant for fermentation (page 1, paragraph 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Leonarski et al of a method of a method for increasing ethanol concentration by utilizing a composition comprised of yeast, water, green tea extract and acerola extract (abstract; page 1, column 1, para 1; page 2, column 1, para 4-5) or combine the teachings of Martinez because Martinez-Gomez teaches corn is an adjuvant for fermentation (page 1, paragraph 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to either use the teachings of Leonarski et al. by itself or combine the teachings of Martinez-Gomez because Martinez-Gomez provides the motivation for Leonarski to use corn in the fermentation process as Martinez-Gomez teaches corn is a raw material chemical source for fermentation (page 1, para 1) and corn is readily utilized in the field for fermentation. One of ordinary skill in the art knowing the benefit of antioxidants based on the teachings of Leonarski would have a reasonable expectation of success that utilizing corn as an adjuvant in fermentation would result in an increase in ethanol product in the presence of an antioxidant since Martinez-Gomez teaches corn as a raw material source of chemicals for fermentation (page 1, para 1). Furthermore, corn is readily available and has a long shelf-life, when stored appropriately, therefore its use as an energy source (source of sugar) would be cost effective.
One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to make and use the claimed method for increasing ethanol yield with an antioxidant and corn because Leonarski provides the basic method of increasing ethanol yield utilizing a plant-based antioxidant and its uses and methods of making it. Whereas, Martinez-Gomez teaches corn is an adjuvant for fermentation (page 1, paragraph 1). Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the above invention. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20, 23-25, 28-29, 31, 33-34 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonarski et al (2021, LWT-Food Science and Technology, Examiner cited) {herein Leonarski} in view of Martinez-Gomez et al. (2020, Available online 4 March 2020. Biomolecules, doi.org/10.3390/biom10030400, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Martinez-Gomez}. The new rejection is necessitation by Applicant amendment of claim 1 to remove the recitation ‘lutein.’
As amended, claims 20, 23-25, 28-29, 33 are drawn to a method of increasing ethanol yield comprising adding a composition that contains at least one plant-based antioxidant in an amount ranging from 1 mg/L to 5000 mg/L to a fermentation vessel that contains a mixture of only grain, water, and yeast undergoing heat stress at temperatures of at least 37°C or above, wherein the composition is in an amount sufficient to counteract heat stress of the yeast at temperatures of at least 37°C or above, wherein the at least one plant- based antioxidant is selected from the group consisting of spearmint extract, green tea extract, rosemary extract, acerola extract, tocopherols, and blends thereof.
As amended, claims 31, 34 are drawn to a method of increasing ethanol yield comprising adding a composition that contains at least one plant-based antioxidant in an amount ranging from 1 mg/L to 5000 mg/L and effective to increase ethanol yield to a fermentation vessel that contains a mixture of corn mash, water, and yeast undergoing heat stress at temperatures of at least 37°C or above as compared with an ethanol yield to a fermentation vessel without adding an antioxidant, wherein the composition is in an amount enough to counteract heat stress of the yeast at temperatures of at least 37°C or above, wherein the at least one plant-based antioxidant is selected from the group consisting of spearmint extract, green tea extract, rosemary extract, acerola extract, tocopherols, and blends thereof.
With respect to claims 20, 24-25, 28-29, 31, 33-34, Leonarski teaches a method for increasing ethanol concentration by utilizing a composition comprised of yeast, water, green tea extract and acerola extract (abstract; page 1, column 1, para 1; page 2, column 1, para 4-5). Ethanol production is increased by more than 0.5% overtime (fig 1B and 1D). In addition, Leonarski teaches the starter cultures (yeasts) were maintained in a liquid solution of green tea extract at 100C (page 2, column 1, para 4-5) before the addition of acerola extract. Since Leonarski teaches the structure of ‘a method of increasing ethanol yield comprising adding a composition that contains at least one plant-based antioxidant in an amount effective to increase ethanol yield by at least 0.5% during an ethanol production process,’ it is the Examiner’s position that Leonarski would necessarily teach the recitation, ‘wherein the at least one plant-based antioxidant counteracts heat and/or ethanol stress in yeast during fermentation-at temperatures of at least 37°C or above,’ as recited in the instant application claim 1. Although the reference of Leonarski does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 24 (wherein the composition contains the at least one plant-based antioxidant in an amount ranging from 1 mg/L to 2000 mg/L.), MPEP 2144.05 states"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)." One of ordinary skill would desire to optimize the amount of antioxidant depending on the particular application. It would be routine for one to arrive at the amount of antioxidant for the application they intend on using the method. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious.
However, Leonarski does not teach a fermentation vessel that contains a mixture of grain, water, and yeast (claims 20, 31). Leonarski does not teach wherein the grain is corn mash (claim 23).
With respect to claims 20, 23, 31, Martinez-Gomez teaches corn is an adjuvant for fermentation (page 1, paragraph 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Leonarski et al of a method of a method for increasing ethanol concentration by utilizing a composition comprised of yeast, water, green tea extract and acerola extract (abstract; page 1, column 1, para 1; page 2, column 1, para 4-5) or combine the teachings of Martinez-Gomez because Martinez-Gomez teaches corn is an adjuvant for fermentation (page 1, paragraph 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to either use the teachings of Leonarski et al. by itself or combine the teachings of Martinez-Gomez because Martinez-Gomez provides the motivation for Leonarski to use corn in the fermentation process as Martinez-Gomez teaches corn is a raw material chemical source for fermentation (page 1, para 1) and corn is readily utilized in the field for fermentation. One of ordinary skill in the art knowing the benefit of antioxidants based on the teachings of Leonarski would have a reasonable expectation of success that utilizing corn as an adjuvant in fermentation would result in an increase in ethanol product in the presence of an antioxidant since Martinez-Gomez teaches corn as a raw material source of chemicals for fermentation (page 1, para 1). Furthermore, corn is readily available and has a long shelf-life, when stored appropriately, therefore its use as an energy source (source of sugar) would be cost effective.
One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to make and use the claimed method for increasing ethanol yield with an antioxidant and corn because Leonarski provides the basic method of increasing ethanol yield utilizing a plant-based antioxidant and its uses and methods of making it. Whereas, Martinez-Gomez teaches corn is an adjuvant for fermentation (page 1, paragraph 1). Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the above invention. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 26-27 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leonarski et al (2021, LWT-Food Science and Technology, Examiner cited) {herein Leonarski} in view of Martinez-Gomez et al. (2020, Available online 4 March 2020. Biomolecules, doi.org/10.3390/biom10030400, cited on PTO-892 filed 10/16/2023) {herein Martinez-Gomez} and in further view of Pontonio et al (2019, Frontiers in Microbiology, Examiner cited) {herein Pontonio}. The new rejection is necessitation by Applicant amendment of claim 1 to remove the recitation ‘lutein.’
The teachings of Leonarski in view of Martinez-Gomez as applied to claims 20, 23, 24-25, 28-29, 31, 33-34 are set forth in the 103 rejection above.
However, Leonarski and Martinez-Gomez do not teach wherein the composition further comprises at least one synthetic antioxidant in an amount ranging from 0.0001 mg/L to 100 mg/L (claim 26). Leonarski and Martinez-Gomez does not teach wherein the at least one synthetic antioxidant is selected from the group consisting of tert-butylhydroquinone (TBHQ), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT), and blends thereof (claim 27).
With respect to claims 26-27, Pontonio teaches a synthetic antioxidant, BHT, used in pomegranate juice for its radical scavenging activity (page 4, column 1, para 1). Although the reference of Leonarski in view of Pontonio do not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 26 (wherein the composition further comprises at least one synthetic antioxidant in an amount ranging from 0.0001 mg/L to 100 mg/L.), MPEP 2144.05 states"[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)." One of ordinary skill would desire to optimize the amount of antioxidant depending on the particular application. It would be routine for one to arrive at the amount of antioxidant for the application they intend on using the method. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Leonarski et al of a method of a method for increasing ethanol concentration by utilizing a composition comprised of yeast, water, green tea extract and acerola extract (abstract; page 1, column 1, para 1; page 2, column 1, para 4-5) or combine the teachings of Martinez-Gomez and Pontonio because Pontonio teaches a synthetic antioxidant, BHT, used in pomegranate juice for its radical scavenging activity (page 4, column 1, para 1). Whereas Martinez-Gomez teaches corn is an adjuvant for fermentation (page 1, paragraph 1).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to either use the teachings of Leonarski et al. by itself or combine the teachings of Martinez-Gomez and Pontonio because Pontonio provides the motivation for Leonarski, in view of Martinez-Gomez to utilize BHT as a synthetic antioxidant during fermentation as Pontonio teaches BHT scavenges radical cation during fermentation (figure 2), thereby significantly inhibiting linoleic acid peroxidase (abstract) which could lead to premature spoilage. One of ordinary skill in the art knowing the benefit of antioxidants both natural and synthetic based on the teachings of Leonarski, Martinez-Gomez and Pontonio would have a reasonable expectation of success that utilizing the synthetic antioxidant BHT taught by Pontonio would enhance the fermentation process as Pontonio teaches fermentation with BHT reduces the free radicals in juice based fermented product (Pontonio: fig 2) thereby resulting in a product that is suitable for consumption (Pontonio: abstract). In addition, utilizing a synthetic antioxidant such as BHT would reduce the costs associated with fermentation as synthetic antioxidants typically have longer shelf-lives, thereby result in a more cost effective fermentation process.
One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to make and use the claimed method for increasing ethanol yield by adding synthetic antioxidant, BHT, because Leonarski provides the basic method of increasing ethanol yield utilizing a plant-based antioxidant and its uses and methods of making it. Reference Pontonio provides the teaching of using a synthetic antioxidant, BHT, for its radical scavenging activity (page 4, column 1, para 1). Whereas Martinez-Gomez teaches corn is an adjuvant for fermentation (page 1, paragraph 1).Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the above invention. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-29, 31-34 are pending.
Claims 11-19, 21-22 stand withdrawn from consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 20, 23-29, 31-34 are pending and examined on its merits.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 20, 23-29, 31-34 are rejected.
No claims are in condition for allowance.
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 ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0360. The examiner can normally be reached mf 7:30a - 4:30p.
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, Manjunath Rao can be reached at 571-272-0939. 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.
/ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights