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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 22, 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “wherein the temperature ifs is raised by heating to 80°C to 210°C in the inert gas atmosphere” in lines 1-2. Claim 1 recites the limitation “reacting an oil and fat which comprises 0.6% to 20% by mass of an almond derived raw material with respect to the oil at a temperature of 80°C to 210°C” in lines 3-4. The raised temperature range recited in Claim 5 recites the same temperature range as the reacting temperature range recited in Claim 5. It is unclear if the raised temperature of Claim 5 refers to the same reaction temperature recited in Claim 1 or if the temperature of Claim 5 refers to a different temperature than that of Claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear if the raised temperature of Claim 5 is required to be a higher temperature relative to the reaction temperature of Claim 1 since Claim 5 recites a raised temperature range that is the same as the reaction temperature of Claim 1.
Clarification is required.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. US 2009/0092732 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed January 6, 2022) in view of Lindsay et al. US 2005/0214411, No Eggs or Ham “How to Make Blanched Almond Butter and “Do Almonds Have Lectins?” (<https://noeggsorham.wordpress.com/2018/05/15/how-to-make-blanched-almond-butter-and-do-almonds-have-lectins/>) (herein referred to as “No Eggs or Ham”) (published May 23, 2018), Baker US 2012/0263809, and Ergun et al. US 2015/0157038 or alternatively Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiura et al. US 2009/0092732 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed January 6, 2022) in view of Lindsay et al. US 2005/0214411, No Eggs or Ham “How to Make Blanched Almond Butter and “Do Almonds Have Lectins?” (<https://noeggsorham.wordpress.com/2018/05/15/how-to-make-blanched-almond-butter-and-do-almonds-have-lectins/>) (herein referred to as “No Eggs or Ham”) (published May 23, 2018), Baker US 2012/0263809, Su et al. US 2018/0228755, and Ergun et al. US 2015/0157038.
Regarding Claim 1, Sugiura et al. discloses a production method of a flavored oil and fat (‘732, Paragraph [0022]). The production method comprises reacting an oil and fat at a temperature of 100°C to 150°C for between 5 minutes to 3 hours (‘732, Paragraph [0058]), which falls within the claimed reaction temperature range of 80°C to 210°C.and which overlaps the claimed reaction time of 0.2 to 4 hours, respectively. Sugiura et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the oil and fat is reacted at a temperature of 180°C for 120 minutes (‘732, Paragraph [0093]), which also falls within the claimed reaction temperature range of 80°C to 210°C.and which also falls with the claimed reaction time of 0.2 to 4 hours, respectively. Where the claimed reaction temperature and time ranges overlaps reaction temperature and time ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of 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.). Furthermore, differences in the reaction temperature and time will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such reaction temperature and time is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Sugiura et al. also discloses removing solid contents thereof (via filter paper) (‘732, Paragraph [0061]) wherein the solid contents is an almond derived raw material (‘732, Paragraphs [0037], [0047], and [0093]).
Sugiura et al. discloses cutting the almonds (‘732, Paragraph [0093]). However, Sugiura et al. is silent regarding the almond derived raw material being blanched ground almonds.
Lindsay et al. discloses a method of making a food material for high temperature processing in order to reduce acrylamide formation during a subsequent high temperature processing step (‘411, Paragraph [0008]) comprising the step of exposing food material to a food grade microorganism and/or a caramel coloring agent in an amount sufficient to provide more browned color, and/or more browned flavor upon high temperature heating compared to non-exposed control food materials (‘411, Paragraph [0010]) to reduce the acrylamide level in the final food product by treating an intermediate food material with the food grade microorganism and/or the caramel coloring agent before the high temperature heating step (‘411, Paragraph [0013]) wherein the high temperature heating occurs at a temperature of at least 100°C (‘411, Paragraph [0014]) and that almond nuts are susceptible to acrylamide formation during high temperature processing wherein large scale processing methods for almond nuts are known and typically includes peeling the raw food matter, cutting the peeled matter into pieces of suitable sizes, and optionally blanching the pieces in hot water and then cooling in cold water (‘411, Paragraph [0004]).
Both Sugiura et al. and Lindsay et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of processing almonds at high temperatures of at least 100°C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sugiura et al. that has a step of generically cutting almonds to process into an oil (‘732, Paragraph [0093]) and instead cut and blanch the almond derived raw material that is processed in high temperatures as taught by Lindsay et al. since No Eggs or Ham discloses that blanched almonds are sweeter, creamier in flavor, and often a little bit firmer than regular almonds (Page 5). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would modify the process of Sugiura et al. and blanch the almonds used in high temperature processing to make almond based oils as taught by Lindsay et al. based upon the desired sweetness of the flavored oil as suggested by No Eggs or Ham.
Further regarding Claim 1, Sugiura et al. discloses cutting the almonds (‘732, Paragraph [0093]). However, Sugiura et al. modified with Lindsay et al. and No Eggs or Ham is silent regarding the almond derived raw material being ground almonds.
Baker discloses a method of extracting oil from almonds by grinding the almonds (‘809, Paragraph [0022]).
Both Sugiura et al. and Baker are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of processing food oils derived from almonds comprising a cutting step. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Sugiura et al. that generically cuts the almonds and instead grind the almonds to extract the oils from the almonds as taught by Baker since the simple substitution of one known element (generic cutting of almonds to process oils) for another (grinding almonds to extract oil) to obtain predictable results (process almond oil) is prima facie obvious (MPEP § 2143.I.(B).). Baker teaches that there was known utility in the food art to process oils by grinding almonds to extract its oil components.
Further regarding Claim 1, Sugiura et al. modified with Lindsay et al., No Eggs or Ham, and Baker is silent regarding a presence of 0.6% to 20% by mass of the almond derived raw material with respect to the oil. However, differences in the concentration of the almond derived raw material within the composition comprising oil, fat, and the almond derived raw material will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the almond derived raw material within the composition comprising oil, fat, and the almond derived raw material is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of the almond derived raw material within the composition comprising oil, fat, and the almond derived raw material based upon the desired almond flavor intensity within the overall composition.
Further regarding Claim 1, in the event that it can be shown with objective evidence that the claimed concentration of the almond derived raw material within the composition comprising oil, fat, and the almond derived raw material is critical, Su et al. discloses a vegetarian composition containing unsaturated fatty acids (‘755, Paragraph [0007]) wherein the vegetarian composition is composed of at least one vegetable oil by a first weight percent of 50-60 wt%, at least one algal oil by a second weight percent of 35-50 wt%, and a vitamin E extracted from almond oil in a third weight percent in a range from 0 wt% to 5 wt% (‘755, Paragraph [0020]), which overlaps the claimed concentration of 0.6% to 20% by mass of an almond derived raw material with respect to the oil. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the production method of modified Sugiura et al. and incorporate the almond derived raw material in the claimed concentration with respect to the oil as taught by Su et al. since where the claimed almond derived raw material concentration with respect to the oil overlaps almond derived raw material concentration with respect to the oil concentrations disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of 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.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of the almond derived material with respect to the oil in the production method of modified Sugiura et al. based upon the desired almond flavor of the composition.
Further regarding Claim 1, Sugiura et al. discloses the reaction being carried out in a depressurization state under vacuum (‘732, Paragraph [0058]). However, Sugiura et al. modified with Lindsay et al., No Eggs or Ham, and Baker or alternatively Sugiura et al. modified with Lindsay et al., No Eggs or Ham, Baker, and Su et al. is silent regarding the depressurization state of the reaction having a degree of vacuum in the reaction system of 60 mm Hg or less.
Ergun et al. discloses a method of preparing an edible olegoel comprising triacylglycerol oil or fat and ethylcellulose (’038, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the mixture comprising the triacylglycerol oil or fat and the ethylcellulose is heated and agitated and stirred at a temperature from 90 to 250°C for typical heating times of from 1 to 120 minutes and that it is known to the person skilled in the art that higher temperatures require only short holding times whereas lower temperatures require longer holding times which specific temperature and holding time depends on the type of oil or fat (‘038, Paragraph [0024]) wherein it is essential that heating and agitating is conducted under an inert atmosphere under an inert gas atmosphere or in ambient air under reduced vacuum pressure to substantially exclude the presence of oxygen which inert atmosphere may still contain minor amounts of oxygen wherein the inert atmosphere has an oxygen level of less than 50 g oxygen/m3 of the atmosphere and the vacuum conditions are within the range of 10 to 2.5 kPa (‘038, Paragraph [0025]), which converts to vacuum pressure conditions in the range of about 18 mm Hg to about 75 mm Hg, which overlaps the claimed reaction being carried out in a depressurization state in which a degree of vacuum in a reaction system is 60 mm Hg or less.
Both modified Sugiura et al. and Ergun et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of processing oils or fats using elevated temperatures. Sugiura et al. teaches conducting the process under vacuum (‘732, Paragraph [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vacuum pressure of the reaction to be within the claimed pressure range of 60 mm Hg or less as taught by Ergun et al. since where the claimed vacuum pressure ranges overlaps vacuum pressure ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of 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.). Ergun et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food art to process fats and oils at the claimed vacuum pressure conditions. Furthermore, differences in the degree of vacuum will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such degree of vacuum is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP §2144.05.II.A.).
Further regarding Claim 1, the limitations “or the reaction is carried out in an inert gas atmosphere in which an oxygen concentration in the reaction system is 5.0% by volume or less” are optional limitations that do not necessarily need to expressly be taught by prior art by virtue of the term “or” since the prior art combination teaches the claimed depressurization degree of vacuum of 60 mm Hg or less. Nevertheless, Ergun et al. discloses the reaction (via heating and agitating) being conducted under inert atmosphere under vacuum (‘038, Paragraph [0038]). The inert atmosphere has an oxygen level of less than 25 g/m3 (‘038, Paragraph [0025]), which reasonably reads on the claimed oxygen concentration in the reaction system being 5.0% by volume or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Sugiura et al. and carry out the reaction in an inert gas atmosphere at the claimed oxygen concentration of 5.0% by volume or less as taught by Ergun et al. since where the claimed oxygen concentration range overlaps oxygen concentration ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of 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.). Additionally, in the event that it can be argued that the disclosed oxygen level of less than 25 g/m3 does not necessarily convert to an oxygen concentration in the reaction system of 5.0% by volume of less, Ergun et al. teaches processing under inert atmosphere to substantially exclude the presence of oxygen (‘038, Paragraph [0025]). The differences in the oxygen concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such oxygen concentration is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Ergun et al. teaches substantially excluding the presence of oxygen under vacuum conditions (‘038, Paragraph [0038]).
Regarding Claim 5, Sugiura et al. discloses the temperature being raised by heating to a temperature of 100°C to 150°C for between 5 minutes to 3 hours (‘732, Paragraph [0058]), which falls within the claimed reaction temperature range of 80°C to 210°C. Sugiura et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the oil and fat is raised by heating at a temperature of 180°C (‘732, Paragraph [0093]), which also falls within the claimed raised heating temperature range of 80°C to 210°C. Where the claimed raised heating temperature ranges overlaps raised heating temperature ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of 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.). Furthermore, differences in the raised heating temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such raised heating temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Furthermore, Ergun et al. discloses the heating step to occur in an inert gas atmosphere (‘038, Paragraphs [0025], [0027], and [0042]).
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the new limitations with respect to the degree of vacuum in the reaction system is 60 mm Hg or less does not constitute new matter. Paragraph [0014] of the specification as filed states that a reaction is caused at a defined heating temperature for a defined time in a depressurization state in which a degree of vacuum in the reaction system is 60 mm Hg or less and the depressurization condition is more preferably 55 mm Hg or less as asserted by applicant on Page 5 of the Remarks. There was adequate written description support at the time of filing for the newly presented limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the obviousness rejections of Claims 1 and 5 under 35 USC 103(a) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner notes that applicant argues on Page 8 of the Remarks that the specific numerical value of 5.0% or less is not arbitrarily selected but rather a key parameter identified by the present invention to suppress thermal degradation of an oil and fat while allowing volatile aroma components that contribute to flavor to remain in the oil. Examiner first notes that Claim 1 recites “the reaction is carried out in a depressurization state in which a degree of vacuum in a reaction system is 60 mm Hg or less or the reaction is carried out in an inert gas atmosphere in which an oxygen concentration in the reaction system is 5.0% by volume or less.” This limitation includes the word or. This limitation recites a first element of a depressurization state of a degree of vacuum of 60 mm Hg or less or a second element of reaction in an inert gas atmosphere at an oxygen concentration in the reaction system of 5.0% by volume or less. The prior art only needs to teach/render obvious only one of the two clauses. Since the prior art explicitly teaches the limitations regarding the degree of vacuum of 60 mm Hg or less, the limitations regarding carrying out the reaction under inert gas atmosphere at an oxygen concentration of 5.0% by volume or less are optional limitations that do not necessarily need to be taught by the prior art. Additionally, applicant’s allegations that the specific numerical value of 5.0% or less is not arbitrarily selected but rather a key parameter identified by the present invention to suppress thermal degradation of an oil and fat while allowing volatile aroma components that contribute to flavor to remain in the oil are allegations that are not supported by any objective data. Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims in view of In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP § 716.02(b).III.). Additionally, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range in view of In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960) (MPEP § 716.02(d).II.). An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness in view of In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979) (MPEP § 716.02(e)). The burden is on applicant to establish results that are unexpected and significant (MPEP § 716.02(b)). Applicant has not provided any objective evidence supporting the allegation that the specific numerical value of 5.0% or less is not arbitrarily selected but rather a key parameter identified by the present invention to suppress thermal degradation of an oil and fat while allowing volatile aroma components that contribute to flavor to remain in the oil.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Littler US 2021/0274802 discloses a lipid composition enriched with multiple polyunsaturated fatty acids (‘802, Paragraph [0001]) wherein bleaching is a refining process in which oils are heated at 90°C to 120°C for 10 to 30 minutes in the presence of a bleaching earth at 0.2 to 2.0% and in the absence of oxygen by operating with nitrogen or steam or in a vacuum wherein bleaching removes unwanted pigments and the process also removes oxidation products, trace metals, sulphur compounds, and traces of soap (‘802, Paragraph [0077]) and deodorization is a treatment of oils and fats at a high temperature, e.g. 180°C and a low pressure of 0.1 to 1 mm Hg typically achieved by introducing steam into the seedoil and after sparging the seedoil is allowed to cool under vacuum to improve the color of the seedoil and remove a majority of the volatile substances or monoacylglycerols and oxidation products (‘802, Paragraph [0078]).
Monticello et al. US 2020/0146307 discloses a method of making a monoacylglycerol enriched oil comprising mixing a starting oil comprising triacylglycerols, a buffer solution, and a first enzyme (‘307, Paragraph [0031]) and allowing the reaction mixture to react under conditions sufficient for the first enzyme to hydrolyze triacylglycerols and free fatty acids under a nitrogen atmosphere (‘307, Paragraph [0037]) wherein three vegetables oils of olive oil, flaxseed oil, and sunflower seed oil are added to a vessel and applying a vacuum to drop the pressure to about 20 mm Hg and degas the material from any dissolved oxygen and then replacing the vacuum by a nitrogen gas atmosphere (‘307, Paragraph [0143]) wherein the starting oil comprises almond oil (‘307, Paragraph [0089]).
Wester US 2012/0156358 discloses a fat blend (‘358, Paragraph [0013]) made under vacuum conditions of 5-15 mm Hg (‘358, Paragraph [0037]) wherein a vegetable oil distillate is fed into a reactor flushed with nitrogen (‘358, Paragraph [0043])
Namal Senanayake et al. US 2009/0099260 discloses a polyunsaturated fatty acid containing solid fat composition (‘260, Paragraph [0002]) wherein PUFA containing oil products are produced and treated to a process of vacuum evaporation (‘260, Paragraph [0041]) wherein the vacuum evaporation includes desolventization and/or drying by high vacuum evaporation as generally known in the art including subjecting an extracted oil to vacuum conditions at high temperatures of from about 50°C to about 70°C at a vacuum of greater than about 50 mm Hg to drive off any solvents, water or other components in the extracted oil having a boiling point below the oil (‘260, Paragraph [0042]) and the process of deodorization is generally known in the art and includes subjecting an extracted oil to vacuum conditions to remove any low molecular weight components that may be present by sparging with steam at high temperatures under high vacuum wherein the vacuum is greater than a vacuum of about 50 mm Hg to destroy may peroxide bonds that may be present and reduce or remove off odors and improves oil stability wherein solvents, water and/or other components in the extracted oil having a boiling point below the oil are driven off wherein deodorization is typically performed at high temperatures of between about 190°C and about 220°C (‘260, Paragraph [0043]) wherein the solid fat compositions are stored under nitrogen or argon atmosphere to minimize oxidative degradation (‘260, Paragraph [0098]) wherein minimally processed oils are heated to 65°C to 70°C under nitrogen (‘260, Paragraph [0107]).
Massie et al. US 5,436,018 discloses a method for treating fats and oils and for deodorization and/or cholesterol level reduction (‘018, Column 1, lines 23-30) wherein fish oil is deaerated to an oxygen level of less than about 0.1% dissolved oxygen by volume which deaeration step involves subjecting the fish oil to a vacuum with or without sparging an inert gas through the oil while under a vacuum at a pressure of at least 1 mm Hg absolute, typically 1-7 mm HG and heating the mixture to at least about 400°F wherein deaerating the oil is accomplished by subjecting the oil to a partial vacuum and/or by sparging an inert gas of nitrogen through the oil for about 5 to 10 minutes.
Seiden et al. US 5,419,925 discloses a reduced fat composition comprising reduced calorie triglycerides undergoing fractional distillation wherein conventional distillation temperature is generally between 207°C and 515°C at an absolute pressure of less than 8 mm Hg which distillation is aided by sparging with steam, nitrogen, or other inert gas to remove part of the excess MCT or to distill the mono long chain components.
Narayanaswamy et al. US 6,759,070 discloses dough packed in a gas impermeable pouch in an atmosphere of an inert gas containing less than 2% oxygen by volume.
Sasaki et al. US 2017/0150747 discloses a method of processing fat or oil comprising subjecting the fat or oil to deoxygenation treatment through bubbling with an inert gas or deaeration under reduced pressure wherein the dissolved oxygen concentration of the fat or oil after the deoxygenation treatment is 3 ppm or less (‘747, Paragraph [0082]).
Krishnamurthy et al. US 5,091,116 discloses a method of treatment of vegetable oils and for deodorizing and stabilizing edible oils which contain relatively strong and unpalatable flavor components (‘116, Column 1, lines 8-12) wherein the oil is vacuum deaerated or purged by means of an inert gas at relatively low temperature of less than about 140°F to reduce the oxygen content thereof to the desired level if the oil has an undesirably high oxygen content before the oil is heated to higher temperature which can produce oxidized flavors wherein an oxygen containing oil is introduced into an appropriately designed column which provides for removal of oxygen as it passes through the column at a relatively low temperature followed by progressive heating of the oil to deodorization temperature (‘116. Column 5, lines 4-16) wherein deodorization is carried out at a vacuum of 0.02 mm Hg and held under vacuum conditions for 60 minutes (‘116, Column 8, lines 1-16).
Hawkes et al. US 4,913,922 discloses a method of handling cooking oil and means for its continuous clarification and conditioning thereby to clarify the oil and to control the amount of free fatty acid and other contaminants therein (‘922, Column 1, lines 6-14) wherein the entire cooking and clarification operation is conducted at elevated temperature of 300°F to 380°F wherein large volume of air from oxygen are filtered by being drawn through a precoat bed and conducted in an atmosphere high in inert gases in which oxygen is maintained well below about 6% wherein the oxygen concentration is continuously monitored for automatic injection of additional CO2 whenever the oxygen concentration exceeds about 6% (‘922, Column 4, lines 41-68).
Scavone et al. US 4,789,554 discloses a process for increasing the frylife of edible oil comprising heating the oil at very high temperature under vacuum for a short time while stripping the oil with steam or inert gas to remove components from the class of tocopherols, tocotrienols, cholesterol, trace pesticides and other trace quinone type structure that are deleterious to frylife (‘554, Column 1, lines 16-23) wherein the process comprises deaerating oil to level of less than about 0.10% by volume of dissolved oxygen then heating the deaerated oil at an absolute pressure between about 0.5 mm Hg and about 50 mm Hg for a time period of between about 5 second and about 15 minutes while stripping the oil with a stripping medium (‘554, Column 5, lines 67-68) (‘554, Column 6, lines 1-9) wherein the oil is deaerated to a level of less than about 0.10% by volume of dissolved oxygen in order to prevent oxidation of the oil by dissolved oxygen wherein dissolved oxygen is oxygen which becomes associated with the oil when it is exposed to the air or other oxygen containing material and comprises up to about 2.5% by volume of a typical edible oil at room temperature (‘554, Column 8, lines 14-22) wherein deaeration is accomplished by heating the oil and then subjecting the heated oil to a partial vacuum of between 5 mm Hg and 20 mm Hg wherein the vacuum is maintained during the subsequent heating preheating step which temperature to which the oil is heated should not be so high as to damage the oxygen containing oil, e.g. soybean oil which is saturated with air at room temperature contains about 2.5% dissolved oxygen and can safely be heated to about 104°C without degradation (‘554, Column 8, lines 23-33) wherein the oil is stripped with a stripping medium while under vacuum and at high temperature wherein inert gases are used (‘554, Column 9, lines 9, lines 28-51).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792