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
Claims 7 and 8 were cancelled making restriction rejection moot.
Claims 1-6 are pending (claims set filed 07/13/2026) and are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on application BRAZIL 10 2022 0209162 filed 10/14/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/03/2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 4-6 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.
Claims 4 recites the limitation "the diluted liquid stream is passed through a membrane". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since “a sugar diluted liquid stream” and not “a diluted liquid stream” is recited in claim 1, from which claim 4 depends. It is not clear whether claim 4 refers to a sugar diluted liquid stream collected after adding water to a cake as recited in claim 1 or to a liquid stream of the previous step obtained after adding water to a solid residue after hydrolysis. Additionally, claim 4 recites: “the retentate” and “the permeate”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim since “a retentate” and “a permeate” are not recited in claim 1. The scope and boundaries of claim 4 are not certain making claim 4 indefinite.
Claims 5 and 6 have similar issues. Claims 5 recites: “the collected diluted stream”. Claim 6 recites: “collection of the diluted stream”. Since claim 1, from which claims 5 and 6 depend, recites collection of two streams, i.e. “a sugar diluted liquid stream” and “a washed solid stream”, it is not clear whether claims 5 and 6 refer to a sugar diluted liquid stream or to a solid stream. The scope and boundaries of claims 5 and 6 are not certain making claims 5 and 6 indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Aymard (EP 2774992 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aymard teaches process of production of alcohol from biomass with washing of the lignocellulosic solid residue obtained after hydrolysis (Abstract). Aymard describes that during that process the pretreated substrate is subjected to enzymatic hydrolysis. The obtained hydrolysate comprises a solid phase and a liquid phase containing sugars. At least part of the solid matter of the hydrolysate is extracted to obtain a hydrolysate depleted in solid matter and a stream enriched in solid matter. The stream enriched in solid matter is washed with a liquid stream to obtain liquid washing stream that can be recycled to enzymatic hydrolysis step. The hydrolysate depleted in solid matter is subjected to alcoholic fermentation (paragraph 0010). Aymard discloses that the liquid stream used for washing of the solid matter can be composed of water (paragraph 0011). Aymard describes that during washing step the stream enriched in solid matter is brought into contact with liquid stream and then liquid stream is separated from the solid stream (paragraph 0015). Aymard mentions that the described process of washing the stream enriched in solids prevents the loss of sugars in the solid matter (paragraph 0041).
Thus, Aymard teaching anticipates claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Aymard teaches that prior to washing step the solid matter in the solid enriched stream comprises 15-55% by weight indicating that the water component is at 45-85% of the mass of the solid stream. Thus, Aymard teaching anticipates claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, Aymard teaches that after enzymatic hydrolysis about 20% of hydrolyzed sugars remain in the solid matter. The washing step allows to reduce amount of sugars in the solid residue to 1.6% (paragraph 0064). Thus, Aymard teaching anticipates claim 6.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aymard (EP 2774992 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Aymard teaches process of production of alcohol from biomass with washing of the lignocellulosic solid residue obtained after hydrolysis (Abstract) as described above. Aymard provides Example 2 in which the liquid sugar stream obtained after washing the solid material from enzymatic hydrolysis is combined with the clarified liquid stream after hydrolysis and the combined streams are sent to fermenter (paragraphs 0057 and 0058). Aymard describes that the combined stream has concentration of sugars of 76.2 g/kg (or 76.2 g/L) and that is 10.9% lower than the concentration obtained after enzymatic hydrolysis. It is explained by the low sugar concentration in the recovered wash streams (paragraph 0058). Based on that the approximate concentration of sugar after hydrolysis is around 85 g/L. In another embodiment, Aymard teaches that the liquid wash flow can have flow rate of between 50% and 1500% weight of the pretreated substrate flow for the hydrolysis step (paragraph 0012). It can be envisaged that if stream are mixed at equal volume (100% of the liquid wash flow), then the contribution of the stream after hydrolysis is around 42.5 g/L and the sugar concentration for the wash stream necessary to provide 76.2 g/L described by Aymard is around 34 g/L which is less than 50 g/L).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the collected sugar diluted stream can have concentration of sugars less than 50 g/L. One would have been motivated to expect that since Aymard teaches that the process of washing the stream enriched in solids and obtained after enzymatic hydrolysis prevents the loss of sugars in the solid matter, describes that the sugar concentration is low in the liquid sugar stream obtained after washing the solid material from enzymatic hydrolysis and provides example of the sugar concentration for the combination of the wash sugar stream and the sugar stream after hydrolysis recalculation of which indicates that sugar concentration can be lower than 50 g/L as described above.
Thus, Aymard teaching renders claim 5 obvious.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousset (US 20200002482 A1) in view of Aymard and Rousset (US 20200002482 A1) referred to as Rousset.
The teaching of Aymard has been set forth above.
Aymard does not teach the ratio of water added to solids and addition of water with heating.
Regarding claim 3, Rousset teaches process of treating lignocellulosic biomass including liquid/solid separation of the pretreated substrate (Abstract). In one of the embodiments Rousset teaches liquid/solid separation of the stream after enzymatic hydrolysis (paragraph 0037). During the separation the liquid/solid mixture proceeds through the mixer to belt filter and extraction is performed with washing liquid to obtain solid phase and plurality of liquid phases (paragraph 0023). When the separation is performed after enzymatic hydrolysis step, the liquid stream with extracted sugars is sent to fermentation block (Figure 6, paragraph 0116). Rousset describes that the mixer used in the solid/liquid separation step is heated to at least 30°C, notably between 40 and 60°C (paragraph 0043) and the extracting/washing fluid is heated to at least 30°C, not more than 90°C notably between 40 and 80°C (paragraph 0044). Although Rousset does not explicitly teach the amount of water added to the solid residue (cake) after enzymatic hydrolysis, Rousset describes that to obtain correct rheology at the mixer outlet, it is necessary to lower solid content and provides example of adding 117 kg of water to 50 kg of pretreated biomass (paragraph 0169). That reads on claim 3 limitation requiring addition of 1-3 m3 of water, which is 1-3 ton, per ton of total solids.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow Rousset teaching and perform washing of the solid residue after enzymatic hydrolysis as taught by Aymard with heating at 40 and 80°C as described by Rousset. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use about 2-fold amount of water for washing solid residue after hydrolysis as was described by Rousset for the separation and washing of solids for the pretreated biomass. One would have been motivated to do that since Rousset discloses that the described ratio of water to solids provides the correct rheology for mixing liquid with solids and heating can increase efficiency of sugar extraction. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in that because Aymard and Rousset teach recovery of sugars from the solid phase after pretreatment or hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. Thus, Aymard and Rousset teachings render claim 3 obvious.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aymard (EP 2774992 A1) in view of Kamada (Kamada et al. Eur. Food Res. Technol., 2002, 214, 435-440).
The teaching of Aymard has been set forth above.
Aymard does not teach liquid stream passing through a membrane followed by collection of the retentate and the permeate.
Regarding claim 4, Kamada teaches effectiveness of membrane processing with ultrafiltration and nanofiltration for purification and concentration of oligosaccharides (Abstract). Kamada describes filtering of a mixture of oligosaccharides from chicory rootstock extract through ultrafiltration membrane followed by filtering of the obtained permeate through nanofiltration membrane and collecting permeate and retentate (p. 436, Figure 2, p. 437, Figure 4). Kamada discloses that membrane nanofiltration provides 20-fold concentration of the product in retentate and reduction of mono- and disaccharide content from 9.0% to 2.6% (Abstract). Kamada mentions that monosaccharide, disaccharides and saccharides with DPs 3-10 are obtained in the permeate and can be further processed or utilized as sugar products (p. 439, left column, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply membrane nanofiltration from Kamada teaching to the diluted sugar stream obtained after washing of solid residue of Aymard teaching. One would have been motivated to do that since Kamada discloses that nanofiltration allows to concentrate oligosaccharides in the retentate and separate mono- and disaccharides in the permeate and the concentrated oligosaccharides can be recycled to the enzymatic hydrolysis step as described by Aymard and the separated mono- and disaccharides can be used on a different step, e.g. in the fermentation. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success with that because Aymard and Kamada teach processing of biomass and extraction of sugars. Thus, Aymard and Kamada teachings render claim 4 obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIOUBOV G KOROTCHKINA whose telephone number is (571)270-0911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00-5:30.
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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/L.G.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights