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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending (claim set as filed on 8/3/2026). Claims 1-3 were withdrawn due to a restriction/election requirement. Claims 1-16 are under examination.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-3 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/3/2026.
The restriction requirement for a process for hydrating yeasts in dehydrated form, as set forth in the office action mailed 6/4/2026, has been reconsidered and is hereby withdrawn. Claims 1-16 are currently under examination.
Priority
Applicant is advised of possible benefits under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f), wherein an application for patent filed in the United States may be entitled to claim priority to an application filed in a foreign country.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IT102021000031070, filed on 12/10/2021.
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Although the applicant has supplied a certified copy of the parent application, no English translation of the certified copy was submitted. Therefore, the effective filing date of this application is 6/10/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 6/10/2024 and 6/13/2024 were considered, initialed, and attached hereto. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code on page 20 of the instant specification. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
The use of the term “Ethanol Red ® yeast – Leaf by LeSaffre”, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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 2-3, 5-6, and 8-14 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 2, the claim is rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. Markush groupings are proper when they are recited with an introductory phrase “selected from the group consisting of”, or a similar phrase, and when the alternatives are in a closed grouping as indicated by “and/or” language. Without such language to indicate a closed group of alternatives, one could not determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2117.
Regarding claims 3 and 5-6, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention(s). See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 3, 5-6, and 8-11, the use of parentheses renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations within the parentheses of “such as peptone”, “such as glucose, xylose, sucrose” in claim 3; “such as sorghum fibers”, “such as corn stalks, corn cobs”, “such as wheat straw”, “such as rice straw, rice hulls, rice husk”, “such as sugar cane straw, sugar cane bagasse”, “such as palm leafs, palm trunks, palm mibrids, palm empty fruit brunches”, in claims 5-6 and “such as urban waste of vegetable origin, paper” in claim 5; “i.e. solid phase”, “i.e. solid insoluble, mainly lignin”, “i.e. aqueous phase” in claims 8-11 and “soluble + insoluble” in claim 8 are part of the claimed invention(s). Further it is unclear if the features are required limitations or merely exemplary. For examination purposes, the features within the parentheses are not interpreted as required elements.
Regarding claims 8-14, the phrase “monomeric sugars with five or six carbon atoms, mainly glucose and xylose” is unclear since the claim is directed to a broad scope followed by a narrow, exemplary scope. Thus, the metes and bounds of the scope are unclear.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarks (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/0144816 A1 – date of publication 5/16/2019).
Sark’s general disclosure relates to a bioreactor fermentation system for propagating yeast using lignocellulosic substrates and then harvesting ethanol biochemicals from the yeast (see pg. 9 – Example 2).
Regarding claim 1, Sark teaches a process of propagating a microorganism using a propagation medium comprising additional nutrients such as yeast extract (see [0092-0093]). Sark teaches propagating yeast in the medium (see [0046]), and wherein the yeast is Ethanol Red ® which is a dry yeast (see [0118]). Sark teaches the propagation was carried out a temperature range of 15-50[Symbol font/0xB0]C (see [0099]) for 8-80 hours (see [0097]). The prior art temperature range fully encompasses the claimed temperature range of 25-40[Symbol font/0xB0]C and overlaps with the claimed time range of between 30 minutes and 8 hours.
Sark does not teach that the concentration of yeast extract was 1-50 g/L or that the concentration of the yeast was 10-200 g/L.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to optimize the yeast extract and yeast within the microorganism propagation method as taught in Sarks to the claimed concentrations. One would have been motivated to do so because Sark teaches that other non-carbon sources besides yeast, such as stillage, were added to the medium around 10-35 wt% which calculates to 100-350 g/L (see [0089]) and further teaches the amount of non-carbon sources and initial amount microorganism can be modified to grow the desired cell mass sufficient for fermentation (see [0093]). Thus, the ordinary artisan could manipulate the concentration of the yeast extract nutrient and yeast microorganisms to arrive at the desired cell mass and it would have only required routine experimentation to do so.
Regarding claim 2, Sark teaches the propagated yeast can be Candida (see [0115]).
Regarding claim 3, Sark teaches the propagation medium comprises lignocellulosic hydrolysates carbon nutrients (see [0052]) and sugars (see [0050]) both at concentration ranges of 0.1-2.0 wt% which calculate to 1-20 g/L and overlap with the claimed ranges of 1-40 g/L.
Regarding claim 4, Sark teaches a process for producing ethanol biochemicals by hydrating dry yeast in a bioreactor comprising a propagation slurry (see [0176]), which reads on a culture medium. The propagation slurry contains a hydrolyzed corn stover lignocellulosic material (see [0172]), and as the enzyme was not removed from the lignocellulosic material it can be assumed that residual hydrolysates are still present in the slurry. Sark discloses the yeast is propagated in the bioreactor, using the propagation slurry as a medium (see [0176]). Sark also discloses that the yeast fermentation produced an ethanol product and it was collected to test for its concentration using high performance liquid chromatography (see [0178]). Sark teaches that dry yeast such as Ethanol Red ® (see [0118]) is rehydrated by using a propagation medium comprising additional nutrients such as yeast extract (see [0092-0093]). Sark teaches the propagation was carried out a temperature range of 15-50[Symbol font/0xB0]C (see [0099]) for 8-80 hours (see [0097]). The prior art temperature range fully encompasses the claimed temperature range of 25-40[Symbol font/0xB0]C and overlaps with the claimed time range of between 30 minutes and 8 hours.
Sark does not teach that the concentration of yeast extract was 1-50 g/L or that the concentration of the yeast was 10-200 g/L.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to optimize the yeast extract and yeast within the microorganism propagation method as taught in Sarks to the claimed concentrations. One would have been motivated to do so because Sark teaches that other non-carbon sources besides yeast, such as stillage, were added to the medium around 10-35 wt% which calculates to 100-350 g/L (see [0089]) and further teaches the amount of non-carbon sources and initial amount microorganism can be modified to grow the desired cell mass sufficient for fermentation (see [0093]). Thus, the ordinary artisan could manipulate the concentration of the yeast extract nutrient and yeast microorganisms to arrive at the desired cell mass and it would have only required routine experimentation to do so.
Regarding claims 5-6, Sark teaches the lignocellulosic material used in the propagation slurry is corn stover (see [0172]), which is a plant that is grown for energy use as one could consume it for energy or use it as biofuel for energy. As noted in the 112b rejection above, the language “such as” precludes the recited plants from consideration as further limitations and are considered merely exemplary.
Regarding claim 7, Sark teaches that the lignocellulosic hydrolysate is the sole carbon source in the propagation slurry during the fermentation process (see [0052]).
Regarding claim 8, Sark teaches the propagation slurry contains a solid lignocellulosic material of a corn stover pre-treated with acid and hydrolysate (see [0172]). Sark teaches the slurry contains water and glucose and xylose sugars (see [0172-0173]). Sark teaches the hydrolysate can have a solids content of 10-30% (see [0061]).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Sark teaches the propagation slurry contains a solid lignocellulosic material of a corn stover pre-treated with acid and hydrolysate (see [0172]). Sark teaches the slurry contains water and glucose and xylose sugars (see [0172-0173]). Sark discloses the fermentation composition comprises glucose at a concentration of 3.1% w/v (see [0177]) which calculates to 31 g/L and is within the claimed range of 20-100 g/L.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Sark teaches the propagation slurry contains a solid lignocellulosic material of a corn stover pre-treated with acid and hydrolysate (see [0172]). Sark teaches the slurry contains water and glucose and xylose sugars (see [0172-0173]). Sark discloses the fermentation composition comprises xylose at a concentration of 2.2% w/v (see [0177]) which calculates to 22 g/L and is within the claimed range of 10-40 g/L.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Sark teaches the propagation slurry contains a solid lignocellulosic material of a corn stover pre-treated with acid and hydrolysate (see [0172]). Sark teaches the slurry contains water and glucose and xylose sugars (see [0172-0173]). Sark discloses the fermentation composition comprises 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) at a concentration of 143 ppm (see [0177]), which calculates to 0.143 g/L and is within the claimed range of 0.1-1 g/L.
Regarding claims 15-16, Sark teaches that the propagation and fermentation of the yeast in the bioreactor was carried out at a temperature of 31.1[Symbol font/0xB0]C (see [0176]), which is within the claimed range of 20-45[Symbol font/0xB0]C.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emmalee R. Williams whose telephone number is (571)272-5472. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 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.
/EMMALEE R WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights