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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson et al. (US 20140261546A1), in view of Atwell et al. (J. Inst. Brew. 2017; 123: 70–76).
Regarding claim 1, Erickson teaches a method of managing the clean-in-place of a fermentation operation while improving fermentation efficiency (refer fig. 2, [0130]) comprising:
a. monitoring conductivity and pH with sensors (refer [0130] and fig. 2 disclosing sensors 16 and 18);
b. determining if parameter monitored by the sensors is within a predetermined range (refer [0130] disclosing sensors connected to a controller 20 that controls alkalinity source and ingredient supply based on data received from the sensors); and
c. modifying a clean-in-place program to bring the parameter within the predetermined range (refer [0130] disclosing sensors connected to a controller 20 that controls alkalinity source and ingredient supply based on data received from the sensors).
Regarding monitoring of sodium ion concentration, Erickson discloses monitoring conductivity and discloses (refer [0132]) that “as the conductivity of the use solution drops, typically the concentration of the carbonate, hydroxide, and/or other components in the use solution is reduced proportionally. The use solution can be replenished of components, including, but not limited to carbonate-based alkalinity source, secondary alkalinity source, surfactant, enzyme, and additional ingredients by delivering the components from a supply tank into the use solution. By monitoring the conductivity created by the ionizable materials in the aqueous solution, the concentration of the enzyme component and other surfactants and other ingredients can also be controlled quite closely. In a particular embodiment, the conductivity of the use solution is maintained between about 500 and 1500 .mu.siemens/cm to provide an adequate concentration of carbonate, hydroxide, and other ingredients such as enzyme and surfactant. Although measurements of conductivity have long been used as a means of investigating the properties of electrolytes in solution, such as dissociation, activity, formation of complexes, and hydrolysis, such measurements also provide the basis for instrumentation used in industry to detect the ionic contamination of water and to determine the concentration of simple electrolytic solutions (see Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, Volume I, pp. 1056-1058).” Erickson further discloses that alkaline source include sodium, concentration of which is being controlled by controller 20 based on readings received from the sensors (refer [0130]). Erickson discloses monitoring of alkaline source which includes sodium, therefore, it is implied or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sensors to monitor sodium ion concentration.
Additionally, Atwell teaching optimization of cleaning performance with varied levels of Na2CO3 in the detergent from NaOH degradation and determine maximum level that may be present before cleaning quality is impacted (refer abstract). Atwell establishes that sodium concentration impacts cleaning efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Erickson to monitor and control sodium ion concentration to achieve optimum cleaning.
Regarding claim 3, modified Erickson teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Erickson further teaches that alkalinity source in an amount between about 0.1 wt. % and about 5 wt. % (refer [0055]). "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 22-26, modified Erickson teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Limitations of claims 22-26 are claiming results achieved by the method of claim 1. Since modified Erickson teaches the method of claim 1, the results claimed in claims 22-26 are inherent.
Claim(s) 21, 27, 29, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 and 50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson et al. (US 2012/0329118A1), in view of Atwell et al. (J. Inst. Brew. 2017; 123: 70–76) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chisti et al. (Journal of Industrial Microbiology, t3 (1994) 201-207).
Regarding claim 21, modified Erickson teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Modified Erickson does not teach that the fermentation operation comprises 3-20 fermentation tanks and the method further comprises adjusting the fermentation parameter to be +/-10% in all the fermentation tanks.
Chisti teaches a clean-in-place system comprising a plurality of fermentation tanks interconnected with a flow pate (refer fig. 4), wherein the flow plate allows for transfer between fermentation tanks and provides a means for circulating COP fluids through any of the fermentation tanks (refer page 204 – left column).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of modified Erickson to include 3-20 fermentation tanks since Chisti establishes that use of plurality of fermentation tanks is known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that increasing number of tanks increases capacity by providing more volume for fermentation. Regarding the limitation “the fermentation parameter for each fermentation tank is within +/-10%”, court has held that "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 27, 42, and 43, Erickson teaches a method of managing the clean-in-place of a fermentation operation while improving fermentation efficiency (refer fig. 2, [0130]) comprising:
a. monitoring conductivity and pH with sensors (refer [0130] and fig. 2 disclosing sensors 16 and 18);
b. determining if parameter monitored by the sensors is within a predetermined range (refer [0130] disclosing sensors connected to a controller 20 that controls alkalinity source and ingredient supply based on data received from the sensors); and
c. modifying a clean-in-place program to bring the parameter within the predetermined range (refer [0130] disclosing sensors connected to a controller 20 that controls alkalinity source and ingredient supply based on data received from the sensors).
Regarding monitoring of sodium ion concentration, Erickson discloses monitoring conductivity and discloses (refer [0132]) that “as the conductivity of the use solution drops, typically the concentration of the carbonate, hydroxide, and/or other components in the use solution is reduced proportionally. The use solution can be replenished of components, including, but not limited to carbonate-based alkalinity source, secondary alkalinity source, surfactant, enzyme, and additional ingredients by delivering the components from a supply tank into the use solution. By monitoring the conductivity created by the ionizable materials in the aqueous solution, the concentration of the enzyme component and other surfactants and other ingredients can also be controlled quite closely. In a particular embodiment, the conductivity of the use solution is maintained between about 500 and 1500 .mu.siemens/cm to provide an adequate concentration of carbonate, hydroxide, and other ingredients such as enzyme and surfactant. Although measurements of conductivity have long been used as a means of investigating the properties of electrolytes in solution, such as dissociation, activity, formation of complexes, and hydrolysis, such measurements also provide the basis for instrumentation used in industry to detect the ionic contamination of water and to determine the concentration of simple electrolytic solutions (see Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, Volume I, pp. 1056-1058).” Erickson further discloses that alkaline source include sodium, concentration of which is being controlled by controller 20 based on readings received from the sensors (refer [0130]). Erickson discloses monitoring of alkaline source which includes sodium, therefore, it is implied or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sensors to monitor sodium ion concentration.
Additionally, Atwell teaching optimization of cleaning performance with varied levels of Na2CO3 in the detergent from NaOH degradation and determine maximum level that may be present before cleaning quality is impacted (refer abstract). Atwell establishes that sodium concentration impacts cleaning efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Erickson to monitor and control sodium ion concentration to achieve optimum cleaning.
Modified Erickson does not teach a plurality of fermentation tanks, and blending corn mash between fermentation tanks so that the fermentation parameter for each fermentation tank is within +/-10%.
Chisti teaches a clean-in-place system comprising a plurality of fermentation tanks interconnected with a flow pate (refer fig. 4), wherein the flow plate allows for transfer between fermentation tanks and provides a means for circulating COP fluids through any of the fermentation tanks (refer page 204 – left column).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of modified dErickson to include 3-20 fermentation tanks since Chisti establishes that use of plurality of fermentation tanks is known in the art and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that increasing number of tanks increases capacity by providing more volume for fermentation. Regarding the limitation “the fermentation parameter for each fermentation tank is within +/-10%” (as in claim 27), and “+/-5%” (as in claim 43), court has held that "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 29, modified Erickson teaches limitations of claim 27 as set forth above. Erickson further teaches that alkalinity source in an amount between about 0.1 wt. % and about 5 wt. % (refer [0055]). "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 44-48, modified Erickson teaches limitations of claim 27 as set forth above. Limitations of claims 44-48 are claimed to be result of the method of claim 27. Since modified Erickson teaches the method of claim 27, the results claimed in claims 44-48 are inherent.
Regarding claims 49-53, modified Erickson teaches limitations of claim 27 as set forth above. Erickson teaches that the controller (20) control alkalinity source supply (22) based on monitored fermentation parameter (Refer [0128]-[0132]). It is inherent that the controller comprises a software which enables control supply of chemicals/additives based on readings from instruments.
Claim(s) 54-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erickson et al. (US 2012/0329118A1), in view of Atwell et al. (J. Inst. Brew. 2017; 123: 70–76) and Chisti et al. (Journal of Industrial Microbiology, t3 (1994) 201-207) as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Macharia (US 2008/0109100).
Regarding claims 54-56, modified Erickson teaches limitations of claim 27 as set forth above. Modified Erickson does not teach generating an alert if the fermentation parameter is not within an acceptable range, wherein the alert is an email, mobile phone message, visual, or audio alert, wherein the alert is noted on a report.
Macharia teaches system and method for fermentation in biofuel production (abstract), wherein the system comprises various pumps, controllers and sensors (refer [0096]), wherein the sensors monitor conditions of and in the fermentation process (Refer [0110]), a computer system with one or more processors, and at least one memory medium (Refer [0115]), the computer system is connected to communication network and internet (refer [0115], [0123]), and teaches alerting an operator through control system alarms (Refer [0246]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of modified Erickson to generate an alert if the fermentation parameter is not within an acceptable range, wherein the alert is an email, mobile phone message, visual, or audio alert, wherein the alert is noted on a report to automate process control as taught by Macharia. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958), The court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments overcomes the rejection under 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101, therefore the rejections under 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 21-27, 29, and 42-56 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/19/2025 with regards to rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered, however, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of combination Erickson et al. (US 2012/0329118A1), and Atwell et al. (J. Inst. Brew. 2017; 123: 70–76) for rejection of claim 1, and combination of Erickson et al. (US 2012/0329118A1), Atwell et al. (J. Inst. Brew. 2017; 123: 70–76), and Chisti et al. (Journal of Industrial Microbiology, t3 (1994) 201-207) for rejection of claim 27.
Regarding rejection of claims 1 and 27, applicant argued that “Erickson discloses that the carbonate-based cleaning composition may contain sodium, however, Erickson does not disclose measuring a sodium ion concentration. Id at [0059]. Thus, Erickson describes monitoring carbonate content, hydroxide content, and/or pH of a cleaning solution”. This is not found to be persuasive because Erickson discloses monitoring conductivity and discloses (refer [0132]) that “as the conductivity of the use solution drops, typically the concentration of the carbonate, hydroxide, and/or other components in the use solution is reduced proportionally. The use solution can be replenished of components, including, but not limited to carbonate-based alkalinity source, secondary alkalinity source, surfactant, enzyme, and additional ingredients by delivering the components from a supply tank into the use solution. By monitoring the conductivity created by the ionizable materials in the aqueous solution, the concentration of the enzyme component and other surfactants and other ingredients can also be controlled quite closely. In a particular embodiment, the conductivity of the use solution is maintained between about 500 and 1500 .mu.siemens/cm to provide an adequate concentration of carbonate, hydroxide, and other ingredients such as enzyme and surfactant. Although measurements of conductivity have long been used as a means of investigating the properties of electrolytes in solution, such as dissociation, activity, formation of complexes, and hydrolysis, such measurements also provide the basis for instrumentation used in industry to detect the ionic contamination of water and to determine the concentration of simple electrolytic solutions (see Van Nostrand's Scientific Encyclopedia, 6th Edition, Volume I, pp. 1056-1058).” Erickson further discloses that alkaline source include sodium, concentration of which is being controlled by controller 20 based on readings received from the sensors (refer [0130]). Erickson discloses monitoring of alkaline source which includes sodium, therefore, it is implied or would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use sensors to monitor sodium ion concentration.
Additionally, Atwell teaching optimization of cleaning performance with varied levels of Na2CO3 in the detergent from NaOH degradation and determine maximum level that may be present before cleaning quality is impacted (refer abstract). Atwell establishes that sodium concentration impacts cleaning efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the method of Erickson to monitor and control sodium ion concentration to achieve optimum cleaning.
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 PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. 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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777
Prosecution Insights