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 .
Decision on Petition
The request and petition under 37 CFR 1.102(a) to participate in the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) program is granted (08/29/2025).
Priority
This application discloses and claims only subject matter disclosed in prior Application No. 17/511,513, filed 10/26/2021, and names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/24/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 08/21/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 18-34 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "vapor released from the dryer in step d) of the processes" in lines 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the vapor" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
Claims 18, 20-25, 29 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US Patent Publication No. 2011/0315541 A1).
In regard to claim 18, Xu discloses a method for producing a fertilizer composition (e.g. distiller’s dried grains with solubles DDGS) [0003; 0007; 0093], the method comprising the steps of:
a) separating stillage from a mixture comprising hydrolyzed and fermented cellulose and hemicellulosic juice (e.g. fermentation of a mixture of water and milled grain to yield alcohol, distillation of the fermented mixture to recover […] grain solids and thin stillage) [0003], using a centrifuge (160) [0007] to obtain a solid fraction of the stillage (e.g. mostly solid component known as distiller’s grains) and a thin stillage (e.g. mostly liquid component known as thin stillage) [0007], wherein said mixture comprising hydrolyzed and fermented cellulose and hemicellulosic juice is produced from hydrolysis and fermentation of cellulose and hemicellulosic juice (e.g. fermentation of a mixture of water and milled grain) [0003] from lignocellulosic material (e.g. carbon source may be derived from renewable cellulosic or lignocellulosic biomass) [0069] to yield ethanol (e.g. to yield alcohol; in the ethanol production process) [0003; 0005], and wherein the stillage is produced from a distillation system for extracting the ethanol (e.g. distillation of the fermented mixture to recover alcohol and […] thin stillage) [0003], and
b) concentrating the thin stillage with a multi-effects evaporation system to obtain a concentrated thin stillage (e.g. a series arrangement of four first evaporators and four second effect evaporators concentrate the thin stillage) [0005], and
c) mixing the solid fraction and concentrated stillage to obtain a mixture (e.g. water is evaporated from thin stillage to product a syrup […] syrup can be added to distiller’s grains in a mixer to produce a mixed feed) [0007], and
d) drying the mixture (e.g. dried in a dryer) to obtain the organic fertilizer (e.g. that is dried […] to yield DDGS) [0007]
Xu does not explicitly teach wherein the steam for the multi-effects evaporation system is supplied from vapor released from the dryer in step d) of the process, wherein the vapor released from the dryer is fed to the multi-effect evaporation system as thermal energy for the multi-effect evaporation system of the process. However, Xu describes plant reused steam as a heat source to effect evaporation of water from the thin stillage [0095]. A heated vapor from a vapor source is received at a vapor inlet (e.g., proximate valve 320) and is isolated in the shell side of the heat exchanger as known in the art. The heat exchange between the heated vapor and the stillage causes water from the stillage to evaporate, and the steam to condense, which exits at condensate line 275. Condensate from each evaporator can be combined and recycled in system 200 [0096]. While the Xu does not explicitly describe the vapor source as originating from the vapor released from the dryer in step d), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize heat sources from within the Xu process, such as heat released as vapor in the dryer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it is desirable to reduce the external energy and water required to operate the various steps in Xu’s process [0004]. This can be achieved, for example by integrating the waste heat of one unit operation as a heat source for use in another unit operation of the process, process to process heat exchange, and recycling waste water streams back into the process [0004].
In regard to claim 20, Xu discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein the thin stillage is concentrated in an evaporator comprising a 4 effects evaporation system (e.g. the system comprises four effects comprising two first effect evaporators arranged in series, two second effect evaporators arranged in series, two third effect evaporators arranged in series, and further comprising two fourth effect evaporators arranged in series) [0014].
In regard to claims 21-22, Xu discloses the method according to claim 18 including concentrating the thin stillage with a multi-effects evaporation system (e.g. evaporating a substantial amount of water therefrom in multi-effect evaporation system) [0093]. The reference does not explicitly describe a 5 effects evaporation system (claim 21) or a 6 effects evaporation system (claim 22). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a multi-effect system can include up to and including 5 or 6 effects evaporation when Xu exemplifies a 4 effects evaporation system [0110], for example. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform a duplication of the parts of Xu’s system for a 5 effects or 6 effects evaporation system for better material separation. “[…] duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.” [MPEP 2144.04 V.B.]
In regard to claim 23, Xu discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein the thin stillage is concentrated by a multi-effects evaporation carried out at a temperature of 80-130°C [0098-0102].
In regard to claim 24, Xu discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein the concentrated thin stillage produced by multi-effects evaporation comprises a dry matter content of 28% to 45% by weight (e.g. weight concentration of water in syrup is from about 40% to about 65%) [0093] which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) [MPEP 2144.05 I].
In regard to claim 25, Xu discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein in that mixing the solid fraction and the concentrated stillage is carried out in a mixer (e.g. syrup can then be combined with grain solids in a mixer) [0093].
In regard to claims 29 and 32, Xu discloses the method according to claim 18 but does not explicitly disclose the DDGS organic matter content or the pH. However, Xu’s DDGS is produced by the claimed process and is presumed to exhibit the same properties (e.g. organic matter content and pH). “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”
In regard to claim 33, Xu discloses the method according to claim 18, wherein the method further comprises using plant steam to supply sufficient heat for evaporating water from the thin stillage in the first effect evaporators [0013].
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US Patent Publication No. 2011/0315541 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Schendel et al (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0033777 A1).
In regard to claim 19, Xu discloses the method according to claim 18 but does not explicitly disclose the dry solid content of the solid fraction.
Schendel et al. is directed to method for production DDGS from fermentation residue. The whole stillage component is first separated into a solid portion called wet distiller grains and a liquid portion called thin stillage. The solid portion has a dry solids content of about 35 % [0006]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate Xu’s solid fraction with a dry solids content of about 35% as described by Schendel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Schendel describes solids content of these common and well-known components after separation described as wet distillers grains and thin stillage. The selection of the known material described by Schendel based on its suitability for its intended use would yield predictable results.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US Patent Publication No. 2011/0315541 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Purtle et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2013/0130343 A1).
In regard to claim 26, Xu discloses the method according to claim 18 including drying the mixture (e.g. dried in a dryer) to obtain the organic fertilizer (e.g. DDGS) [0093]. The reference does not explicitly disclose the type of dryer (e.g. selected from the group of tube dryer, pneumatic drier or similar drier).
Purtle et al. is directed to a similar process for the recovery a DDGS product. Solids and/or evaporated thin stillage are fed to the dryer, along with the hot air. The dryer may be, in some embodiments, a vertically stacked counter-current dryer. Other dryers as known in the art may be employed, such as but not limited to rotary drum dryers, flash dryers, steam tube dryers, fluidized-bed dryers, etc. [0090]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the Purtle prior art for the selection of a tube dryer, for example. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Xu discloses a dryer, in general, and the selection of a known dryer type described by Purtle based on its suitability for its intended use (e.g. drying DDGS) would yield predictable results.
Claims 27-28 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US Patent Publication No. 2011/0315541 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Riebel et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2014/0051574 A1).
In regard to claims 27-28 and 31, Xu discloses the method according to claim 18 including drying the mixture (e.g. dried in a dryer) to obtain the organic fertilizer (e.g. DDGS) [0093]. The reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the mixture is dried to a dry solid content of 50% to 80% by weight (claim 27) at a temperature of 80°C to 160°C (claim 28), wherein the fertilizer comprises a water content of 20% to 50% by weight (claim 31).
Riebel et al. is directed to biofertilizer compositions comprising dried distillers solubles [Abstract]. The dried distillers solubles are dried to a moisture content of less than 25 percent by weight (e.g. dry solid content of greater than 80% by weight, water content up to 25% by weight) at a temperature less than 300°F (e.g. 149°C) [clm. 7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform drying to within conditions disclosed by Riebel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to formulate a composition comprising dried distillers solubles such as described by Xu for its suitability as an organic fertilizer [0021].
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US Patent Publication No. 2011/0315541 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Warner (Good Fruit Grower, 2008).
In regard to claim 30, Xu discloses the method according to claim 18 to obtain the organic fertilizer (e.g. DDGS) [0093] but is silent with respect to the nutrient content.
Warner discusses DDGS as an environmentally friendly fertilizer. DDGS has a total nutrient content (e.g. NPK value) of 6-2-1 (e.g. 9% by weight) [para. 7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate a DDGS composition for use as an organic fertilizer with a nutrient content similar to that described by Warner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to formulate a composition comprising dried distillers solubles such as described by Xu for its suitability as an organic fertilizer.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (US Patent Publication No. 2011/0315541 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Scheimann (US Patent Publication No. 2005/0079270 A1).
In regard to claim 34, Xu discloses the method according to claim 18, including separating stillage from a mixture comprising hydrolyzed and fermented cellulose and hemicellulosic juice using a centrifuge (160) [0007]. Xu does not explicitly describe the centrifuge as a decanter centrifuge.
Scheimann is directed to dewatering stillage solids [abstract]. Scheimann describes the current standard in the industry is the use of high speed horizontal decanter type centrifuges for processing and dewatering of the whole stillage or thick slop [0006]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a decanter-type centrifuge in the process described by Xu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the centrifuges are effective in capturing a portion of the whole stillage stream, which they process. Due to the high shear imparted in the unit a considerable portion of the smaller particles (fines) or the larger particles which are sheared can pass through the unit and are discharged in the centrate [0006].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Smith whose telephone number is (571)270-3599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30am-6pm 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731 November 20, 2025