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 § 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 16-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarawan et al. (Bioresource Technology, Volume 286, August 2019, 121403) in view of Gupta et al. (Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, Volume 5, Issue 5, October 2017, Pages 4573-4582).
Claims 16: Sarawan et al. teach a method for separating biomass from a solution comprising biomass and at least one aroma compound the method comprising providing a solution comprising biomass and one or more aroma compounds in the form of fermentation inhibitory compounds (page 287, col. 1, para. 2). They teach that the method treat lignocellulosic compounds and detoxify the product using Activated Charcoal (AC) (page 3, col. 1, para. 1). The activated carbon will remove any aromatic compound present.
While Sarawan et al. do not disclose the specific type of aromatic compounds, it is well-known in the art as was shown previously, that aromatic compounds associated with lignin commonly include vanillin. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have reasonably concluded that aromatic compounds included common compounds such as vanillin.
Sarawan et al. do not teach membrane separation.
Gupta et al. teach a method of charcoal detoxification of an acid hydrolysate wherein following detoxification, the activated charcoal is recovered by filtering the suspension.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to use filtration to separate Sarawan et al.’s activated charcoal having the aromatic compound adsorbed thereon because the use of a known technique for its intended purpose, that is separation, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claim 17: the pH was adjusted to 5.0 (page 3, col. 1, para. 1).
Claim 18: the acid is acetic acid (CH3COOH)(page. 3, col. 1, para. 1).
Claim 19: the adsorbing agent is added at various amounts (page 3, col. 1, para. 1). While they do not specifically teach from 0.3% by weight to 3.0% by weight, Sarawan et al. clearly recognize the AC concentration as a result effective variable that is routinely optimized to result in the desired detoxification (page 2, col. 1, last paragraph; page 2, col. 2, para. 2). “[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.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claim 24: Sarawan et al. do not teach the temperature at which the separation occurs. However, given that there are no specific conditions of separation, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the temperature was room temperature which is typically from 20C-22C.
Claims 20-23, 25, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarawan et al. in view of Izumi et al.
Claim 20: Sarawan et al. do not teach the form of the AC.
Izumi et al. teach a method of adsorbing target compounds from a biomass and target compound mixture/solution (abstract). They teach the use of activated carbon is grade: 037-02115, made by WAKO JUNYAKUKOGYO K.K. [0114]. The SDS for grade: 037-02115, made by WAKO JUNYAKUKOGYO K.K. describes the activated carbon as a powder (see SDS Page, Product Name). While it doesn't designate a specific d50 size, it is well-known in the art that powders are typically small diameters of less than 100um (see PDF of Millipore Sigm a "Comparison of Granulated and Powdered Dehydrated Culture Media"), which includes the range of 2um to 25um. It is also well-known that the particle size is a routinely optimized variable that affects reactivity, stability in suspension, texture, flowability, viscosity, packing density, and porosity (AZO Materials, 2013). The size of a powder used for adsorption/absorption is a routinely optimized result effective variable that is chosen based on the size of the molecules to be absorbed/adsorbed and the size of the container for absorption/adsorption. "[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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Claims 21-23: Sarawan et al. do not teach that the filtration method is carried out as a cross-flow microfiltration or ultrafiltration at the specified speeds, i.e. velocity.
Izumi et al. teach that the target and adsorbent are separated using cross-flow filtration. Sterlitech teaches that the cross flow velocity of tangential flow filtration affects the hydrodynamic conditions and affects the fouling rate and the formation of concentration polarization (Sterlitech, 2016). It is clear that the cross flow velocity is routinely optimized to control the fouling rate and concentration polarization layer in typical experimentation. "[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." See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to try using Izumi et al.’s method of cross-flow filtration to separate Sarawan et al.’s supernatant from the AC adsorbed with aroma compound because cross-flow filtration is recognized by Izumi et al. as a suitable method in the art for separating adsorbent materials from fluid.
Claim 25: Sarawan et al. do not teach that the filtration method is carried out as a cross-flow microfiltration or ultrafiltration at the specified speeds, i.e. velocity.
Izumi et al. teach that the target and adsorbent are separated using cross-flow filtration.
They teach that the filtration includes use of an ultrafiltration membrane [0072] in which ultrafiltration is understood in the art to have a pore size of from 0.01 microns to 0.1 microns which overlaps with the claimed range of 20-800nm.
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to try using Izumi et al.’s method of cross-flow filtration to separate Sarawan et al.’s supernatant from the AC adsorbed with aroma compound because cross-flow filtration is recognized by Izumi et al. as a suitable method in the art for separating adsorbent materials from fluid.
Claim 26: Izumi et al. teaches a second filtration followed by reverse osmosis [0072].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have found it obvious to perform a second filtration followed by reverse osmosis for the benefit of further purifying the broth and removing all of the AC having the adsorbed target compounds.
Claim 27: Sarawan et al. do not teach the temperature at which the second membrane filtration is carried out. However, given that there are no specific conditions of separation, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the temperature was room temperature which is typically from 20C-22C.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 16-27 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.
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 ALLISON FITZSIMMONS whose telephone number is (571)270-1767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 am - 2:00 pm.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at (571)272-0475. 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.
ALLISON FITZSIMMONS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1773
/ALLISON G FITZSIMMONS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773