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 of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Based on the response to restriction of 12/11/2025, non-elected claims 19-20 have been withdrawn from consideration and elected claims 1-18 are examined in the application.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barr (US 20170298393), hereinafter Barr, in view of Kammerloher (US 20130000863), 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 fermentor may comprise an external cooling loop for removing a fermentation broth from the fermentor via an exit line, circulating the removed fermentation broth through a heat exchanging device and returning the removed fermentation broth to the fermentor at a lower temperature via a return line; providing an aqueous feedstream obtained from biomass, the aqueous feedstream comprising water and fermentable sugar; contacting the aqueous feedstream with a fermentation broth in the fermentor"); also para 85 discloses “The external cooling loop cools fermentation broth from the fermentor by removing fermentation broth from the fermentor, passing the fermentation broth to a heat transfer device (e.g., heat exchanger), and returning the cooled fermentation broth to the fermentor”
(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 fermentor via an exit line, circulating the removed fermentation broth through a heat exchanging device and returning the removed fermentation broth to the fermentor 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 fermentor 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 fermentor 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 fermentor. In some embodiments, the flash may be conducted in a fermentor. 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), 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, 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”.
Conclusion
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