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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
103 Rejection
Applicant argues that the purpose in Cagley et al. is human food flavor improvement and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not rely on the reference, however the examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed below, Cagley et al. teaches ranges for both the temperature and residual sugar content that fall within the claimed ranges. Therefore, the examiner finds Cagley et al. as teaching processing sugar beet material under conditions resulting in claimed invention. It is well-established that the reason or motivation in the prior art need not be identical to applicant’s reason. Accordingly, because the prior art teaches the overlapping ranges, applicants’ arguments are not found persuasive.
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) 11-13. 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cagley et al. (5,112,638) in view of Rozas (H200005B).
With respect to claim 11, Cagley et al. teaches in Fig. 1 a system for managing throughput in a production facility (seen in Fig. 2a) for processing a sugar-containing crop material (beets; 8) to obtain a sugar beet pulp with an increased content of residual sugar (as Cagley et al. teaches a process of washing a sugar beet pulp using variable conditions that effect residual sugar content; Col. 19 lines 24-49), the system (Fig.1) comprising; a) a first detection apparatus to detect a dry matter content and a sugar content of the crop material (as indirectly taught in Col. 21 lines 51-65; which discloses controlling a diffuser based on detect dry weight and sugar content); b) a second detection apparatus (i.e. Gas Chromatographic analysis via Fig. 5) in communication (as the results of the analysis are used to set the operating characteristics of the diffuser, 100; as Cagley et al. teaches testing the sugar beet fiber prior to processing and after to ensure proper setting of the overall system used to process the fiber material; Col. 43 lines 36-62) with a fluid-based diffusion apparatus (100) to detect a processed sugar content of the fluid within the diffusion apparatus (100) when the crop material (8) is in the diffusion apparatus (100; as the chromatographic analysis can occur while crop material is in the diffusion; therefore, insofar has how the second detection is structurally defined relative to the system for managing throughput, the chromatographic analysis reads on the claimed limitation), said diffusion apparatus (100) having at least a plurality of operational modes (i.e. as Cagley et al. teaches controlling the diffuser such that various sugar content is achieved, hence reading on “a plurality of modes” insofar as how they are structurally defined; Col. 21 lines 51-57) corresponding to one or more operating parameters (i.e. temperature and water control), said diffusion apparatus operating at a diffuser temperature of about 55ºC to about 75ºC (50º to 70ºC; Col 16 lines 27-31), and a controller (i.e. as indirectly taught) for controlling an operation of the diffusion apparatus (100) in each operational mode (to achieve the disclosed temperature profile and residual sugar content; Col. 21 lines 1-6 and lines 51-57) and v) transmit a signal to the controller (i.e. the indirectly taught controller controlling the diffuser 100) for maintaining or changing the operational mode of the diffusion apparatus based on the determination in step (iv) to thereby produce the sugar beet pulp having a residual sugar content of about 15% to about 60% by weight of dry matter of the pulp (as Cagley et al. teaches the range of 10% to 20%, which falls withing the claimed ranged).
Cagley et al. remains silent regarding said diffusion apparatus having a diffuser retention time, a memory and processor configured to: i) receive the dry matter content and the processed sugar content from the first and second detectors; ii) compare the dry matter content and the processed sugar content; iii) generate a comparison value; and iv) determine whether the comparison value meets a threshold processed sugar yield target.
Rozas teaches a similar diffusion apparatus seen in the figure having a diffusion apparatus (B) having at least a plurality of operational modes (based on parameters like drive water flow, delay time and specific loss) comprising a diffuser time (as Rozas teaches parameters of residence time in the diffuser relative to the amount of water; [0029-0030]); a controller [0036] for controlling an operation of a diffusion apparatus (seen in the figure) in each operational mode (i.e. [0028]); and a memory and processor (as indirectly taught for performing the control and storing of data) configured to: receive dry matter content and the processed sugar (as the taught controller receive respective data related to the dry and sugar content of the material within the diffusion apparatus) from first and second detectors (1 and 10); compare the dry matter content and the processed sugar content (through the disclosed mathematical operations; see [0055-0065]); generate a comparison value (i.e. a determined variable); and determine whether the comparison value meets a threshold processed sugar yield target (as the determined variables are compared against reference values for the purpose of controlling the diffusion apparatus; [0062-0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Cagley et al. to include the different operating modes and diffusion draft parameters related to wash water as controlled by the controller and corresponding control logic, such that the sensed data from Cagley et al. is used to actively control the diffusion apparatus of Cagley using the structure and taught control logic of Rozas. Further, such a modification improves the quality of control, [0052], thereby improving the overall system of Cagley et al. by including an adaptive control characteristic for the diffusion apparatus.
With respect to claim 12, Cagley et al. as modified teaches the system wherein the threshold processed sugar yield target is generated by a second processor (as Rozas teaches a second processor 5 for determining the reference value that reads on the claimed “the threshold processed sugar yield target”).
With respect to claim 13, Cagley et al. as modified teaches the system wherein the first detection apparatus comprises a measurement apparatus (i.e. a mass spectrometry; Col. 7 lines 2-10) for measuring a raw sugar content of the crop material (8), preferably wherein the measurement apparatus (as disclosed in Col. 7 lines 2-10) uses spectrometry to measure the raw sugar content (as Cagley et al. teaches using mass spectrometry to measure material; see Col. 7 lines 2-10).
With respect to claim 16, Cagley et al. as modified teaches the system wherein the second processor (5 of Rozas) is configured to: a) receive a weight input indicating a quantity of the crop material (as Rozsa teaches Tfo, which is defined as a specific weight of beet used in the adaptive control of the diffusion apparatus); b) receive the dry matter content and the sugar content from the first detection apparatus (as the combination, as a whole, teaches the dry matter content and sugar content being detected in the system of Cagley et al.); and c) determine the threshold processed sugar yield target based on the weight input and the dry matter content (where the combination, as a whole, teaches the adaptive control being based on the target data, via Rozas, using the detected data from the detection of both the dry matter content and sugar content of the crop material).
With respect to claim 20, Cagley et al. as modified teaches the system wherein said diffusion apparatus (100) operates at the diffuser temperature of about 55ºC to about 69ºC (as Cagley et al. teaches the temperature being within 50º to 70ºC which falls into the claimed range; Col 16 lines 27-31).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cagley et al. (5,112,638) in view of Rozas (H200005B), as applied to claims 11 and 13, further in view of Beck (WO 2009017649A1).
With respect to claim 14, Cagley et al. as modified teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 13 but remains silent regarding a spectroscopic method selected from the group consisting of: infrared spectroscopy; mid-infrared spectroscopy; near infrared spectroscopy; Raman spectroscopy; hyperspectral imaging; refractometry; polarimetry; and a combination thereof.
Beck teaches a similar system that includes a spectroscopic method being an infrared spectroscopy (as Beck teaches on page 25, lines 14-26, using infrared reflectance spectroscopy for measuring crop material).
Because both Cagley et al. and Beck teaches methods for measuring characteristics of a crop using spectroscopic methods, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to substitute the spectroscopic method of Cagley with the infrared reflectance spectroscopy of Beck to achieve the predictable results of measuring variation of a crop material. Further, such a modification aids in the speed and non-destructiveness of measuring a sample through minimum preparation, thereby improving the speed and accuracy of the measurement process taught in Cagley et al.
With respect to claim 15, Cagley et al. as modified teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 11 but remains silent regarding the system further comprising a third detection apparatus in communication with the diffusion apparatus to detect a crude protein content of a pulp formed from the crop material within the diffusion apparatus.
Beck teaches a similar system that includes analytical tool (page 5, line 23 to page 6 line 24) as a detection apparatus to detect a crude protein content of a pulp formed from the crop material (as Beck discloses using analytical data to detect a crude protein of a pulp of crop material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the instant invention to modify the system of Cagley et al. to include the detection apparatus, i.e. analytical tool, to detect the pulp beet crop material in the diffusion apparatus of Cagley et al. because Beck teaches such a detection apparatus results in more accurate prediction results, page 5 line 23 to page 6 line 24, thereby improving the detection accuracy of Cagley et al.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cagley et al. (5,112,638) in view of Rozas (H200005B).
With respect to claim 19, Cagley et al. as modified by Rozas teaches all that is claimed in the above rejection of claim 11, by remains silent regarding wherein the residual sugar content is about 30% to about 60% by weight of the dry matter of the pulp.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modified the controllable diffuser operation modes such that the residual sugar content is about 30% to about 60% by weight of the dry matter of the pulp, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233
The proposed modification is supported by the prior art, as Cagley et al. teaches such a modification ensures the sugarbeet controllable diffusion process produces a healthier or more suitable food product, Col. 21 lines 31-50.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Medoff (10,508,291) which teaches a biomass processing system involving the detection of materials and comparing the detected levels against thresholds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW G MARINI whose telephone number is (571)272-2676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Stephen Meier can be reached at 571-272-2149. 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.
/MATTHEW G MARINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights