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 1-8 in the reply filed on 3/12/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions.
Drawings
Figures 2-6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Figures 2-6 are described as implementations of US patent no. 8633003 which is prior art.
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 1,6 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “ the mixture of the whole stillage and the diluent produces a distillers corn oil” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended. The claim recites “ produces” but there is no recitation of processing step to produce the distiller’s corn oil. A recitation of just adding diluent to whole stillage does not lead to the production of distillers corn oil. In the preamble, the recitation of “ high protein product” is vague and indefinite because the term “ high” is relative. What would be considered as “ high protein”. ( for prior art application, the method in interpreted as comprising two steps of obtaining whole stillage and introducing diluent into the whole stillage)
In claim 6, step (b) has the same problem as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Bleyer ( 2015/0238881).
For claims 1-2, Bleyer discloses a method for producing additional distiller’s corn oil. The method comprises the steps of obtaining whole stillage from an ethanol plant and adding a diluent to the whole stillage. Bleyer discloses the whole stillage containing 11-13% total solid. The level of total suspended solid is reduced to a level below whole stillage. Stillage with a suspended solid content less than whole stillage and more than thin stillage is referred to as thick stillage having a total of 4-8% suspended solids. The diluent includes water, steam evaporated thin stillage, stickwater etc. Bleyer discloses “ stillage refers to a cloudy liquid produced during ethanol fermentation that includes solids, solubles, oils, organic acids, salt, proteins and various other components. It’s obtained from corn ethanol operations. Thus, the whole stillage has ethanol extracted thereform. The diluent includes water, thin stillage which has lower percentage of solid than the whole stillage. The thick stillage disclosed in Bleyer is a diluted stillage because it’s obtained by adding diluent to whole stillage. ( see paragraphs 0035, 0053-0055,0061-0063)
Bleyer discloses steps a and b of claim 1. The preamble of high protein product is not limiting because there is no step in the body of the claim to produce high protein product. The diluted stillage disclosed in Bleyer contains corn oil and the diluted stillage is produced by introducing a diluent into whole stillage. Thus, Bleyer discloses the limitation “ the mixture of the whole stillage and the diluent produced a distillers corn oil containing diluted stillage product”.
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.
Claim(s) 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bleyer ( 2015/0238881) in view of Zavattari ( DE 60112813).
For claim 3, Bleyer discloses that once stillage has been produced, the stillage processing can be introduced into fermentation process at different points in order to obtain certain products. Bleyer discloses the stillage is separated into at least one of high protein solids fractions, a stickwater fraction and oil fraction. The mechanical separation can be achieved with methods such as hydrocyclones, centrifugation, decanter centrifugation etc.. The stillage can be separated into a light phase which is substantially oil and a heavy phase which is substantially stickwater and high-protein solids. The light phase can be separated to produce a low solids stickwater fraction and oil fraction. The stickwater fraction can be recycled to the front end of the plant as enhanced backset to form the corn slurry. It can also be sent to the evaporators or any other suitable point in the ethanol fermentation process. The de-watered protein/oil fraction can be recovered as a separate product. Bleyer also discloses separating whole stillage into stillage and wet cake. ( see paragraphs 0032,0035,0053-0055,0067,0070-0082,0091,0097,0100)
For claim 5, Bleyer discloses high protein solids in stillage contains greater than 30% protein on a dry weight basis.
Bleyer does not disclose a shearing flow separator producing first underflow and first overflow having the characteristics as in claim 3, performing separation on the underflow and overflow as in claim 4, introducing diluent as in claim 6, and the separation mechanism as in claims 7,8.
Zavattari discloses a method for treating consumed glycol tube. Zavattari discloses separation can be carried out using hydrocyclone separator. In a hydrocyclone separator, water and particulates weighing less than a predetermined amount are generally discharged from an upper outlet, while liquid and particulates equal to or heavier than the predetermined weight are discharged from a lower outlet. ( see portion under the heading “ C. Separation of used and un-consumed abrasive grains)
Bleyer discloses separation of the diluted stillage can be carried out by known techniques including hydro-cyclone separator which is a type of shearing flow separator. As shown in Zavattari, separation in a hydro-cyclone separator will give an overflow fraction containing light substance while the underflow fraction contains heavier substance. When hydro-cyclone is used in Bleyer, it’s obvious the overflow fraction contains the lighter oil and lower solid material and the underflow fraction contains the heavier solids material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to subject different portions of the underflow fraction and different portions of overflow fraction to different separation methods depending on the targeted products desired. All the claimed separating processes such as evaporation, centrifugation are well known as disclosed in Bleyer. Bleyer also disclosed to subject the different products to different separation processes depending on end product desired. For example, it would have been obvious to subject fraction containing oil to evaporation device which would produce steam and oil/syrup and to further subject the mixture to further separation to produce individual ingredient. Bleyer discloses repeated separations is conducted to isolate singular substance. In paragraph 0082, Bleyer discloses “ once the first stickwater fraction has been produced, the low specific gravity fraction containing oil and high protein solids can be further dewatered or concentrated. The de-watered protein/oil fraction can be recovered as a separate product”. This disclosure explicitly teaches repeated separations can be conducted to obtain separate product. The particular process and fraction selected is a result-effective variable which can readily be determined by one skill in the art through routine experimentation depending on the product targeted. Bleyer discloses in paragraph 0063 that diluting liquid for the whole stillage can includes thin stillage, water, steam, water phase etc.. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to introduce any portion of the diluent to the whole stillage and any point in the ethanol fermentation process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roa-Espinosa discloses a process for separation of components from whole stillage.
Yandell discloses methods to lower oil content in distillers grains.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
April 11, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights