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 without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-13 and 17-20 in the reply filed on May 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-9, 11-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winowiski (US 4,957,748) in view of Qing et al. (“Comparison of alkaline and acid pretreatments for enzymatic hydrolysis of soybean hull and soybean straw to produce fermentable sugars”, Industrial Crops & Products, 109, (2017), pp. 391-397).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 13 and 17, Winowiski disclose a method of producing a ruminant feed comprising the steps of: (a) providing a mixture of a feed protein and reducing sugars; and (b) heating the mixture at a pH of from about 4.0 to 10.5, a moisture content of from about 6 to 40, a temperature from about 20⁰ to about 150⁰C, and for a time of about 20 minutes to 72 hours to obtain a ruminant feed wherein the protein has an increased efficiency of utilization by ruminant animals (C3/L43-C4/L3). Winowiski discloses the heating step causes early Maillard reactions including a condensation reaction between the carbonyl group of a reducing sugar and amino groups of the protein (Abstract, C6/L46-55, C7/L66-C8/L5).
Winowiski discloses the proteins used are those found in high quality protein feed such as soybean meal (C3/L25-33, C5/L38-44). Winowiski discloses the reducing sugars are those from economical sugar sources such as spent sulfite liquor, hemicellulose extracts and their hydrolysates and corn products and their hydrolysates (C3/L20-25).
While Winowiski discloses hydrolyzed lignocellulosic biomasses (e.g., hemicellulose extract hydrolysates) and a protein source (e.g., soybean meal), the reference is silent with respect to the lignocellulosic biomass and the protein source being obtained from the same species of crop.
Qing et al. teach hydrolysis of soybean hull to produce fermentable sugars (Abstract, p. 391/1. Introduction). Qing et al. teach the oil and protein constituent of soybeans are regarded as valuable products in soybean processing but the residues of soybean hulls and straws collected after soybean harvest are often not used (p. 391/1. Introduction). Qing et al. teach soybean hull is a lignocellulosic material composed of fermentable hexose and pentose sugars, polymerized as cellulose and hemicellulose, in addition to a small proportion of lignin (p. 391/1. Introduction). Qing et al. teach producing fermentable sugars by treating soybean hulls to enzymatic hydrolysis (p. 392/2. Materials and methods).
Winowiski and Qing et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, lignocellulosic biomass. Given Winowiski teach hemicellulose extract hydrolysates as a source of reducing sugar and soybean meal as a protein source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have hydrolyzed soybean hulls (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass), resulting from the harvest of soybeans, by enzymatic hydrolysis to produce an extract comprising reducing sugars (i.e., glucose and xylose), cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin (p. 393/Table 3 of Qing et al.), as taught by Qing et al., and use the extract as a source of reducing sugars in the process of Winowiski with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Qing et al. teach soybean hulls are a residue of soybean harvesting (p. 391/Introduction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have harvested soybean wherein the soybean is mechanically disintegrated (e.g., the whole soybean is cracked and the hull is separated) to produce soybean hull (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass) and soybean and further process the soybean into meal. In this case, both the soybean meal and the soybean hull could be used in the process of modified Winowiski.
Regarding claim 3, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Qing et al. teach soybean hull comprises cellulose and hemicellulose, in addition to a small proportion of lignin (p. 391/1. Introduction). Qing et al. teach, prior to hydrolysis, the soybean hull (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass) has a hemicellulose content of 20.0 wt% (p. 393/Table 1 – untreated soybean hull (SBH)).
Regarding claim 4, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Qing et al. teaches hydrolyzing soybean hull (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass), inherently the hydrolyzed product would comprise cellulose fibers with increased digestible energy compared to that of the fiber in the soybean hulls.
Regarding claim 7, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. The combination of Winowiski and Qing et al. are silent with respect to performing the claimed steps of (a)-(d) at the same production site.
However, the person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application would have been motivated to complete the entire claimed process (steps (a)-(d)) in one production facility to improve efficiency and product quality.
Regarding claim 8, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Qing et al. teach soybean hull comprises cellulose and hemicellulose, in addition to a small proportion of lignin (p. 391/1. Introduction). Qing et al. teach, prior to hydrolysis, the soybean hull (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass) has lignin content of 13.1 wt% (p. 393/Table 1 – untreated soybean hull (SBH)).
Regarding claim 11, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Winowiski discloses the pH is controlled to be above 4 and below 10.5 wherein the pH is controlled by any suitable method including the addition of sodium hydroxide (C9/L42-52). Winowiski discloses the pH is adjusted after a mixture of a feed protein and reducing sugars is made (C3/L43-C4/L3).
Regarding claim 12, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Winowiski discloses controlling the pH of the mixture (i.e., protein source and reducing sugars) by any suitable method, since step (b) does not require introducing an alkali metal cation and/or alkaline earth metal cation; the limitations of claim 12 are satisfied.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9-13, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winowiski (US 4,957,748) in view of Satarn et al. (Acid Hydrolysis from Corn Stover for Reducing Sugar”, Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 931-932, (2014), pp. 1608-1613).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17 and 18, Winowiski disclose a method of producing a ruminant feed comprising the steps of: (a) providing a mixture of a feed protein and reducing sugars; and (b) heating the mixture at a pH of from about 4.0 to 10.5, a moisture content of from about 6 to 40, a temperature from about 20⁰ to about 150⁰C, and for a time of about 20 minutes to 72 hours to obtain a ruminant feed wherein the protein has an increased efficiency of utilization by ruminant animals (C3/L43-C4/L3). Winowiski discloses the heating step causes early Maillard reactions including a condensation reaction between the carbonyl group of a reducing sugar and amino groups of the protein (Abstract, C6/L46-55, C7/L66-C8/L5).
While Winowiski discloses hydrolyzed lignocellulosic biomasses (e.g., hemicellulose extract hydrolysates) and a protein source (e.g., corn), the reference is silent with respect to the lignocellulosic biomass and the protein source being obtained from the same species of crop.
Satarn et al. teach acid hydrolysis of corn stover (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass) to extract reducing sugar (Abstract). Satarn et al. teach the corn stover predominantly consists of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin (p. 1608/1. Introduction). Satarn et al. teach the hydrolysis produces reducing sugars including glucose, xylose and arabinose and cellulose fibers (p. 1611/Fig. 3 SEM images showing fibers after acid hydrolysis, p. 1612/4. Conclusion).
Winowiski and Satarn et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, lignocellulosic biomass. Given Winowiski teach hemicellulose extract hydrolysates as a source of reducing sugar and corn as a protein source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have hydrolyzed corn stover (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass), resulting from the harvest of corn, by acid hydrolysis to produce an extract comprising reducing sugars (i.e., arabinose, glucose and xylose) and cellulose fibers, as taught by Satarn et al., and use the extract as a source of reducing sugars in the process of Winowiski with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Satarn et al. teach corn stover (i.e., corn cob) which necessarily results from the harvesting of corn (see wherein the corn stover comes from corn stover gathering in an agricultural area – p. 1609/2. Materials and methods). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have harvested corn wherein the corn is mechanically disintegrated (e.g., the whole corn is removed from the cob and separated) to produce corn stover (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass) and corn and further process the corn into meal. In this case, both the corn meal and the corn stover could be used in the process of modified Winowiski.
Regarding claim 4, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Satarn et al. teaches hydrolyzing corn stover (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass), inherently the hydrolyzed product would comprise cellulose fibers with increased digestible energy compared to that of the fiber in the corn stover.
Regarding claim 7, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. The combination of Winowiski and Satarn et al. are silent with respect to performing the claimed steps of (a)-(d) at the same production site.
However, the person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application would have been motivated to complete the entire claimed process (steps (a)-(d)) in one production facility to improve efficiency and product quality.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Satarn et al. teach acid hydrolysis of corn stover (Abstract). Satarn et al. teach the corn stover is hydrolyzed using H2SO4 (i.e., sulfuric acid, a mineral acid – Abstract, p. 1609/2. Materials and methods).
Regarding claim 11, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Winowiski discloses the pH is controlled to be above 4 and below 10.5 wherein the pH is controlled by any suitable method including the addition of sodium hydroxide (C9/L42-52). Winowiski discloses the pH is adjusted after a mixture of a feed protein and reducing sugars is made (C3/L43-C4/L3).
Regarding claim 12, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Winowiski discloses controlling the pH of the mixture (i.e., protein source and reducing sugars) by any suitable method, since step (b) does not require introducing an alkali metal cation and/or alkaline earth metal cation; the limitations of claim 12 are satisfied.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11-13, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winowiski (US 4,957,748) in view of Sharma et al. (“Enzymatic saccharification of pretreated sunflower stalks”, Biomass & Bioenergy, 23, (2002), pp. 237-243).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17 and 19, Winowiski disclose a method of producing a ruminant feed comprising the steps of: (a) providing a mixture of a feed protein and reducing sugars; and (b) heating the mixture at a pH of from about 4.0 to 10.5, a moisture content of from about 6 to 40, a temperature from about 20⁰ to about 150⁰C, and for a time of about 20 minutes to 72 hours to obtain a ruminant feed wherein the protein has an increased efficiency of utilization by ruminant animals (C3/L43-C4/L3). Winowiski discloses the heating step causes early Maillard reactions including a condensation reaction between the carbonyl group of a reducing sugar and amino groups of the protein (Abstract, C6/L46-55, C7/L66-C8/L5).
While Winowiski discloses hydrolyzed lignocellulosic biomasses (e.g., hemicellulose extract hydrolysates) and a protein source (e.g., sunflower seed meal), the reference is silent with respect to the lignocellulosic biomass and the protein source being obtained from the same species of crop.
Sharma et al. teach enzymatic hydrolysis of sunflower stalks (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass) to extract glucose, a reducing sugar (Abstract, p. 237/1. Introduction). Sharma et al. teach sunflower stalk comprises cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin (p. 237/1. Introduction). Sharma et al. teach the hydrolysis produces glucose, a reducing sugar (Abstract, p. 241/Fig. 3-5).
Winowiski and Sharma et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, lignocellulosic biomass. Given Winowiski teach hemicellulose extract hydrolysates as a source of reducing sugar and sunflower as a protein source, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have hydrolyzed sunflower stalk (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass), resulting from the harvest of sunflower, by enzymatic hydrolysis to produce an extract comprising reducing sugars (i.e., glucose) and cellulose fibers, as taught by Sharma et al., and use the extract as a source of reducing sugars in the process of Winowiski with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sharma et al. teach sunflower stalk which necessarily results from the harvesting of sunflower seed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have harvested sunflower seeds wherein the sunflower seeds are mechanically disintegrated (e.g., seeds are removed from the stalk) to produce sunflower stalk (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass) and sunflower seed and further process the sunflower seeds by removing the shell and grinding into a meal. In this case, both the sunflower seed meal and the sunflower stalks could be used in the process of modified Winowiski.
Regarding claim 4, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Sharma et al. teaches hydrolyzing sunflower stalk (i.e., lignocellulosic biomass), inherently the hydrolyzed product would comprise cellulose fibers with increased digestible energy compared to that of the fiber in the corn stover.
Regarding claim 7, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. The combination of Winowiski and Sharma et al. are silent with respect to performing the claimed steps of (a)-(d) at the same production site.
However, the person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application would have been motivated to complete the entire claimed process (steps (a)-(d)) in one production facility to improve efficiency and product quality.
Regarding claim 11, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Winowiski discloses the pH is controlled to be above 4 and below 10.5 wherein the pH is controlled by any suitable method including the addition of sodium hydroxide (C9/L42-52). Winowiski discloses the pH is adjusted after a mixture of a feed protein and reducing sugars is made (C3/L43-C4/L3).
Regarding claim 12, modified Winowiski discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Winowiski discloses controlling the pH of the mixture (i.e., protein source and reducing sugars) by any suitable method, since step (b) does not require introducing an alkali metal cation and/or alkaline earth metal cation; the limitations of claim 12 are satisfied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights