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 Status
Claims 16-30 are newly added, and are pending and examined. Claims 1-15 are canceled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) received on 8/15/2023 and 8/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 19, Ln. 1 recites, “The method according o…”, which is a typo of, “The method according to…”.
Appropriate 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.
Claims 28-29 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.
Regarding claim 28, Lns. 3-4 recite, “the target value for the residual extract content”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as, “a target value for a residual extract content”.
Claim 29 is rejected as depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The subject matter eligibility test for the claims is shown below:
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 1
Independent claim 16 is drawn to a method, which is a statutory category.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong One
In Step 2A Prong One, it is determined if the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Independent claim 16 recites a method comprising calculating a theoretical end time for yeast propagation on the basis of a logistic propagation model for the yeast propagation, on the basis of the original gravity, and on the basis of temperature at the start time. This is a mathematical calculation mathematical concept-type abstract idea, which is judicial exception, particularly as the steps are recited at a high level of generality, and do not recite a specialized computer for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong Two
In step 2A Prong Two, it is determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Independent claim 16 further recites providing a mixture of yeast cells and wort, determining an original gravity of the wort or mixture and a temperature of the mixture at a start time. These elements amount to mere data gathering, and are insignificant extra-solution activity, as they are required to obtain input in order to calculate the theoretical end time. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, although independent claim 16 recites that the method is computer-implemented, the computer recited is a general purpose computer that applies the mathematical concept-type by use of conventional computer functions, and does not qualify as a particular machine. See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2B
In step 2B, it is determined if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, independent claim 16 additionally recites, “a mixture of yeast cells and wort”, and “a computer”. These elements are well-known and conventional within the art, particularly as the computer recited is a general purpose computer. Further, the application of the abstract idea-type judicial exception into a bioreactor environment for yeast propagation is nothing more than generally linking the mathematical calculation judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(e). Still further, the acts of determining an original gravity of the wort or mixture and a temperature of the mixture at a start time are merely insignificant extra-solution activity, and are mere data-gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, with regards to the generically recited mixture of yeast cells and wort and computer being nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional components that are well-known in the art, the following prior art is relied upon to show that the above elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional:
Macharia et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0109100; hereinafter Macharia; already of record on the IDS received 8/15/2023) teaches a mixture of yeast cells ([0094]), and a computer ([0115]).
Narendranath et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0112568; hereinafter Narendranath) teaches a mixture of yeast cells ([0007]-[0013]).
Nordkvist et al. (EP Pub. No. 2846160; hereinafter Nordkvist; already of record on the IDS received 8/15/2023) teaches a mixture of yeast cells and wort ([0014]), and a computer ([0046]).
Claims 17-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as depending on a rejected claim.
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 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nordkvist in view of Macharia.
Regarding claim 16, Nordkvist discloses a computer-implemented method for controlling and/or monitoring yeast propagation ([0014], [0046]). The method comprises:
providing a mixture of yeast cells and wort ([0014]).
Determining an original gravity of the wort or of the mixture and a temperature of the mixture at a start time ([0014]-[0017], [0031], [0071]-[0072], temperature is therefore measured throughout the method, including at the start time).
Calculating a theoretical end time for the yeast propagation on the basis of the original gravity, and on the basis of the temperature at the start time ([0002], [0014]-[0017], [0031], [0071]-[0072], the first level of the time to initiate cropping is determined, and the time to initiate cropping is the point at which yeast is removed from the reactor, and can be considered under broadest reasonable interpretation to be a theoretical end time for yeast propagation. The first level is calculated, see [0063]-[0065]).
Nordkvist fails to explicitly disclose that the theoretical end time is calculated on the basis of a logistic propagation model for the yeast propagation.
Macharia is in the analogous field of model predictive control of fermentation processes (Macharia [0002]). Macharia teaches modeling a fermentation process on the basis of a logistic propagation model (Macharia [0158]-[0162]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Nordkvist with the teachings of Macharia so that the theoretical end time is calculated on the basis of a logistic propagation model for the yeast propagation, in order to optimize yeast propagation throughout the process (Macharia [0158]-[0162]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 16.
Modified Nordkvist fails to explicitly disclose determining a free amino nitrogen (FAN) content of the wort; wherein the FAN is taken into account for the calculation of the theoretical end time on the basis of the propagation model.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a FAN content of the wort, where the FAN is taken into account for the calculation of the theoretical end time on the basis of the propagation model, as including additional variables to factor into the propagation model will increase the accuracy of the model, thereby optimizing the process (Macharia [0158]-[0162]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the temperature of the mixture is determined during the yeast propagation (Nordkvist; [0014]-[0017], [0031], [0071]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 16, further comprising: determining an actual value for an extract content of the mixture during the yeast propagation (Nordkvist [0014]-[0017]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 16, further comprising: determining an alcohol content of the mixture during the yeast propagation (Nordkvist; [0014]-[0017], [0031]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 16.
Modified Nordkvist fails to explicitly disclose determining a dissolved oxygen content of the mixture during the yeast propagation.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a dissolved oxygen content of the mixture during the yeast propagation, in order to ensure that the yeast propagation is proceeding as desired.
Regarding claim 22, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 16.
Modified Nordkvist fails to explicitly disclose that a model for an extract content in the mixture is used as the propagation model, wherein the extract content is determined on the basis of the original gravity at the start time, a target value for a residual extract content, a substrate uptake rate, a temperature rate, and a duration for a lag phase during the yeast propagation.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a model for an extract content in the mixture as the propagation model, where the extract content is determined on the basis of the original gravity at the start time, a target value for a residual extract content, a substrate uptake rate, a temperature rate, and a duration for a lag phase during the yeast propagation, as including additional variables to factor into the propagation model will increase the accuracy of the model, thereby optimizing the process (Macharia [0158]-[0162]), and further Nordkvist teaches using a model for an extract content in the mixture to determine a theoretical end time (Nordkvist; [0014]-[0017], [0031], [0071]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 22.
Modified Nordkvist fails to explicitly disclose determining a reference value for the extract content on the basis of the propagation model.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a reference value for the extract content on the basis of the propagation model, in order to determine whether the actual extract content deviates from the theoretical extract content, i.e. the reference value, in order to ensure that the yeast propagation is proceeding as expected.
Regarding claim 24, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 23.
Modified Nordkvist fails to explicitly disclose comparing an actual value for the extract content with the reference value for the extract content; and when a deviation between the actual value and the reference value exceeds a predefinable limit value, varying as a function of the deviation at least one influencing quantity for the yeast propagation.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to compare an actual value for the extract content with the reference value for the extract content; and when a deviation between the actual value and the reference value exceeds a predefinable limit value, varying as a function of the deviation at least one influencing quantity for the yeast propagation, in order to alter the conditions of the yeast propagation to ensure that the actual extract content matches the theoretical extract content, i.e. the reference extract content, in order to ensure that the yeast propagation is proceeding as expected.
Regarding claim 25, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 24.
Modified Nordkvist fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one influencing quantity is the temperature, the end time of the yeast propagation, or a concentration of dissolved oxygen.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the at least one influencing quantity be the temperature, the end time of the yeast propagation, or a concentration of dissolved oxygen, as altering these variables will have an effect on the yeast propagation process, and altering these variables can be used to ensure that the actual extract content matches the theoretical extract content, i.e. the reference extract content, in order to ensure that the yeast propagation is proceeding as expected.
Regarding claim 26, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 24.
Modified Nordkvist fails to explicitly disclose determining a dissolved oxygen content of the mixture during the yeast propagation; adjusting an aeration of the mixture during the yeast propagation on the basis of the deviation between the actual value and the reference value of the extract content and the dissolved oxygen content.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a dissolved oxygen content of the mixture during yeast propagation, and adjust an aeration of the mixture during yeast propagation on the basis of deviation between the actual value and the reference value of the extract content and dissolved oxygen content, as altering the dissolved oxygen content will have an effect on the yeast propagation process, and altering the dissolved oxygen content can be used to ensure that the actual extract content matches the theoretical extract content, i.e. the reference extract content, in order to ensure that the yeast propagation is proceeding as expected.
Regarding claim 27, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 16.
Modified Nordkvist fails to explicitly disclose determining a pitching concentration of the yeast at the start time.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a pitching concentration of the yeast at the start time, as including additional variables to factor into the propagation model will increase the accuracy of the model, thereby optimizing the process (Macharia [0158]-[0162]).
Regarding claim 28, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 27.
Modified Nordkvist fails to explicitly disclose determining a biomass concentration of the yeast on the basis of the propagation model, the pitching concentration, and a target value for the yeast concentration that is related to a target value for a residual extract content.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a biomass concentration of the yeast on the basis of the yeast on the basis of the propagation model, the pitching concentration, and a target value for the yeast concentration that is related to a target value for a residual extract content, in order to determine a theoretical yield for the yeast propagation, which can be used to determine whether the yeast propagation is proceeding as desired.
Regarding claim 29, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 28.
Modified Nordkvist fails to explicitly disclose determining a viable yeast cell concentration during the propagation on the basis of the biomass concentration.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to determine a viable yeast cell concentration during the propagation on the basis of the biomass concentration, in order to calculate an optimum theoretical yield of yeast, thereby optimizing the yeast propagation process.
Regarding claim 30, modified Nordkvist discloses the method according to claim 16.
Modified Nordkvist fails to explicitly disclose determining a pH value of the mixture.
However, Macharia further teaches determining a pH value of a mixture (Macharia [0158]-[0162], particularly at [0161]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Nordkvist with the further teachings of Macharia to include determining a pH value of the mixture, in order to optimize the model with increased accuracy compared to prior art models, thereby optimizing the process (Macharia [0158]-[0162]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights