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 with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 05/04/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s):
(1) The restriction between the claims of Groups I and II at least because there would not be a serious burden on the Examiner to examine the claims of both groups together.
(2) The subject matter of Groups I and II are believed to be sufficiently related that a thorough search of the subject matter of one claim group would encompass a search of the subject matter of both claim groups.
This is not found persuasive because :
I. Claims 1-18, drawn to an extracting method, classified in B01D11/0288.
II. Claims 19-24, drawn to an apparatus (extractor), classified in C11B1/10.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case claim 19 requires a desolventizer configured to generate a second vapor stream, wherein a weight fraction of water in the second vapor stream is greater than a weight fraction of water in the first vapor stream.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Inventions I and II and have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
Inventions I and II and have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
Inventions I and II require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-24 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/04/2026.
Claim Objections
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is objected to due to the following informalities:In Claim 7, line 3, the word “stream” appears to be a typographical error. The applicant appears to have intended “steam” (see instant specification [0050]). Correction is required.
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 17 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.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5—9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson et al. (WO 2022183031 A1) herein known as Martinson, in view of Anderson (US 6996917 B2) herein known as Anderson.
PNG
media_image1.png
491
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Martinson, Fig. 3)
PNG
media_image2.png
437
579
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Fig.1 -2, Anderson)
Regarding Claims 1, 5-7, and 17, Martinson is directed to solvent extraction and, more particularly to liquid- solvent extraction using an alcohol-based solvent [0002].
Martinson discloses method comprising: extracting a material ([0008], [variety of different solid feedstock materials may be extracted and processed using an alcohol solvent, soybeans are one of the most common feedstocks]) to be processed with a solvent comprising alcohol in an extractor to generate an extracted material stream and a miscella stream ([0011], [0023]), the extracted material stream comprising extracted solid material wetted with liquid comprising alcohol and water (Abstract; [0008], [0009], [0023]); Martison further discloses desolventizing the extracted material stream thereby generating a desolventized extracted material, comprises water and the alcohol” (a desolventizing step using one or more of mechanical and/or thermal treatment to remove solvent from the solvent-wet solids stream, thereby producing a dried extracted solid material (which may also be referred to as a desolventized extracted solid material), see [0048]); water and alcohol can vaporize together to form recovered solvent stream 54, see [0057]).
However, Martinson is silent to desolventizing down to a first alcohol level thereby generating a first condensate, wherein the first condensate comprises water and the alcohol; further desolventizing the partially desolventized extracted material down to a second alcohol level less than the first alcohol level thereby generating a desolventized extracted material and a second condensate, wherein the second condensate comprises water and the alcohol, and a weight fraction of water in the second condensate is greater than a weight fraction of water in the first condensate (Claim 1), Wherein desolventizing the extracted material stream down to the first alcohol level comprises desolventizing the extracted material stream in a first desolventizing vessel; and desolventizing the partially desolventized extracted material comprises desolventizing the partially desolventized extracted material in a second desolventizing vessel different than the first desolventizing vessel (Claim 5) , wherein: desolventizing the extracted material stream in the first desolventizing vessel comprises conveying the extracted material stream from the extractor to the first desolventizing vessel and vaporizing solvent from the extracted material stream in the first desolventizing vessel under a first set of vaporization conditions; and desolventizing the partially extracted material in the second desolventizing vessel comprises conveying the partially extracted material from the first desolventizing vessel to the second desolventizing vessel and vaporizing solvent from the partially extracted material in the second desolventizing vessel under a second set of vaporization conditions (Claim 6), wherein the first set of vaporization conditions are different than the second set of vaporization conditions in one or more of temperature, pressure, and added stream (Claim 7), wherein the extracted material stream from the extractor prior to desolventizing comprises from 30 wt% to 50 wt% solvent based on a total weight of the extracted material stream, such as from 35 wt% to 45 wt% solvent (Claim 17).
Anderson is directed to a desolventizing system for removing solvent from a quantity of solvent-laden particles such as flakes comprises first and second desolventizer units (Abstract).
Anderson discloses desolventizing the extracted material stream (Col.4, Lines 48-50, [The mixture at this point in one process of interest may be about 32% solvent by weight, with <1% oil and about 13% water]) down to a first alcohol (solvent ) level thereby generating a partially desolventized extracted material and a first condensate, wherein the first condensate comprises water and the alcohol (Col. 4, Lines 65-67; Col. 5, Lines 1-4, [As the solvent converts from liquid to vapor within desolventizer unit 1 10 the solvent-steam vapor is drawn by a low vacuum pump (not shown) through the solvent ports 13 as shown by the arrows. The vapor is collected as highly concentrated solvent-steam vapor mixture at duct 17. The solvent and water can be condensed and separated by equipment not shown and the solvent reused]), (Col. 4, Lines 61-64, [Because the lower boiling point of the solvent, less of the water vaporizes within desolventizer unit 1 10 because the solvent has a lower boiling point than water. This solvent-steam vapor is highly concentrated (about 95%) solvent]); desolventizing the partially desolventized extracted material down to a second alcohol level less than the first alcohol level thereby generating a desolventized extracted material and a second condensate, wherein the second condensate comprises water and the alcohol, and a weight fraction of water in the second condensate is greater than a weight fraction of water in the first condensate (Claim 1) (Col. 5, Lines 44-46, [The atmosphere within desolventizer unit 2 11 reaches a state of approximately 30% hexane solvent, 60% steam, and 10% air]).
Anderson discloses the method wherein: desolventizing the extracted material stream down to the first alcohol (solvent ) level comprises desolventizing the extracted material stream in a first desolventizing vessel (desolventizer unit 1 10); and desolventizing the partially desolventized extracted material comprises desolventizing the partially desolventized extracted material in a second desolventizing vessel (desolventizer unit 2 11) different than the first desolventizing vessel (desolventizer unit 1 10); (Claim 5) (Col.5 , Lines 48-57; Fig. 1; Abstract, [a desolventizing system for removing solvent from a quantity of solvent-laden particles such as flakes comprises first and second desolventizer units]);
Anderson discloses wherein: desolventizing the extracted material stream in the first desolventizing vessel comprises conveying the extracted material stream from the extractor to the first desolventizing vessel and vaporizing solvent from the extracted material stream in the first desolventizing vessel under a first set of vaporization conditions; and desolventizing the partially extracted material in the second desolventizing vessel comprises conveying the partially extracted material from the first desolventizing vessel to the second desolventizing vessel and vaporizing solvent from the partially extracted material in the second desolventizing vessel under a second set of vaporization conditions (Claim 6) , wherein the first set of vaporization conditions are different than the second set of vaporization conditions in one or more of temperature, pressure, and added stream (Claim 7), (Abstract, [The solvent trap has a vent preferably in the upper part of the trap for connection to a vacuum source that maintains a partial vacuum within both the solvent trap and the second desolventizer unit allowing liquid solvent and water permeating particles within the second desolventizer unit to vaporize efficiently at a relatively low temperature]; Col. 4, Lines 55-60, [Heat is applied to the volume of flakes as they traverse through desolventizer unit 1 10, causing the temperature of the solvent-water mixture permeating the flakes to rise from 142.degree. F. to about 160.degree. F. This causes most of the solvent and some of the water to vaporize forming a solvent-steam vapor that fills the volume of desolventizer unit 1 10]; Col.5, Lines 28-37, [Upon entering unit desolventizer 2 11, the flakes undergo another stage of desolventizing at the partial vacuum of -7 psig. within unit 2 11. This partial vacuum lowers the boiling point of both the liquid solvent and the water within desolventizer unit 2 11. The solvent and water within desolventizer unit 2 11 thus vaporizes at a lower temperature than when at atmospheric pressure. Accordingly, the temperature within desolventizer unit 2 11 can be kept lower, thereby avoiding reduction of the flake protein dispersability index]; Col. 5, Lines 37-44, [During traverse of the flakes through desolventizer unit 2 11, the flake temperature is maintained at about 160.degree. F. At -7 psig., the boiling point of water is around 180.degree. F. and the boiling point of the hexane solvent involved here is around 135.degree. F. At the flake temperature of 160.degree. F., most of the remaining solvent vaporizes, and much of the water evaporates as well]).
Anderson discloses wherein the extracted material stream from the extractor prior to desolventizing comprises from 30 wt% to 50 wt% solvent based on a total weight of the extracted material stream, such as from 35 wt% to 45 wt% solvent (Claim 17) ( Col. 4, Lines 45-50, [In operation, a continuous volume of solvent-laden flakes from a previous stage of the solvent extraction process passes through an airlock 12 to the inlet 15 of desolventizer unit 10. The mixture at this point in one process of interest may be about 32% solvent by weight, with <1% oil and about 13% water]).
Anderson also discloses FIG. 1 shows one version of the invention intended to remove a very high percentage of solvent permeating a quantity of particulate vegetable material of various shapes (hereafter "flakes" or "flaked material" for convenience) (Col. 2, Lines 61-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Martinson ‘s method by incoporating the two-stage desolventizing method and system as disclosed by Anderson to Martinson’s known material extraction method using alcohol solvent would have yielded predictable result (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)), in order to remove a very high percentage of solvent permeating a quantity of particulate vegetable material of various shapes (See Anderson, [Col. 2, Lines 61-65]) and the partial vacuum lowers the boiling point of both the liquid solvent and the water within desolventizer unit 2 thus vaporizes at a lower temperature than when at atmospheric pressure. Accordingly, the temperature within desolventizer unit 2 can be kept lower, thereby avoiding reduction of the flake (See Anderson, [Col.5, Lines 28-37]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8, Martinson discloses wherein: desolventizing the extracted material stream in the first desolventizing vessel comprises desolventizing the extracted material stream in the first desolventizing vessel without injecting steam into the first desolventizing vessel [0009].
However, Martinson is silent to desolventizing the partially extracted material in the second desolventizing vessel comprises introducing steam into the second desolventizing vessel.
Anderson discloses desolventizing the partially extracted material in the second desolventizing vessel comprises introducing steam into the second desolventizing vessel ( Col. 5, Lines 65-67; Col. 6, Lines 1-3, [ One possible advantageous modification to desolventizer unit 2 11 is injecting a sparging gas. A sparging gas inlet port 42 may be connected to a source of sparging gas such as steam (preferably) or nitrogen. A small amount of injected sparging gas may increase the amount of solvent vapor swept from the flakes]).
Regarding Claims 9, Martinson discloses the method wherein: the first desolventizing vessel is selected from the group consisting of a rotary disk dryer, a desolventizer-toaster, a down-draft desolventizer, a flash dryer, and combinations thereof ([0051], [desolventizer 16 can be implemented using a cooker, jacketed paddle mixer, bulk solids heat exchanger, and/or desolventizer-toaster]).
Additionally, Martinson (as modified by Anderson) teaches a second desolventizing vessel, therefore it would have been obvious for the second desolventizing vessel to be implemented using the known desolventizer-toaster configuration as further disclosed by Martinson, because Martinson explicitly identifies that the apparatus is suitable for performing desolventization. Thus the combination of Martison and Anderson teaches the claimed limitation.
Regarding Claims 18, Martinson discloses the method wherein the alcohol comprises ethanol [0007].
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson et al. (WO 2022183031 A1) herein known as Martinson, in view of Anderson (US 6996917 B2) herein known as Anderson, as applied to the claim above, and further in view of Hutchins (US 2695459 A) herein known as Hutchins.
PNG
media_image3.png
746
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 5. apparatus for removing adhering solvent from extracted solids, Hutchins)
PNG
media_image4.png
475
585
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 6. a diagram on a small scale illustrating the relationship of this apparatus to a solvent extraction system, Hutchins)
Regarding Claim 2-4, modified Martinson teaches all the limitations in the claim as set forth above.
However, modified Martinson is silent to wherein desolventizing the extracted material stream down to the first alcohol level and desolventizing the partially desolventized extracted material down to the second alcohol level comprises desolventizing the extracted material stream down to the first alcohol level and desolventizing the partially desolventized extracted material down to the second alcohol level in a single desolventizing vessel (Claim 2), wherein desolventizing the extracted material stream down to the first alcohol level and desolventizing the partially desolventized extracted material down to the second alcohol level in the single desolventizing vessel comprises: conveying the extracted material stream through the single desolventizing vessel and heating the extracted material stream as the extracted material stream is conveyed through the single desolventizing vessel; drawing a first vapor stream off the single desolventizing vessel and condensing the first vapor stream in a first condenser to form the first condensate; and drawing a second vapor stream off the single desolventizing vessel and condensing the second vapor stream in a second condenser to form the second condensate (Claim 3), wherein: conveying the extracted material stream through the single desolventizing vessel and heating the extracted material stream as the extracted material stream is conveyed through the single desolventizing vessel comprises progressively desolventizing the extracted material stream through the single desolventizing vessel; the partially desolventized extracted material is defined by the extracted material stream in the single desolventizing vessel downstream of a draw location of the first vapor stream; and the desolventized extracted material is a discharge product from the single desolventizing vessel (Claim 4).
Hutchins is directed to provide an improved method and apparatus for removing adhering solvent from extracted solids, which will effectively filter dust from the solvent vapors and provide a dust-free recovered solvent vapor and for removing solvent adhering to extracted solids from a continuous solvent extraction system (Col. 1, Lines 23-26 and 32-35).
Hutchins discloses wherein desolventizing the extracted material stream down to the first alcohol (solvent) level (desolventized and toasted in their passage through the chamber 1) and desolventizing the partially desolventized extracted material down to the second alcohol (solvent) level (desolventized and toasted in their passage through the chambers 2) comprises desolventizing the extracted material stream down to the first alcohol (solvent) level and desolventizing the partially desolventized extracted material down to the second alcohol level in a single desolventizing (desolventizing and toasting apparatus as shown in Fig 5) (claim 2) ( Fig. 5; Col. 2, Lines 30-34).
wherein desolventizing the extracted material stream down to the first alcohol level and desolventizing the partially desolventized extracted material down to the second alcohol level in the single desolventizing vessel comprises: conveying the extracted material stream through the single desolventizing vessel (desolventized and toasted in their passage through the chambers 1 to 4,) and heating the extracted material stream as the extracted material stream is conveyed through the single desolventizing vessel; drawing a first vapor stream off the single desolventizing vessel and condensing the first vapor stream in a first condenser to form the first condensate; and drawing a second vapor stream off the single desolventizing vessel and condensing the second vapor stream in a second condenser to form the second condensate (claim 3) ( Fig. 5; Col. 2, Lines 30-34; Col.4, Lines 25-29, [chamber A, and chamber C similarly opens continuously into chamber B through the perforated plate 55 in the bottom of chamber B, so that the vapors liberated in chambers B and C will rise into the chamber A and, if not condensed in chamber A, will pass out to the condenser 19]).
wherein: conveying the extracted material stream through the single desolventizing vessel and heating (heated chambers) the extracted material stream as the extracted material stream is conveyed through the single desolventizing vessel comprises progressively desolventizing the extracted material stream through the single desolventizing vessel (desolventized and toasted in their passage through the chambers 1 to 4); the partially desolventized extracted material is defined by the extracted material stream in the single desolventizing vessel downstream of a draw location of the first vapor stream; and the desolventized extracted material is a discharge product from the single desolventizing vessel (claim 4) (Col.2, Lines 30-35; Fig. 5-6; Col. 7, Lines 5-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Martinson ‘s method, as taught by Hutchins by incorporating the single desolventizing vessel method, as applying Hutchins ‘s known desolventizer method and apparatus to Martinson’s known material extraction method using alcohol solvent ready for improvement would have yielded predictable result (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)), in order to remove solvent adhering to extracted solids from a continuous solvent extraction system (See Hutchins, [(Col. 1, 32-35).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson et al. (WO 2022183031 A1) herein known as Martinson, in view of Anderson (US 6996917 B2) herein known as Anderson, as applied to the claim above, and further in view of in view of White et al. (20170252671 A1) herein known as White.
PNG
media_image5.png
349
721
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Fig.1, White)
Regarding Claim 10, modified Martinson teaches all the limitations in the claim as set forth above.
However, modified Martinson is silent to the method wherein the extractor comprises a solvent inlet, and further comprising recycling the first condensate back to the solvent inlet without performing further processing to remove water from the first condensate.
White is directed to extractors and, more particularly, to counter-current solvent extractors [0001].
White discloses the method wherein the extractor(100) comprises a solvent inlet ( first solvent inlet 134, the second solvent inlet 141, or an additional solvent inlet ), and further comprising recycling the first condensate back to the solvent inlet (second solvent inlet 141) without performing further processing to remove water from the first condensate ([0020]; [0051]) .
White also disclosed the first solvent inlet 134 is configured to spray new solvent into the extractor 100 and the second solvent inlet 141 is configured to spray recycled or recovered solvent into the extractor([0020].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Martinson ‘s method wherein the method wherein the extractor comprises a solvent inlet, and further comprising recycling the first condensate back to the solvent inlet without performing further processing to remove water from the first condensate, as taught by White, such that the recycled or recovered solvent can be sprayed into the extractor (See White, [0020]), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claims 14-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson et al. (WO 2022183031 A1) herein known as Martinson, in view of Anderson (US 6996917 B2) herein known as Anderson, as applied to the claim above, and in view of Kemper “meal desolventizing, toasting, drying and cooling” herein known as Kemper, and further in view of Karnofsky (US 3970764 ) herein known as Karnofsky.
PNG
media_image6.png
537
784
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 14-16, modified Martinson teaches all the limitations in the claim as set forth above.
However, modified Martinson is silent to wherein the first alcohol level is a value less than 12 wt% of the weight of the partially desolventized extracted material and greater than 3 wt% weight of the partially desolventized extracted material, and the first condensate stream comprises greater than 90 wt% alcohol and less than 10 wt% water (Claim 14), the method wherein the second condensate stream comprises greater than 75 wt% alcohol and from 2 wt% to 25 wt% water (Claim 15), wherein a difference in a weight fraction of water in the second condensate minus the weight fraction of water in the first condensate is a value within a range from 3% to 5% (Claim 16).
Kemper is directed to desolventizing, toasting, drying and cooling apparatus and Process (Section 2-3).
Kemper discloses de-oiled oilseed material enters the DT contains 25 to 35% by weight of solvent, After the wet meal exits the top DT countercurrent tray, it has had over 99% of its solvent removed (Section 3), which overlap the claimed wherein the first alcohol level is a value less than 12 wt% of the weight of the partially desolventized extracted material and greater than 3 wt% weight of the partially desolventized extracted material (Claim 14).
Karnofsky is directed to a vapor desolventizing process for the removal of aqueous alcohol solvent residue in extracted soybean flakes by recycling vapor to the desolventizer having an alcohol content higher than that of the solvent retained by the extracted flakes to thereby preserve protein dispersibility of the extracted flakes (Abstract).
Karnofsky discloses and the first condensate stream comprises greater than 90 wt% alcohol and less than 10 wt% water (Fig.2, Col.7, Lines 29-32, [Vapor leaving the rectifier in line 54 is about 1.96 pounds of 90.4% ethanol if all of the vapor generated in the 2nd effect is rectified]) (Claim 14).
Karnofsky discloses the method wherein the second condensate stream comprises greater than 75 wt% alcohol and from 2 wt% to 25 wt% water (Claim 15) (Col.7, Lines 32-33, [The alcohol concentration of the vapor recirculating in the desolventizer is about 87%]).
Karnofsky discloses weight fraction of water in the second condensate 100-87=13 %, weight fraction of water in the first condensate 100-94.4 =9.6%, therefore difference in a weight fraction of water in the second condensate minus the weight fraction of water 13-9.6= 3.4 % which anticipate the claimed range wherein a difference in a weight fraction of water in the second condensate minus the weight fraction of water in the first condensate is a value within a range from 3% to 5% (Claim 16) (Col.7, Lines 29-33]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Martinson ‘s method wherein the first alcohol level is a value less than 12 wt% of the weight of the partially desolventized extracted material and greater than 3 wt% weight of the partially desolventized extracted material, and the first condensate stream comprises greater than 90 wt% alcohol and less than 10 wt% water(Claim 14), the method wherein the second condensate stream comprises greater than 75 wt% alcohol and from 2 wt% to 25 wt% water (Claim 15), wherein a difference in a weight fraction of water in the second condensate minus the weight fraction of water in the first condensate is a value within a range from 3% to 5% (Claim 16), as taught by Kemper and Karnofsky, in order to preserve protein dispersibility of the extracted flakes (See Karnofsky, Abstract), yielding nothing more than predictable results.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martinson et al. (WO 2022183031 A1) herein known as Martinson, in view of Anderson (US 6996917 B2) herein known as Anderson, as applied to the claims above, and future in view of Martinson et al. (WO 2022006165 A1) herein known as Martinson 165.
PNG
media_image7.png
524
637
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Fig. 1, Martinson 165)
Regarding Claims 11-13, modified Martinson teaches all the limitations in the claim as set forth above.
Martinson discloses the method further comprising processing the condensate to separate the alcohol in the condensate from water in the condensate, thereby forming a second condensate alcohol recovery stream (Claim 11) [0051]. The method further comprising recycling the condensate alcohol recovery stream (recovered solvent stream 54) to a fresh solvent inlet solvent inlet 24 of the extractor (12) (Claim 13) (Fig. 3; [0073]).
However, Martinson 165 is silent to the second condensate (Claims 11-13) and is silent to the method wherein processing the second condensate to separate the alcohol in the second condensate from water in the second condensate comprises processing the second condensate in a molecular sieve and/or a pervaporation system (Claim 12) .
Martinson 165 is directed to solvent extraction and, more particularly to liquid- solvent extraction using an alcohol-based solvent [0002].
Martinson 165 discloses the method further comprising processing the condensate (processed in a dewatering unit 34 to remove residual water from the substantially oil-free solvent recycle streams generated by desolventizer 16) to separate the alcohol in the condensate from water in the condensate, thereby forming a condensate alcohol recovery stream (Claim 11) ([0032]; Fig. 3), wherein processing the condensate to separate the alcohol in the condensate from water in the condensate comprises processing the condensate in a molecular sieve and/or a pervaporation system [0032] (Claim 12) , the method further comprising recycling the condensate alcohol recovery stream to a fresh solvent inlet of the extractor ([0032], (solvent stream 108 recycled back to solvent inlet 30)) (Claim 13) .
Anderson discloses the second condensate( Fig.1-2; Abstract; Col.2, Lines 55-57; Col.4, Lines 30-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Martinson ‘s method , as taught by Anderson and Martinson 165 wherein the method further comprising processing the second condensate to separate the alcohol in the second condensate from water in the second condensate, thereby forming a second condensate alcohol recovery stream (Claim 11) , wherein processing the second condensate to separate the alcohol in the second condensate from water in the second condensate comprises processing the second condensate in a molecular sieve and/or a pervaporation system (Claim 12), the method further comprising recycling the second condensate alcohol recovery stream to a fresh solvent inlet of the extractor (Claim 13), as applying Anderson ‘s known second condensate to Martinson’s known condensate alcohol recovery stream would have yielded predictable result (see MPEP 2143(I)(D)), in order to remove a very high percentage of solvent permeating a quantity of particulate vegetable material of various shapes (See Anderson, [Col. 2, Lines 61-65]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF whose telephone number is (571)272-6535. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5pm.
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, Benjamin L Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/MAHMOUD MOTAZ ABDEL LATIF/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/EKANDRA S. MILLER-CRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights