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 .
Status of the Application
1. Claims 1-32 are pending and subject to examination on the merits. Claims 23-32 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to non-elected subject matter. Claims 1-22 are currently under examination.
Election/Restrictions
2. Group I (Claims 1-22) was elected for examination, and claims 23-32 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 August 2026.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made for the Applicant’s claim for domestic priority based on the US provisional application PRO 63/581,048 filed 07 September 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10 February 2025 have been considered by the examiner. See initialed and signed PTO/SB/08’s.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hora et al (Hora et al., 2021, US 2021/0170419 A1—cited on the IDS dated 10 February 2025) and Pearson (Pearson, 2023, “Choosing the Right Membrane,” <https://membranespecialists.com/choosing-the-right-membrane/> downloaded 16 September 2026 as a PDF—cited herein). Regarding claim 1, drawn to a method for increasing protein yield and/or purity from a whole stillage byproduct produced in a biofuel and/or biochemical production process comprising: separating a whole stillage byproduct into a fiber portion and a liquid slurry, which includes initial free oil and protein particles; adding at least a portion of retentate, which includes residual protein particles and residual free oil, that is received from a later step in the method to the liquid slurry, and separating the liquid slurry into a protein portion, including combined initial and residual particles, and water soluble solids portion, including combined initial and residual free oil, wherein the addition of the retentate increases the overall concentration of protein particles and free oil in the liquid slurry and facilitates separation of a larger concentration of protein particles in the protein portion; thereafter, separately adding a wash water to the separated protein portion followed by dewatering the protein portion to provide a liquid fraction and a protein wet cake fraction, including the combined protein particles; and filtering the liquid fraction to provide a retentate, including residual protein particles and residual free oil, and a permeate, wherein at least a portion of the retentate defines the portion of the retentate received from the later step in the method, and wherein the protein wet cake fraction defines a high protein meal that includes at least 48wt% protein on a dry basis, Hora et al. teaches a method for reducing the unfermentable solids content in the protein portion at the back end of a corn dry milling process for making alcohol, such as ethanol, and/or other biofuels/biochemical dry milling process (paragraph 007) by separating a whole stillage byproduct into an insoluble and stillage/centrate portion, including protein, wherein said stillage portion can be separated into a water soluble solids portion and protein portion, wherein said portion may be mixed with water to wash and dilute the protein portion, wherein said protein portion can be either dewatered to form the dewatered protein portion and centrate or wherein, said protein portion can be used a protein counter current wash when the protein portion is being separated from the stillage portion (abstract). Specifically, the centrate may be further separated into a solids portion and a liquid portion, where the liquid portion can be recycled back into the protein stream to provide a purer protein product and increase overall protein yield (paragraph 0010). Additionally, the whole stillage from the distillation and dehydration steps can undergo filtering (paragraphs 0030 and 0031). And finally, the protein wet cake has a percent dry weight of protein of over 40% over a dry basis (paragraph 0012). Regarding claims 2-3, drawn to cooling the liquid fraction prior to filtering to a temperature below 190oF (claim 3), Hora et al. teaches the cooling of the liquefied mash in the stream (paragraph 0025), where the centrate will be in a range of 170oF-190oF (paragraph 0037). Regarding claim 12, drawn to separating a whole stillage byproduct including separating a whole stillage byproduct, via filtration, into a fiber portion and a liquid slurry, which includes initial free oil and protein particles, Hora et al. teaches the filtering of the whole stillage product and washing of the fiber so as to clean the fiber and remove the amino acids, protein, free oil, and other components that remain associated with the fiber after the initial filtration or pre-concentration (paragraph 31). Regarding claim 13, drawn to separating the liquid slurry, via weights, into a protein portion, including combined initial and residual protein particles, and a water soluble solids portion, including combined initial and residual free oil, Hora et al. teaches the stillage portion is separated , via weights , into a water soluble solids portion and a protein portion, wherein the addition of the counter current wash water facilitates separation of a larger concentration of unfermentable solids into the water soluble solids portion (paragraph 0012). Regarding claims 14-16, drawn to the addition of the retentate facilitating the separation of larger concentration of protein particles in the protein portion and free oil in the water soluble solids portion and further comprising subjecting the separated water soluble solids portion to evaporation via an evaporator followed by separating the combined oil from the water soluble solids portion via an oil recovery centrifuge to provide an oil portion from about 40 wt% to 80 wt% of the total grain oil of the grain used in the method (claim 15), wherein said grain oil is from corn (claim 16), Hora et al. teaches the water soluble solids portion can be piped from the nozzle centrifuge and subjected to a set of here evaporators, where said evaporators evaporate the liquid portion of the water soluble solids portion, where said portion is subjected to oil recovery centrifuge, and the final recovered oil product can be about 30wt% to about 60wt% of the total corn oil in the corn (paragraph 0043). Regarding claim 17, drawn to utilizing the permeate as backset in a step earlier in the method, Hora et al. teaches utilizing the liquid portion as backset in a step earlier in the method (claim 2). Regarding claim 18, drawn to the biofuel and/lor biochemical production process is an alcohol production process, Hora et al. teaches the production of ethanol (Fig. 1). Regarding claim 19, drawn to the high protein meal from 48wt% to 70wt% protein on a dry basis, Hora et al. teaches the protein portion recovered is at least 40wt% protein on a dry basis (paragraph 0012). Regarding claim 20, drawn to drying the protein wet cake fraction, Hora et al. teaches that the wet cake can be further dried in a drying step (paragraph 0027). Regarding claim 21, drawn to adding one or more enzymes and/or other chemicals to the liquid fraction prior to filtering, Hora et al. teach the addition of a commercial enzyme such as alpha-amylase (paragraph 0024).
Hora et al. does not teach the filtering of the liquid fraction (claim 1), with a membrane (claim 5), specifically a flat sheet or a spiral wound (claim 6), a coated polymeric filter (claim 8), or a reverse osmosis filter (claim 9), where filtering occurs in parallel or in series (claim 10). Additionally, Hora et al. does not teach microfiltering, ultrafiltering, or nanofiltering (claim 11).
Pearson teaches the utilization of membrane (claim 5) filtration systems (claim 1) to separate, clarify, or fractionate process streams (paragraph 1). Peason continues to teach tubular, spiral, flat-sheet (claim 6), or hollow fiber arrangements, where spiral membranes consist of tightly packed filter material sandwiched between mesh spacers and wrapped in a small diameter tube proving more surface area in a given filtration unit (p. 4; paragraphs 1 and 3). Pearson teaches coated polymeric filters (claim 8) to provide a wide range of pore sizes for processing liquids in the food, beverage, pharmaceutical, and chemical industries, as well as for separating wastewater effluents (p. 3, paragraph 3). Pearson continues to teach a membrane filtration spectrum at the smallest molecular level with reverse osmosis (claim 9), which allows the finest degree of separation (p. 2, paragraph 1). Last, Pearson teaches the utilization of microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and nanofiltration membranes (claim 10) for colloidal materials, macro-molecules, and sugars/divalent salts, respectively (p. 2, bottom figure), where said filters may be arranged in series (claim 10) (p.2, bottom figure).
Therefore, it 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 combine the teachings of Hora et al. with Pearson to devise a method to purify protein from a biofuel process by filtering and drying a protein portion of the stillage and to further filter the retentate utilized to produce said protein to separate, clarify, or fractionate the process stream, as taught by Peason. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to arrive at the instant claims to further utilize the produced protein cake as a raw material feed to produce protein rich feed or food product, as taught by Hora et al (paragraph 0008). There would be a reasonable expectation of success, yielding no surprising results when combining the teachings of Hora et al. and Pearson to employ a method of separation, concentrating, and filtration to produce a protein product from a corn oil biofuel and/or bioproduction process, since Hora et al. teaches the production of dried protein portions from a corn oil ethanol process.
8. Claims 4 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hora et al. (Hora et al., 2021, US 2021/0170419 A1—cited on the IDS dated 10 February 2025) and Pearson (Pearson, 2023, “Choosing the Right Membrane,” <https://membranespecialists.com/choosing-the-right-membrane/> downloaded 16 September 2026 as a PDF—cited herein) as applied to claims 1-3, 5-6, and 8-21 above, and further in view of Sterling (Sterling, 2021, “What is a Heat Exchanger?” downloaded 16 September 2026 from <https://www.sterlingtt.com/2021/07/14/what-is-a-heat-exchanger/> as a PDF—cited herein).
The teachings of Hora et al. and Pearson are discussed above and incorporated into the instant rejection.
Hora et al. and Pearson do not teach the utilization of a heat exchanger to cool the liquid fraction prior to filtering.
Sterling teaches the utilization of a heat exchanger to give control over the temperature in various processes (p. 2, first paragraph), where the heat exchanger can be utilized in various processes, such as the manufacture and storage of food and chemical engineering (p. 4, “Industrial”).
Therefore, it 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 combine the teachings of Hora et al., Pearson, and Sterling to cool the liquid before filtration to control the temperature of said liquid. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to arrive at the instant claims to improve efficiency and safety, as taught by Sterling (p. 2, paragraph 1). There would be reasonable expectation of success, yielding no surprising results when combining the teachings of Hora et al. and Pearson with that of Sterling to utilize a heat exchanger to cool the liquid before filtration, since Sterling teaches cooling liquid in industrial applications, such as food production.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hora et al. (Hora et al., 2021, US 2021/0170419 A1—cited on the IDS dated 10 February 2025) and Pearson (Pearson, 2023, “Choosing the Right Membrane,” <https://membranespecialists.com/choosing-the-right-membrane/> downloaded 16 September 2026 as a PDF—cited herein) in further view of Sterling, 2021, (“What is a Heat Exchanger?” downloaded 16 September 2026 from <https://www.sterlingtt.com/2021/07/14/what-is-a-heat-exchanger/> as a PDF—cited herein), and further in view of TFI Filtration (TFI Filtration, 2006, “What are Sintered Metal Filters and How Do they Work?” downloaded from <https://www.tfipl.com/blog/what-are-sintered-metal-filters-and-how-do-they-work/> on 16 September 2026 as a PDF—cited herein).
The teachings of Hora et al. and Pearson in further view of Sterling are discussed above and incorporated into the instant rejection.
Hora et al and Pearson in further view of Sterling do not teach the utilization of a stainless steel sintered filter.
TFI Filtration teaches the use of sintered metal filters in chemical processing, oil and gas, power generation, pharmaceuticals, food processing and many other industries because of their strength, reliability and long service life, since they are manufactured from metal powders and can withstand extreme mechanical, thermal, and chemical conditions without deformation or performance loss (p. 1, paragraph 1 and 3).
Therefore, it 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 combine the teachings of Hora et al. and Pearson in further view of Sterling and in further view of TFI Filtration to utilize a sintered metal filter in the manufacturing method of producing a protein from a biofuel/bioproduction process because sintered stainless steel filters are resistant to thermal stress, such as high heat, as taught by TFI Filtration. One would be motivated to combine these teachings to arrive at the instant claims to utilize a sintered metal filter due to their long service life, as taught by TFI Filtration (p. 1, paragraph 2). There would be a reasonable expectation of success, yielding no surprising results when combining the teachings of Hora et al. and Pearson in further view of Sterling and in further view of TFI Filtration to utilize a sintered metal filter in the manufacturing method of producing a protein from a biofuel/bioproduction process, since TFI Filtration teaches the utilization of sintered metal filters in chemical processing and food processing.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CIARA A MCKNIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-4791. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Manjunath Rao can be reached on (571) 272-0939. 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.
/CIARA A MCKNIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/SUZANNE M NOAKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights