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
Claims 1-20 filed on 9/19/2024 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/19/2024 was filed before the first Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3,6,8,9,11,13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lujan-Rhenals (Production of Bioethanol by Fermentation of Sugars Released by Dilute-acid and Enzymatic Hydrolysis of Soybean Meal. Graduate Thesis University of Arkansas 2013, (available for download in 2016), in view of Yancey et al. (US2022/0290191A1) and Tsuchida et al. (US10,294,497 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Lujan-Rhenals (see abstract) discloses processing soybean meal by aqueous dilute-acid treatment, including treatment at 120deg. C (248 deg. F) for 30 minutes, followed by enzymatic hydrolysis with cellulase and beta-galactosidase to produce fermentable sugars for ethanol production and a protein-enriched soybean material, meeting the claimed limitations. When soybean material feed comprises raw or roasted soybeans, reducing the size of the soybeans by pressing, hammermilling, or roller milling would have been obvious use of conventional soybean-processing techniques to reduce particle size and increase surface area for subsequent processing. Likewise, where the soybean feedstock contains greater that 12 wt.% oil, removal of a portion of the oil would have been an obvious conventional processing step to produce reduced-oil soybean material and recover a valuable coproduct : soybean oil.
Yancey (working examples) discloses an integrated ethanol process including heating acidified material to about 190 deg. F, cooking at about 140 deg. F, adjusting the pH to about 4.5, adding cellulase and hemicellulose, enzymatically hydrolyzing the material, fermenting with yeast to produce beer, and distilling the beer to recover ethanol and produce high-protein whole stillage. Yancey further discloses centrifugally separating the high-protein fraction and an oil-containing thin-stillage fraction , recovering oil from the thin stillage, and drying/concentrating the protein-rich fraction.
It would have been obvious to apply Yancey’s known downstream ethanol processing and coproduct recovery operations to Lujan-Rhenals’s soybean process to provide suitable conditions for hydrolysis and fermentation to recover ethanol, soybean oil, and concentrated high-protein soybean material, with predictable results.
Tsuchida discloses ethanol-producing yeast capable of utilizing both C5 and C6 sugars. It would have been obvious to employ such yeast to increase utilization of fermentable sugars available in the soybean hydrolysate.
Regarding claim 2, Lujan-Rhenals reports soybean material containing up to 58.6% protein on a dry basis , within the claimed 50-80 wt.% range.
Regarding claim 3, Yancey discloses centrifugally separating the high-protein stillage and subsequently drying the protein-containing fraction.
Regarding claim 6, Lujan-Rhenals discloses cooking for 30 minutes, and Yancey discloses cooking for about 25 minutes, both within the claimed 5-60-minute range.
Regarding claim 8, Yancey discloses heating the material by direct steam injection to about 190 deg. F within the claimed 175-212 deg. F range.
Regarding claim 9, Yancey discloses adjusting material to solids concentrations including 20-35 wt.% which overlaps the claimed 10-30 wt.% range.
Regarding claim 11, Yancey discloses cooling the material to about 140 deg. F within the claimed 130-175 deg. F range.
Regarding claim 12 and 13, Yancey discloses adjusting the cooled material to approximately pH 4.5, within the claimed pH 4.0-6.0 range.
Regarding claim 14, Yancey discloses adding a combination of cellulose and hemicellulose.
Regarding claim 15, Yancey discloses adding yeast to the hydrolyzed material for ethanol fermentation, and Tsuchida discloses suitable C5/C6 utilizing ethanol yeast. Although the claimed yeast dosage is not particularly disclosed , yeast loading for fermentation is a result-effective variable dependent on yeast activity, substrate concentration, and desired fermentation performance. It would have been obvious to determine an effective yeast dosage, including the claimed range through routine optimization.
Regarding claim 17, Yancey (see working examples) discloses enzymatic hydrolysis/saccharification for 35-55 hours, before transfer to fermentation. The disclosed 40-hour period falls within the claimed 20 - 48-hour range.
Regarding claim 18, Yancey discloses transferring fermentation beer to a distillation column for ethanol recovery.
Regarding claim 19, Lujan-Rhenals discloses soybean material and its acid/thermal treatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, fermentation , and protein enrichment, while Yancey discloses corresponding integrated processing equipment including feedstock handling, slurry preparation, a high-temperature reactor, cooling equipment, pH adjustment and enzyme addition, hydrolysis and fermentation vessels, ethanol-recovery equipment, stillage separation, oil recovery, evaporation and drying equipment. It would have been obvious to employ Yancey’s well-known processing equipment to carry out the soybean process taught by Lujan Rhenals, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Yancey further discloses direct steam injection, a beerwell, flash-cooling and subsequent cooling of thermally treated material. Removal of oil from a high-oil soybean feedstock prior to aqueous processing was a known feed-preparation operation, and would have predictably reduced the oil content of the soybean material while separately recovering a soybean oil coproduct.
Claims 1-3,6,8,9,11,13-15, and 17-20 are therefore prima facie obvious over the combined art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lujan-Rhenals in view of Yancey and Tsuchida , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vander Griend et al. (US7297236B1).
Lujan- Rhenals in view of Yancey and Tsuchida discloses a method as claimed but does not specifically disclose a >180 proof ethanol product. Vander Griend however discloses recovering ethanol from fermentation beer by distillation and rectification to produce 190 proof ethanol for conventional commercial use (for example see column 2 lines 10-20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include an ethanol-purification step as above to obtain purified alcohol of >180 proof with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lujan-Rhenals in view of Yancey and Tsuchida as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lewis (US7842484 B2).
Regarding claim 5 Lewis (column 5 lines 10-20) discloses milling plant material for ethanol production and reports particle plant material for ethanol production and reports particle size distributions in which substantially 90% of the milled material passes through 0.1-0.5mm screen which would therefore pass through a No 12 sieve, meeting the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to employ a known size reduction to increase surface area available for hydrolysis in the soy material, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 12, Lewis discloses processing plant material for ethanol production at pH 3-6 (column 6 lines 60-65) which falls within the claimed pH range.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lujan-Rhenals in view of Yancey and Tsuchida as applied to claim 1 above , and further in view of Carlson et al. (US2019/0093184A1).
Regarding claim 7, Carlson discloses high temperature acid treatment under elevated reactor pressures, including a disclosed exemplary reactor pressure of 25-35 psig (39.7-49.7psia) [0048] which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 10, Carlson discloses flash cooling high-temperature acid treated material to temperatures in the claimed range [0063]. It would have been obvious to employ flash cooling following high-temperature treatment to rapidly reduce temperature for subsequent processing and provide material with high solids content for fermentation, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lujan -Rhenals in view of Yancey and Tsuchida , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narendranath et al. (US9,034,631B2)
Narendranath discloses propagating yeast for ethanol production and subsequently supplying the propagated yeast to culture for fermentation.
It would have been obvious to propagate the yeast to improve process economics and efficiency in a continuous process to obtain a high protein product and ethanol from a soybean feedstock in Lujan -Rhenals in view of Yancey and Tsuchida with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-20 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights