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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Note: The amendment of October 2nd, 2025 has been considered.
Claims 1, 8 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 2-5, 7, 10-19, 21, 23 and 24 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 20 and 22 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1, 6 and 8 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 9, 20 and 22 are examined in the current application.
Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 2nd, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 9, 16-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ruiz Mendez et al. (US 2011/0189320 A1) in view of NPL “UK National Archives – Withdrawal of Olive-Pomace Oil Products” (UK Archives) and NPL “Carello Blended Soybean Oil” (‘Carello’).
Regarding claims 9, 16, 19, 20, 22 and 24: Ruiz Mendez discloses a refining method for attaining frying oil and fat composition (i.e., an olive oil) from crude olive pomace by implementing a bleaching step and/or a deodorization step and without implementing a degumming step and a neutralization step (see Ruiz Mendez abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0010]-[0012] and [0015]-[0017]), but fails to disclose any other olive oil; However, Ruize Mendez discloses the oil refining method allows the preservation of the triterpenic acids in the oil, which are the colorful acids in olive oil (see Ruiz Mendez abstract; paragraphs [0001] and [0015]). Since olive-pomace oil is considered to be the lowest grade of olive oil (see UK Archives page 1, paragraph 6), it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to refine a higher grade olive oil (e.g., virgin olive oil) using the method in Ruiz Mendez in order to attain a higher grade olive oil with triterpenic acids (e.g., preserved color), and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
As to processing the oil and fat without degumming, neutralization and bleaching, but processing the oil and fat with steam distillation under reduced pressure recited in claims 9 and 20: Ruiz Mendez discloses a refining method for attaining frying oil and fat composition (i.e., an olive oil) from crude olive pomace by implementing a bleaching step and/or a deodorization step and without implementing a degumming step and a neutralization step (see Ruiz Mendez abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0010]-[0012] and [0015]-[0017]). Given the fact that deodorization, is also known as a vacuum steam distillation step in the edible oil refining art, is where volatile compounds that cause undesirable odors and flavors are removed, the disclosure in Ruiz Mendez meets the claimed limitations.
As to the absorbance differences recited in claims 9 and 20: Ruiz Mendez fail to disclose the absorbance differences recited in claims 9 and 20; However, given the fact Ruiz Mendez disclose a similar method for attaining frying oil and fat composition as recited in the claims, it is examiner’s position the absorbance differences recited in claims 9 and 20 are inherently present in Ruiz Mendez. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
As to mixing the pomace oil with vegetable oil recited in claims 9 and 22: Ruiz Mendez discloses a method for attaining frying oil and fat composition (i.e., an olive oil) from crude olive pomace, but fails to disclose blending 0.05 to 20 mass% of the olive pomace oil with vegetable oils; However, Carello discloses blending 10% pomace oil with soybean oil to provide an oil blend that is great for frying and sauteing (see Carello page 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have modified Ruiz Mendez and to have blended 10% of the pomace oil with soybean oil to attain an oil blend that is great for frying and sauteing, and thus arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 2nd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because Ruiz Mendez does not teach refining olive oil other than pomace-olive oil, without a bleaching, a degumming, or a neutralization steps, but with steam distillation under reduced pressure to remove odorous components. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Given the fact Ruize Mendez discloses the oil refining method allows the preservation of the triterpenic acids in the oil, which are the colorful acids in olive oil (see Ruiz Mendez abstract; paragraphs [0001] and [0015]) and since olive-pomace oil is considered to be the lowest grade of olive oil (see UK Archives page 1, paragraph 6), it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to refine a higher grade olive oil (e.g., virgin olive oil) using the method in Ruiz Mendez in order to attain a higher grade olive oil with (i.e., comprising) triterpenic acids (e.g., preserved color), and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
Moreover regarding the processing steps, Ruiz Mendez discloses a refining method for attaining frying oil and fat composition (i.e., an olive oil) from crude olive pomace by implementing a bleaching step and/or a deodorization step and without implementing a degumming step and a neutralization step (see Ruiz Mendez abstract; paragraphs [0001], [0010]-[0012] and [0015]-[0017]). Given the fact that deodorization, is also known as a vacuum steam distillation step in the edible oil refining art, is where volatile compounds that cause undesirable odors and flavors are removed, the disclosure in Ruiz Mendez meets the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792