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 Objections
Claims 24, 26 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 24, in line 4 delete “Wherein” and insert “wherein”.
In line 4, delete “a same concentrations” and insert “the same concentration”.
Regarding claim 26, in line 2 delete “and” before “wherein sodium ions”.
In line 3, insert “,” after “brine retentate” and insert “wherein” before “chlorine ions”.
Regarding claim 28, in line 2 insert “cleaned” before “brine”.
In line 3, insert “contaminated” before “brine”.
In line 4, delete “a same concentrations” and insert “the same concentration”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 24, in line 1 the limitation “the first fractions” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 1 recites “a first fraction”.
In line 4, the limitation “are estimated to contain” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the following limitation of “same concentrations of NaCl and CaCl2” is required and obtained by the claimed process.
Regarding claim 25, the limitation “dimensioning a flow of the contaminated brine” lacks antecedent basis since the term in claim 1 was amended to instead recite “measuring.” The inconsistent terminology is ambiguous as to whether the process requires “dimensioning” or “measuring”, and it is unclear how the two are distinguished.
In line 4, the limitation “dimension a flow” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for “dimensioning a flow” above.
In line 5, the limitation “a first quantitative ratio” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the limitation is referring to that recited in claim 1, or a different “first quantitative ratio.”
Regarding claim 26, the limitations “a high degree” and “a very small degree” render the claim indefinite since the terms are relative.
Regarding claim 27, the limitation “wherein merging, in a controlled manner” lacks antecedent basis since claim 1 was amended to remove said limitation.
Regarding claim 28, the limitations “first fractions” and “second fractions” render the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for claim 24.
In line 4, the limitation “are estimated to contain” renders the claim indefinite for the same reasons stated for claim 24.
In lines 4-5, the limitation “NaCl and CaCl2” renders the claim indefinite since line 1 of the claim recites “sodium chloride and/or calcium chloride”. It is unclear if the two salts are alternatives as indicated by line 1, or if both are required as indicated by lines 4-5.
Regarding claim 29, the limitation “high level” renders the claim indefinite for the same reason stated for claim 26.
In line 4, the limitation “as much as possible” renders the claim indefinite since the boundary of the limitation is unclear.
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 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 1-6, 14-17, and 21-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art (AAPA) in view of Thomas (US 4,001,198 A), Marquardt et al. (US 4,497,836 A), Knoop (US 2020/0023293 A1), Mistry (US 2004/0101612 A1) and Irvine et al. (US 2,850,390 A).
Regarding claim 1, AAPA teaches a known, generic method for the treatment of brine in salt baths for salting cheese (Applicant’s specification page 6 lines 8-27) is characterized in that a cheese to be salted is introduced in batches or continuously into a predetermined volume of the brine in the salt bath, undergoes salting therein for a specified dwell time, and leaves the salt bath, in batches or continuously accordingly, as salted cheese. During the dwell time, the brine is circulated and, as a result of the salting process, a certain quantity of whey and other constituents from the cheese passes into the predetermined volume of the brine in the salt bath. To keep the predetermined volume constant, an excess volume of a brine contaminated by the whey and the constituents is discharged from the salt bath and the concentration and quantity losses of salt and water in the brine in the salt bath are compensated for. The discharged contaminated brine is separated by a first membrane separation method into a brine permeate cleaned of the whey and the constituents and a brine retentate contaminated with the whey and the constituents. A desalination of the contaminated brine retentate by means of a second membrane separation method is also provided, which is configured so that at least a portion of dissolved salt is transferred into a flow of receiving water and dissolved therein, the water and the salt dissolved therein form a clean brine, and a correspondingly desalinated contaminated brine retentate is discarded as wastewater. Finally, the cleaned brine permeate and the cleaned brine are conducted into the brine in the salt bath.
AAPA does not teach carrying a first fraction of dissolved salt in the cleaned brine permeate and a second fraction of dissolved salt in the contaminated brine retentate.
Marquardt et al. teaches a process for subjecting cheese whey to membrane filtration such as ultrafiltration (abstract), where the ultrafiltration yields a permeate having a significant portion of the mineral salt content of the whey, and “the remainder staying with the retentate” (column 3 lines 1-5). Thus, the reference teaches respective fractions of dissolved salt in the permeate and retentate.
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 process of AAPA such that salt fractions are dissolved in the cleaned brine permeate and contaminated brine retentate since the prior art recognizes such features during treatment and membrane separation of cheese whey into its components, to obtain a desired degree of separation between components having different molecular sizes as is known in the art, since the evidence of record does not indicate criticality or unexpected results associated with the feature, and to capture desired components for further treatment to obtain a revenue stream from the cheese whey waste (e.g., whey concentrate).
AAPA does not teach adjusting a first quantitative ratio between the cleaned brine permeate and the contaminated brine retentate in such a manner that the quantity of the contaminated brine retentate corresponds at least to the quantity of the whey and the other constituents that pass into the brine in the salt bath during the specified dwell time. It is noted the limitation “a first quantitative ratio” is interpreted in view of the specification to encompass a volume concentration factor (page 8 lines 3-4).
Thomas teaches a method of treating cheese whey by sequential ultrafiltration for “separating nutrients form cheese whey”, including “separating high purity protein and lactose products…in an economically feasible manner” (abstract; column 2 lines 33-39), where “the solid content of concentrate fractions in the membrane separation may be carefully controlled” (column 2 lines 51-55). The process includes adjusting a micrometer valve 82 to control pressure and feed material to obtain a desired solids level (column 7 lines 1-10). The parameters of membrane filtration are selected to provide filtration of desired components by size exclusion (column 7 line 65 to column 8 line 10), and filtration obtains divided fractions, where approximately 13% of the volume is whey concentrate i.e., retentate (column 8 lines 31-34). Since the process concentrates whey and other components based on volume of the feed cheese whey, the membrane filtration is construed to read on “adjusting a first quantitative ratio” as claimed. Likewise, the characteristics of the filtration can be controlled to selectively retain desired components, which would encompass the quantity of the whey and other constituents that pass into the brine during the salting.
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 process of AAPA to adjust a first quantitative ratio between the permeate and retentate since the prior art recognizes using a plurality of ultrafiltration stages to control which components and amounts thereof are removed from the solution into the retentate, and therefore to ensure all whey and other desirable components are captured for further treatment to obtain a revenue stream from the cheese whey waste (e.g., whey concentrate).
AAPA does not teach measuring a flow of the contaminated brine that is discharged in dependence with the adjusted first quantitative ratio in such a manner that a chloride content in the desalinated contaminated brine retentate does not exceed statutory limit for introduction of the desalinated contaminated brine retentate into surface water.
Knoop teaches a nutrient concentration and water recovery system for a waste stream (abstract), where separation methods such as reverse osmosis are used to extract chlorides from the wastewater, and water analysis of the flow stream can be used to determine best options for obtaining a desired reduction based on field test data (paragraphs 108 and 237).
Regarding the chloride content in the desalinated contaminated brine retentate not exceeding a statutory limit for introduction into surface water, Mistry teaches that environmental regulations limit the disposal of high chloride content waste due to potential toxicity (paragraph 6). The desalination is performed by membrane filters (paragraphs 21 and 25).
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 process of AAPA to include “measuring a flow of the contaminated brine…does not exceed statutory limit for introduction of the desalinated contaminated brine retentate into surface water” as claimed since the prior art recognizes that multiple membrane filtration steps can be used to increase recovery of waste stream components while separating salts, and reducing chloride content due to recognized toxicity, since the prior art recognizes that it is desirable to minimize salt and chloride content in wastewater that is to be disposed into surface water due to environmental regulations, since the evidence of record does not indicate unexpected results associated with the claimed features, and therefore in order to similarly optimize the process to reduce water requirements and processing costs while adhering to environmental regulations.
AAPA does not teach combining the cleaned brine permeate and the cleaned brine in a controlled second quantitative ratio, such that a resulting mixture of both components is concentrated to a salt concentration that corresponds at least to a required salt bath concentration.
However, the reference teaches the cleaned brine permeate and the cleaned brine are conducted into the brine in the salt bath as stated above.
Irvine et al. teaches a method to make cheese (column 1 lines 16-18), where a brine solution is employed using a controlled salt concentration to prevent excessive slowing of desired lactic acid formation within the cheese, which requires longer periods of time for the curd to reach a desired acidity (column 2 lines 17-25).
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 process of AAPA to mix the cleaned brine permeate and cleaned brine in a controlled second quantitative ratio as claimed since the prior art recognizes salt is present in both the permeate and retentate as explained above, and therefore to recycle the salt into the cheese-making brine at a concentration that provides the cheese with appropriate characteristics (e.g., taste) without hindering desired acid production therein.
Regarding claim 2, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches the first membrane separation as an ultrafiltration method as stated for said claim. The same combination is applied to claim 2 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding claims 3-4, the combination applied to claim 1 does not teach the second membrane separation method is an electrodialysis method.
Marquardt et al. further teaches the cheese whey is subjected to demineralizing electrodialysis after ultrafiltration (abstract), where electrodialysis is a process known in the art to facilitate control of mineral salt within the cheese whey (column 1 lines 12-16; column 3 lines 19-22).
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 process of AAPA to use electrodialysis as the second membrane separation method since AAPA already recognizes multiple separation methods, since the prior art teaches electrodialysis is a known method suitable for removing salt from cheese whey, since the evidence of record does not indicate unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and since it would have been “obvious to try” a known solution for removing salt from cheese whey, see MPEP 2143 I. (A) and (E).
Regarding claims 5 and 14-15, AAPA teaches sodium chloride and calcium chloride are known to be used for salting cheese (page 4 lines 9-16; page 7 lines 7-8).
Regardless, sodium chloride and calcium chloride are known to be used in cheese salting processes as taught by Marquardt et al. (column 5 lines 30 and 40-41).
Regarding claims 6 and 16-17, AAPA teaches additional constituents that pass from the cheese to the brine during the dwell time as stated for claim 1.
Marquardt et al. further teaches cheese whey is known to contain lactose, which can be separated from said cheese whey (column 1 lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 21, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches the first and second fractions comprise portions of dissolved salt carried across the first membrane separation method, wherein the first quantitative ratio is set as a volume concentration factor and the discharged water is treated to reduce the chloride concentration to a level below any statutory limit.
While the combination does not explicitly recite the limit is predetermined, it would have been prima facie obvious to predetermine said chloride concentration in order to design the membrane separations steps such that the necessary degree of chloride removal is obtained, thereby ensuring adherence to statutory regulations.
Regarding claim 22, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches flow of contaminated brine to the first membrane, and the predetermined statutory limit is obvious as state for claim 21.
Regarding controlling a feed flow of the contaminated brine, Knoop et al. further teaches the filters used in the system are available in different flow rates, and the actual flow rate of the units is dictated in part by feature such as organic loading and TSS of the infeed streams.
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 process of AAPA to control the flow rate of the contaminated brine since methods for controlling flow rate of a process stream are well-known in the art, since the amount of contaminated brine would have varied with process conditions such as manufacturing capacity, and to ensure optimal filtering of the cheese whey based on the factors taught by Knoop et al.
Regarding claims 23-24, the combination applied to claims 1-4 above teaches ultrafiltration and electrodialysis, the fraction of dissolved salt carried in the cleaned brine permeate, and the whey and other constituents in the contaminated brine retentate as stated for said claims. The same combination is applied to claims 23-24 and would have been obvious for the same reasons.
Regarding balancing quantitative flows, Knoop et al. further teaches mass balance calculations (paragraph 237) to define the recovery system. A controlled first quantitative ratio is rendered obvious for the reasons stated for claim 1. The same combination is applied to claim 23 and would have been obvious for the same reasons, particularly to ensure optimal separation of the protein and cheese constituents, brine, and chloride species such, thereby maximizing salt recapture for the brine and adhering to environmental limits for chloride in surface water.
Regarding claim 25, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches controlling the first quantitative ratio to remove desired components from the cheese whey.
Thomas further teaches controlling of the process parameters is performed based on the particular type of cheese whey being separated (column 7 lines 65-68).
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 process of AAPA to perform the claimed features by a controlling connection between the claimed components since the prior art recognizes adjusting filtration characteristics based on the type of cheese (and by extension cheese whey) being processed, and therefore to ensure optimal capture of all desired components from said cheese whey.
Regarding claim 26, the combination applied to claims 3-4 teaches electrodialysis as recited for said claim. AAPA teaches sodium and calcium are present in the process as stated for claims 5 and 14-15. The combination applied to claim 1 teaches that chlorine is present in the cheese wastewater, and that it is desirable to remove chlorine before disposing into surface water to adhere to regulations.
Since the process of the prior art combination appears to be the same as that of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected similar migration of sodium, calcium, and chlorine ions.
Regarding claim 27, the combination applied to claim 1 renders obvious controlling the salt content of the brine returned to the process, thereby ensuring optimal cheese processing conditions.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process to control the second quantitative ratio to correspond to the salt bath concentration for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches salt fractions carried along in the brine permeate and brine retentate, but does not teach the two contain the same concentration of salt.
However, the prior art combination appears to be the same process as Applicant’s claimed process. Further, the prior art recognizes controlling filtration to remove selective components as taught by Thomas. Absent evidence to the contrary, one of ordinary would have expected similar concentrations of salt within the retentate and permeate of the prior art combination.
Regarding claim 29, the combination applied to claims 1 and 28 render obvious salts present in the process.
The combination does not teach the ratio between sodium and calcium remains unchanged by the first separation method, and the calcium concentration in the salt bath is held a controlled level to compensate for an osmotic pressure of calcium ions from the cheese through additional dosing of calcium chloride solution into the bath.
However, the cited prior art does not teach or otherwise indicate that the ratio between sodium and calcium is changed by the first membrane separation method.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process to control the calcium concentration as claimed in order to ensure the cheese is processed under optimal conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument on pages 8-9 against the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b) or second paragraph for “does not exceed statutory limit for…” is persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but the amendments to claim 1 necessitated new grounds of rejection. Specifically, the amendments of “first fractions” and “second fractions” to “first fraction” and “second fraction,” “measuring a flow…” and “combining…in a controlled second quantitative ratio” changes the scope of the claim. Jolkin and Gennip are no longer relied upon.
Applicant argues Jolkin does not teach “adjusting a first quantitative ratio…” and “a mixture of both components is concentration to a salt concentration that corresponds at least to a required salt bath concentration.”
However, the amendment to claim 1 necessitated new grounds of rejection, where the amendment of “controlled second quantitative ratio” changes the scope of the claim such that Jolkin can no longer relied upon.
Applicant argues on page 10 that Knoop teaches a reverse osmosis system to remove chloride, the Office has not provided any reasoning why one skilled in the art would select the reverse osmosis system to remove chlorides, and has not pointed to where Knoop is directed to brine management problems with a cheese-salting bath.
This is not persuasive since the reverse osmosis system of Knoop is not incorporated into the combination. The reference is relied on to teach that the prior art recognizes extracting chlorides from wastewater in general, and that flow stream analysis can be used to determine best options for obtain a desired reduction. AAPA already teaches cheese brine management comprising a second membrane filtering method to desalinate contaminated brine (thereby reducing chloride content along with the removed sodium and calcium), and Mistry teaches environmental regulations limit disposal of high chloride content waste due to toxicity, where membranes can be used for desalination. Therefore, the cited teachings suggest and motivate one of ordinary skill to reduce the chloride content of AAPA before discharging the waste.
Applicant’s arguments against the dependent claims are not persuasive for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sanderson et al. (US 5,783,237) teaches a process for recovery and reuse of a salt solution obtained from salty effluent from the manufacture of cheese (abstract; column 1 lines 6-9), where whey solids are filtered from the salty whey solution and the salty permeate is treated to remove water thus increasing salt concentration (figure 1; column 2 lines 42-50).
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 BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571)-270-3475. 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.
/B.K/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights