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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-13 and 16 in the reply filed on 04/07/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-15 and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show any text describing the steps as described in the specification. FIG 1-3 show empty boxes with no text. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code on pages 19 and 22. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “at least 10 different microbial strains”, and the claim also recites “more optionally at least 30 different microbial strains” and “optionally at least 50 different microbial strains”, which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lalou (Food chemistry 244 (2018): 266-274, of record in IDS).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Lalou teaches mixing Hanseniaspora uvarum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae at different ratios (i.e., microbial strain mixture including at least two microbial strains having different quantitative composition ratios) (Table 1 column “H/S”). Lalou teaches performing 27 different fermentation processes of grape must using the different ratios of the microbial strains (Table 1, Abstract). Lalou teaches determining the responses for each fermentation, such as the cell viability and the concentration of ethanol, alcohols, esters, and acetoin (i.e., determining, for each of the fermentation processes, at least one performance indicator of the microbial strain mixture) (Table 1, para. 2.4.1, 2.4.2). Lalou teaches that Taguchi design and ANOVA test were used to examine the effect of parameters that should be optimized in order to control the alcoholic fermentation of the concentrated grape must (i.e., providing the at least one performance indicator for each of the fermentation processes to a statistical model) (Abstract, para. 2.4.1 and para. 2.4.2). Lalou teaches selecting the optimal conditions that were further tested in next cycle (para 3.1.4), and teaches that the optimized conditions resulted in an alcoholic product that meets ethanol and residual
sugar content requirements (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Lalou teaches that fermentation for each strain mixture ratio was repeated more than one time (Table 1, para. 2.4.1).
Regarding claim 3, Lalou teaches, that based on the Tauchi design and ANOVA test, an optimized cell ratio was determined to be used in next cycle, and teaches comparing the fermentation by Hanseniaspora uvarum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae mixture to the fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae alone (Table 2) as well as comparing the results of the fermentations with different H/S ratios (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Lalou teaches multiple fermentations using yeast mixture with different cell ratios, and teaches comparing the fermentation results to that of predetermined ratio (Table 1, Run No. 1 vs Run no. 10 and 19, Fig. 1). Lalou teaches that all 27 experiments were carried out in duplicate in 100 mL Erlenmeyer flasks (i.e., the fermentation process is concurrently performed) (para. 2.4.1). Lalou teaches measuring the cell viability and the concentration of ethanol, alcohols, esters, and acetoin for each fermentation (i.e., at least one reference performance indicator of the reference microbial strain mixture is determined) (Table 1). Lalou teaches analyzing the fermentation results from the Taguchi design using statistical software ANOVA, and teaches that the conditions for the subsequent fermentation experiments were selected on the basis of optimized responses taking into account the contribution of each parameter to their formation (para. 2.4.2. Data analysis).
Regarding claim 6, Lalou teaches measuring the acetoin concentration following the fermentation (i.e., acidification indicator) (Table 1, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Lalou teaches measuring the alcohol concentration following the fermentation (i.e., performance indicator is associated to a fermentation process parameter) (Table 1, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Lalou teaches that, for each fermentation, multiple responses were recorded, such as the cell viability and the concentration of ethanol, alcohols, esters, and acetoin (Table 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-10, 12-13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalou in view of Fernandez (Control Engineering Practice 103 (2020): 104608).
Regarding claims 1-7, 12, and 16, Lalou teaches mixing Hanseniaspora uvarum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae at different ratios (i.e., microbial strain mixture including at least two microbial strains having different quantitative composition ratios) (Table 1). Lalou teaches performing 27 different fermentation processes of grape must using the different ratios of the microbial strains (Table 1, Abstract). Lalou teaches determining the responses for each fermentation, such as the cell viability and the concentration of ethanol, alcohols, esters, and acetoin (i.e., determining, for each of the fermentation processes, at least one performance indicator of the microbial strain mixture) (Table 1, para. 2.4.1, 2.4.2). Lalou teaches that Taguchi design and ANOVA test were used to examine the effect of parameters that should be optimized in order to control the alcoholic fermentation of the concentrated grape must (i.e., providing the at least one performance indicator for each of the fermentation processes to a statistical model) (Abstract, para. 2.4.1 and para. 2.4.2). Lalou teaches selecting the optimal conditions that were further tested in next cycle (para 3.1.4), and teaches the optimized conditions resulted in an alcoholic product that meets ethanol (79 g/kg) and residual
sugar (164 g/kg) content requirements (Abstract). Lalou teaches that fermentation for each strain mixture ratio was repeated 3 times (Table 1). Lalou teaches that based on the Tauchi design and ANOVA test, an optimized cell ratio was determined to be used in next cycle, and teaches comparing the fermentation by Hanseniaspora uvarum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae mixture to the fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae alone (Table 2). Lalou teaches multiple fermentations using yeast mixture with different cell ratios, and teaches comparing the fermentation results to that of predetermined ratio (Table 1, Run No. 1 vs Run no. 10 and 19). Lalou teaches that all 27 experiments were carried out in duplicate in 100 mL Erlenmeyer flasks (i.e., the fermentation process is concurrently performed) (para. 2.4.1). Lalou teaches measuring the cell viability and the concentration of ethanol, alcohols, esters, and acetoin for each fermentation (i.e., at least one reference performance indicator of the reference microbial strain mixture is determined) (Table 1). Lalou teaches analyzing the fermentation results from the Taguchi design using statistical software ANOVA and teaches that the conditions for the subsequent fermentation experiments were selected on the basis of optimized responses taking into account the contribution of each parameter to their formation (para. 2.4.2. Data analysis). Lalou teaches measuring the acetoin concentration following the fermentation (i.e., acidification indicator) (Table 1, Fig. 1). Lalou teaches measuring the alcohol concentration following the fermentation (i.e., performance indicator is associated to a fermentation process parameter) (Table 1, Fig. 1). Lalou does not teach the statistical model is a Bayesian optimization model wherein the objective function to be optimized is approximated by a Gaussian process.
However, Fernandez teaches Bayesian estimators based on Gaussian processes were designed to describe the variation of cell and ethanol concentrations during fermentation of wine in order to make the right decisions to obtain a high
quality product (Abstract). Fernandez teaches that this method allows real-time reporting, without further interventions, of what is happening inside the reactor is proposed to take timely corrective actions according to the criteria of the winemaker, avoiding the risk of losing production or having to face unforeseen expenses.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lalou’s method by using Bayesian estimators based on Gaussian processes as suggested by Fernandez. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to monitor the result of the fermentations, optimize the fermentation, and obtain a high-quality product. Since Lalou and Fernandez teach a desire to monitor the results of fermentation and optimize the reaction using statistical model, there is a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 8-10, Lalou teaches determining the effect of substrate on the fermentation and teaches using three different must from 3 harvest years (i.e., additives comprises metabolites, vitamins or chemicals) (Fig. 2, para. 3.2). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to optimize the fermentation using different substrates such as must from different years as suggested by Lalou in order to obtain a high-quality product.
Regarding claim 13, Fernandez teaches the method can track the concentration of any desired compound, as long as training data is available (page 2 left column para. 3). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to store the fermentation data in a database in order to be used as training data as suggested by Fernandez.
Claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lalou in view of Arevalo (Journal of applied microbiology 123.6 (2017): 1360-1372).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-7, 11-12, and 16, Lalou teaches mixing Hanseniaspora uvarum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae at different ratios (i.e., microbial strain mixture including at least two microbial strains having different quantitative composition ratios) (Table 1). Lalou teaches performing 27 different fermentation processes of grape must using the different ratios of the microbial strains (Table 1, Abstract). Lalou teaches determining the responses for each fermentation, such as the cell viability and the concentration of ethanol, alcohols, esters, and acetoin (i.e., determining, for each of the fermentation processes, at least one performance indicator of the microbial strain mixture) (Table 1, para. 2.4.1, 2.4.2). Lalou teaches that Taguchi design and ANOVA test were used to examine the effect of parameters that should be optimized in order to control the alcoholic fermentation of the concentrated grape must (i.e., providing the at least one performance indicator for each of the fermentation processes to a statistical model) (Abstract, para. 2.4.1 and para. 2.4.2). Lalou teaches selecting the optimal conditions that were further tested in next cycle (para 3.1.4), and teaches the optimized conditions resulted in an alcoholic product that meets ethanol (79 g/kg) and residual
sugar (164 g/kg) content requirements (Abstract). Lalou teaches that fermentation for each strain mixture ratio was repeated 3 times (Table 1). Lalou teaches that based on the Tauchi design and ANOVA test, an optimized cell ratio was determined to be used in next cycle, and teaches comparing the fermentation by Hanseniaspora uvarum and Saccharomyces cerevisiae mixture to the fermentation by Saccharomyces cerevisiae alone (Table 2). Lalou teaches multiple fermentations using yeast mixture with different cell ratios, and teaches comparing the fermentation results to that of predetermined ratio (Table 1, Run No. 1 vs Run no. 10 and 19). Lalou teaches that all 27 experiments were carried out in duplicate in 100 mL Erlenmeyer flasks (i.e., the fermentation process is concurrently performed) (para. 2.4.1). Lalou teaches measuring the cell viability and the concentration of ethanol, alcohols, esters, and acetoin for each fermentation (i.e., at least one reference performance indicator of the reference microbial strain mixture is determined) (Table 1). Lalou teaches analyzing the fermentation results from the Taguchi design using statistical software ANOVA and teaches that the conditions for the subsequent fermentation experiments were selected on the basis of optimized responses taking into account the contribution of each parameter to their formation (para. 2.4.2. Data analysis). Lalou teaches measuring the acetoin concentration following the fermentation (i.e., acidification indicator) (Table 1, Fig. 1). Lalou teaches measuring the alcohol concentration following the fermentation (i.e., performance indicator is associated to a fermentation process parameter) (Table 1, Fig. 1). Lalou does not teach selecting the microbial strains from a group of at least 10 different microbial strains.
However, Arevalo teaches a group of yeast with at least 10 different microbial strains including Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Table 2), and teaches the yeasts are used in food industries as starter culture for fermentation (Title).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lalou’s method by selecting two yeasts from the group of yeasts taught by Arevalo, as suggested by Arevalo. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so in order to test different yeasts and their effect on the fermentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY A CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-1661. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 CT with alternate Fridays off.
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, LOUISE W HUMPHREY can be reached at 571-272-5543. 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.
/MARY A CRUM/Examiner, Art Unit 1657
/THANE UNDERDAHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
Prosecution Insights