Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/270,843

METHODS OF PRODUCING LOW-ACETAL ETHANOL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 04, 2023
Examiner
CARR, DEBORAH D
Art Unit
1691
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Superbrewed Food Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
861 granted / 1055 resolved
+21.6% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+0.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
35 currently pending
Career history
1090
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
31.2%
-8.8% vs TC avg
§102
28.2%
-11.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.7%
-14.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1055 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claim(s) 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/149150 A2 (WO’150) in view of Fukuhara et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,829,741, hereafter US’741), and further in view of Lussenden (U.S. Patent No. 8,293,998, hereafter US’998)ereafter US. Claim 6 WO’150 discloses a method for producing refined ethanol comprising: (a) providing an ethanol/water feed stream containing acetal impurities (claim 1; Tables 1–2); (b) contacting the feed stream with an acid catalyst to hydrolyze acetal to acetaldehyde (claim 5; paragraphs 73–76); and (c) distilling the hydrolysis product to obtain refined ethanol (claim 1). WO’150 does not explicitly disclose an acetal concentration of 20–2000 ppm or hydrolysis of at least 20% of the acetal. However, U.S. Patent No. 7,829,741 teaches that acetal and aldehyde concentrations and conversion levels in ethanol purification are result-effective variables adjusted by routine variation of known parameters (col. 3, ll. 25–45; col. 6, ll. 10–35). U.S. Patent No. 8,293,998 further teaches partial acetal hydrolysis followed by distillation. Therefore, optimizing WO’150 to achieve the claimed ppm range and conversion level would have been obvious. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Claim 7 WO’150 discloses producing ethanol from a fermentation liquor, concentrating ethanol to fuel-grade levels, molecular sieve dehydration, and regeneration of the molecular sieve producing ethanol/water streams containing contaminants such as acetal, which are recycled within the process (paragraphs 31, 115–117). U.S. Patent No. 8,293,998 teaches recycling treated ethanol streams to fermentation and/or concentration steps to improve overall ethanol purity. Accordingly, the additional process steps recited in claim 7 would have been obvious. Claim 8 WO’150 teaches that only portions or fractions of ethanol streams containing impurities may be treated depending on process configuration (Figures; paragraphs 108–118). U.S. Patent No. 7,829,741 teaches treating only a fraction of a contaminated ethanol stream as a routine process design choice to manage throughput and catalyst usage (col. 6, ll. 20–40). Thus, contacting only 5–90 wt.% of the feed stream as claimed is an obvious optimization. See In re Peterson, supra. Claim 9 WO’150 discloses withdrawing distilled ethanol fractions containing acetal impurities, treating those fractions, and recycling treated streams to distillation or further purification stages (Figures; paragraphs 110–114). U.S. Patent No. 8,293,998 teaches multi-stage distillation with recycle of treated ethanol streams to upstream or downstream columns. Therefore, claim 9 would have been obvious. Claim 10 WO’150 expressly discloses mineral acids and acidic zeolites as acid catalysts for acetal hydrolysis (paragraph 76). U.S. Patent No. 7,829,741 teaches sulfonated polymer acid catalysts as interchangeable alternatives for aldehyde/acetal conversion in ethanol purification (col. 4, ll. 10–25). Accordingly, the catalyst selection of claim 10 is obvious. Conclusion WO’150 teaches the claimed process. The additional numerical ranges, fractional treatments, recycle configurations, and conversion thresholds constitute routine optimization of known result-effective variables, as supported by the applied U.S. patents. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH D CARR whose telephone number is (571)272-0637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10:30 am -7:00 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, Renee Claytor can be reached at 572-272-8394. 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. /DEBORAH D CARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 04, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600692
PRODUCTION AND PURIFICATION OF ACETIC ACID
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600693
METHOD FOR PRODUCING COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590055
PROCESS FOR PRODUCING ISOCYANATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582598
A TOPICAL ANTI-INFLAMMATORY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITION COMPRISING ZILEUTON
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582627
MCT FORMULATIONS FOR IMPROVING COGNITIVE FUNCTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
82%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+0.9%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1055 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month