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 .
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-3 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr (US 20170298393) of prior record, hereinafter Barr, in view of Kammerloher (US 20130000863) of prior record, hereinafter Kammerloher
Regarding claim 1, Barr teaches a method of pre-flash processing (para 62 describes process step of “Pre-flash”) in a dry mill (see para 31 that describes “biomass” term includes “dry milling” of “mash”) ethanol plant (para 31 describes "“Product alcohol” as “used herein refers to any alcohol that can be produced by a microorganism in a fermentation process that utilizes biomass as a source of fermentable carbon substrate" including "ethanol"; also para 122 discloses “the vapor inlet to beer column 120 may be from the same source when operating in either ethanol or butanol production”) comprising:
(a) routing warm mash to a heat recovery system to produce cold mash (para 7 discloses "the fermenter may comprise an external cooling loop for removing a fermentation broth from the fermenter via an exit line, circulating the removed fermentation broth through a heat exchanging device and returning the removed fermentation broth to the fermenter at a lower temperature via a return line; providing an aqueous feed stream obtained from biomass, the aqueous feed stream comprising water and fermentable sugar; contacting the aqueous feed stream with a fermentation broth in the fermenter"); also para 85 discloses “The external cooling loop cools fermentation broth from the fermenter by removing fermentation broth from the fermenter, passing the fermentation broth to a heat transfer device (e.g., heat exchanger), and returning the cooled fermentation broth to the fermenter”
(b) fermenting the cold mash to produce a cold beer stream (para 8 describes “the ethanol production plant may further comprise an external cooling loop for removing the fermentation broth from the fermenter via an exit line, circulating the removed fermentation broth through a heat exchanging device and returning the removed fermentation broth to the fermenter at a lower temperature via a return line).
(d) routing the warm beer stream to a baffled flash tank, wherein the baffled flash tank is configured to separate the warm beer stream into a first vapor stream and liquid beer (para 60 discloses "The liquid stream may be from a fermenter or separate unit such as a pre-flash tank. The reduction in pressure causes a fraction of the liquid stream to vaporize into a vapor phase. A liquid stream subjected to this step may be referred to as “flashed,” “partially vaporized,” or “vaporized. In some embodiments, the liquid stream from a fermenter may be passed to a separate unit (which can be a multi-stage distillation column or a single-stage tank) which may be held under vacuum. In some embodiments, the liquid stream may be fermentation broth in a fermenter. In some embodiments, the flash may be conducted in a fermenter. In some embodiments where the “flash” is carried out in a multi-stage distillation column, the flash may also be referred to as “distillation” or “flash distillation”- see para 60).;
(e) routing the liquid beer into a beer distillation column, wherein the beer distillation column is configured to separate the liquid beer into a second vapor stream and solid precipitates (para 6 describes not only “one” but “more” “flash units” para 71 describes “Ethanol and water may be vaporized within beer column 120, and ethanol-rich vaporized stream 125 may be sent overhead to rectifier 130 to concentrate the ethanol” while. “Bottoms stream 122 of beer column 120 is whole stillage, which contains mostly solids” like “undissolved solids”; which reads on solid precipitate; also see para 131, especially 1st sentence);
(f) discharging the first vapor stream from the baffled flash tank (i.e. baffled to create “a multi-stage distillation column” instead of “single-stage tank” – see para 60) into a beer distillation column vapor discharge line.(see “flash distillation” carried out in “a multi-stage distillation column” described in para 60)
Barr does not specifically teach (c) “routing the cold beer stream into the heat recovery system, wherein the heat recovery system is configured to transfer heat between the warm mash and the cold beer stream resulting in the cold mash and warm beer stream”. Kammerloher (US 20130000863) teaches a method for the recovery of energy, preferably from hot mash, for a beer brewery (para 2); further disclosing that in this method energy recovery from a hot medium, such as hot mash (para 24) is done by heating a heat transfer medium W, while cooling the mash (para 25); and heating at least one heat consumer of the brewery (para 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barr to include the step of heating at least one heat consumer (such as cold beer stream) of the brewery by routing the cold beer stream into the heat recovery system, wherein the heat recovery system is configured to transfer heat between the warm mash and the cold beer stream resulting in the cold mash and warm beer stream. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Barr at least for the purpose of realizing “an equalized energy balance” (para 19 of Kammerloher), thus increasing thermal efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Barr teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising discharging the second vapor stream (i.e. “ethanol-rich vaporized stream 125”) from the beer distillation column (i.e. beer column 120”) by the beer distillation column vapor discharge line (i.e. discharge line corresponding to "Bottoms stream 122" described in para 71; also see Figure 1). Note that para 122, especially last line discloses “ the vapor inlet to beer column 120 may be from the same source when operating in either ethanol or butanol production”.
Regarding claim 3, Barr teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising combining the second vapor stream with the first vapor stream. (i.e. combing in an Extractant Column the vapor streams from "one or more extractant columns and/or extractant separation units" which are for "distillation" - see para 6).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Barr teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the “warm mash has a temperature in a range of about 180° F. to about 200° F” (as recited in claim 6); OR “the cold mash has a temperature in a range of about 110° F. to about 130° F.” (as recited in claim 7). However, Barr discloses that mash may be cooled to a temperature that is suitable for fermentation (para 134). Further, Barr discloses that “temperature for mash cooking” and “fermentation conditions”; e.g. fermentation temperature, are known variables that form inputs to computational models for process design (para 187). Thus, Barr discloses that temperature of warm mash for cooking vs for temperature of cold mash for fermentation are results effective variable and may be adjusted for a given mash material (i.e. for material specific cooking and fermenting properties). As temperature of mash for fermentation has been established as a results effective variable (as explained above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to modify Barr to have warm mash and cold mash in a specific value/range of temperature, as claimed; because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barr such that the temperature of warm mash is based on mash cooking, such as the claimed “warm mash has a temperature in a range of about 180° F. to about 200° F” (as recited in claim 6); and the warm mash is then cooled to a temperature suitable for fermentation of the given mash material, such as the claimed “cold mash has a temperature in a range of about 110° F. to about 130° F.”. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Barr at least for the purpose of optimizing mash temperature for cooking and for fermentation processes.
Regarding claims 8, 10 and 12, Barr teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the cold beer stream has “a temperature in a range of about 80°F to about 95° F” (as recited in claim 8); OR wherein the warm beer stream has “a temperature in a range of about 155° F. to about 170° F” (as recited in claim 10); or the liquid beer has “a temperature in a range of about 150°F to about 160° F” (as recited in claim 12). However, Barr teaches that Further, Barr discloses that temperature of “flashing” and “vapor/liquid equilibrium” (para 187); i.e. temperature/pressure and other variables combinations for vapor (for distillation/flashing) and liquid (i.e. condensing vapor into beer in liquid form) are known variables that form inputs to computational models for process design (para 187). As temperature of processes related to cold beer stream and warm beer stream have been established as a results effective variable (as explained above), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to modify Barr to have cold beer stream and warm beer stream in a specific value/range of temperature, as claimed; because it has been held that where the general conditions of the claims are discloses in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barr such that the cold beer stream temperature is set lower than warm beer stream temperature in the ranges as claimed, and temperature of the resulting liquid beer in between the above two temperatures, and is specifically in the ranges claimed. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Barr at least for the purpose of optimizing the process starting with a cold mash temperature optimized for fermenting (para 134 of Barr), and setting temperatures of subsequent processes to optimize the pre-flash processing, resulting in a beer at the claimed temperature, thus optimizing energy consumption and well as beer production.
Regarding claims 9, 11 and 13-15, Barr teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the cold beer stream has “an ethanol concentration in a range of about 5% to about 30% v/v” (as recited in claim 7); OR wherein the warm beer stream (as recited in claim 11) has “an ethanol concentration in a range of about 5% to about 30% v/v”; OR (as recited in claim 13) wherein the liquid beer has “an ethanol concentration in a range of about 5% to about 30% v/v”; OR wherein the first vapor stream has “an ethanol concentration in a range of about 50% to about 60% v/v” (as recited in claim 14); OR wherein (as recited in claim 15) the second vapor stream has “an ethanol concentration in a range of about 50% to about 60% v/v”. However, the above amounts to ethanol concentration range for beer (cold beer, warm beer or liquid beer) being substantially similar, while that of vapors streams (first or second vapor streams) being substantially similar (but higher than that of beer). However, vapor in this case has primarily the organic compound (such as ethanol or similar) and no other ingredients of beer (such as water), as the organic compound inherently has lower boiling point. Thus, it would be obvious that ethanol concentration range for beer (cold beer, warm beer or liquid beer) would be similar for a given process and beer type, while that of vapors streams (first or second vapor streams) would also be similar but higher than that of beer (as beer has other ingredients such as water, which dilute ethanol concentration v/v). Further, Barr notes that variables in fermentation (para 187; also see rejection of claims 6 and 7), and fermentation is known to be related to ethanol that would become available. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barr such that the fermentation (as optimized for claims 6-7) provides specific concentrations of ethanol, so that further processing leads to claimed “v/v” ethanol concentrations. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Barr at least for the purpose of optimizing the process starting with a cold mash temperature optimized for fermenting (para 134 of Barr, for achieving ethanol concentration in intermediate products (i.e. vapor streams) that helps achieve final target ethanol concentration of the beer as per market demand.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr and Kammerloher, as applied to claims 1 and 3 above, further in view of Tripp (US 5439699) of prior record, hereinafter Tripp.
Regarding claims 4-5, Barr teaches the method of claim 1, but does not teach that “prior to the routing in step (c), further comprising pressurizing” the cold beer stream (as required by claim 4), and further wherein (as required by claim 5) the cold beer stream is “pressurized to a range of about 55 psia to about 115 psia”. Tripp (US 5439699)teaches that when preparing clear beer (Col. 1, lines 40-42), it is known to use ultrafiltration process which may require pressurizing a feed beer stream from 30 psi to 190 psi (Col. 1, line 66 – Col. 2, line 11), and the claimed range of “about 55 psia to about 115 psia” lies within range disclosed by Tripp. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barr such that prior to the routing in step (c), a step further comprising pressurizing the cold beer stream is added (as required by claim 4), and further wherein (as required by claim 5) the cold beer stream is pressurized to a range of about 55 psia to about 115 psia. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Barr at least for the purpose of using a high-pressure process such as ultrafiltration to produce clear beer to meet consumer demand (Col. 1, lines 33-37 of Tripp).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,1 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-18 are allowable because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitations of claim 16 that requires “the baffled flash tank is coupled to the beer distillation column by two outlets such that pressure and temperature of the baffled flash tank and the beer distillation column are substantially equivalent” in conjunction with “a second outlet is configured to route the liquid beer from the baffled flash tank to the beer distillation column”.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 6/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that step c is not obvious in view of Kammerloher because whereas step c requires “transfer heat between the warm mash and the cold beer stream resulting in the cold mash and warm beer stream”, Kammerloher does not disclose that heat transfer is done specifically to “the cold beer stream” (especially see page 6, 2nd paragraph of applicant’s response). The rejection of claim 1 cites Kammerloher which teaches a method for the recovery of energy, preferably from hot mash, for a beer brewery (para 2); further disclosing how this method is to be used; i.e. “for recovery of energy from a hot medium, specifically from hot wort or hot mash” (para 24), then specifying that in step “a)” of para 25 that heat transfer is such that it results in “heating” of “a heat transfer medium W in a first heat exchange device” by transferring heat from and hence “cooling specifically the work or mash” (see para 25). Para 26 then describes what can be done by the now heated “heat transfer medium W” in step “b)” and that is disclosed as “heating at least one heat consumer of the brewery with this heat transfer medium W”; and given that there are limited choices of the taught “at least one heat consumer of the brewery”, and clearly, cold beer stream is one of them, it would have been obvious to choose cold beer stream as “at least one heat consumer of the brewery”. Therefore, as stated in rejection of claim 1 > it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Barr to include the step of heating at least one heat consumer (such as cold beer stream) of the brewery by routing the cold beer stream into the heat recovery system, wherein the heat recovery system is configured to transfer heat between the warm mash and the cold beer stream resulting in the cold mash and warm beer stream. The rejection of claim 1 also provides the corresponding motivation to modify Barr in the above manner in view of Kammerloher by stating > The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Barr at least for the purpose of realizing “an equalized energy balance” (para 19 of Kammerloher), thus increasing thermal efficiency. Further, regarding the argument that Kammerloher’s disclosed “heat transfer medium W” is note specifically stated to be “cold beer stream” (recited in claim 1), it is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
On page 7 of applicant’s response, applicant argues motivation provided in terms of Kammerloher’s “closed-loop circuit for managing thermal energy” is not valid because it cannot apply to energy saving methods such as transferring heat from “transfer heat between the warm mash and the cold beer stream”. This argument is not persuasive. Managing thermal energy in any closed loop includes any efficiencies gained re-utilizing heat energy, such as by transferring heat not needed by any one system to another system. This is specifically disclosed by Kammerloher in para 24-26, which disclose energy recovery from a hot medium, such as hot mash (para 24) is done by heating a heat transfer medium W, while cooling the mash (para 25); and heating at least one heat consumer of the brewery (para 26).
On page 7 of applicant’s response, applicant argues the “multi-stage distillation column” of Barr does not map to the recited “baffled flash tank” of claim 1 as Barr “does not disclose that such a column or tank includes baffles”. This argument is not persuasive as Barr discloses page Para 179 discloses “distillation columns” may be designed with “internal trays”, i.e. baffles (see para 154 and 170 of Barr.
On page 8 of applicant’s response, applicant argues about suitability of Tripp reference. Applicant agrees that Tripp reference is also about processing beer, but argues that Tripp is directed to preparing “clear beer” using “ultrafiltration” while claimed beer is using a different process. In response to applicant's above argument that Tripp is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Tripp is also a process for making beer and the teaching is regarding “pressurizing” the beer stream, which can reasonably be adapted from one beer making process to another.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 JYOTI CHAWLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30- 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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/JYOTI CHAWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights