DETAILED ACTION Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/12/2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed on 3/12/2026 in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. This listing of claims replaces all prior listings of claims in the application.
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 14-20 remain withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claims 1-13 are pending and examined on the merits.
Applicant’s remarks and Rule 130 declaration filed on 3/12/2026 in response to the Final Rejection mailed on 11/17/2025 have been fully considered and are not deemed persuasive to overcome the rejections as previously applied. The calculations of esterase enzyme supplied by Applicant in the appendix of the declaration dated 3/12/2026 is acknowledged and has been examined, however Examiner contends that Anton teaches the limitation of claim 1 ‘wherein the esterase enzyme component is present in an amount from greater than 0 and up to 0.05 % w/w of the weight of the first grain oil portion’ as stated in the 102 and 103 rejection within the current office action. Therefore, Examiner is maintaining ALL previous rejections.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in the instant action can be found in the prior Office Action.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anton et al (2015, US 9,175,315 B2. Date Filed: Jun. 17, 2011, Date of Patent: Nov. 3, 2015, , 10.1186/s40643-014-0022-8, cited on PTO-892 filed 9/6/2024) {herein Anton} as evidenced by Oh et al. (Date Published: 14 November 2019, crystals, Examiner Cited) {herein Oh} is maintained. The rejection has been modified in light of Anton teaching 0.1 ppm esterase and Applicant’s declaration dated 3/12/2026.
Previously presented claims 1-9 are drawn to a method of reducing the free fatty acid content in a grain oil, wherein the method comprises: a) providing a first composition comprising a first grain oil portion, wherein the first composition has a first free fatty acid content based on the total weight of the first grain oil portion of the first composition; b) exposing the first grain oil portion to an alcohol component and an esterase enzyme component including an enzyme defined by EC 3.1.1.3 to esterify at least a portion of the first free fatty acid content and form a second composition comprising a second grain oil portion, wherein the second composition has a second free fatty acid content based on the total weight of the second grain oil portion of the second composition, wherein the second free fatty acid content is less than the first free fatty acid content, wherein the esterase enzyme component is present in an amount from greater than 0 and up to 0.05 % w/w of the weight of the first grain oil portion; c) separating the second composition into an oil fraction and an aqueous fraction, wherein the second composition has a first minerals content from 30 to 5,000 ppm, and the oil fraction has a second minerals content from 20 to 200 ppm, wherein the second minerals content is less than the first minerals content; and wherein the grain oil is corn oil.
With respect to claims 1-2, Anton teaches a method for producing a product alcohol wherein the method comprises providing a biomass feedstock comprised of oil (column 9, lines 19-21). Examples of biomass include corn grain (column 14, lines 51-52). In some embodiments, the oil is corn oil (column 29, line 62). Examiner is interpreting said teaching by Anton to be a first composition comprising a first grain oil portion, wherein the first composition has a first free fatty acid content based on the total weight of the first grain oil portion of the first composition as recited in claim 1. As such, Examiner is interpreting said composition to be the first grain oil. The first grain oil from the feedstock slurry (biomass) is contacted with catalyst to produce a stream of free fatty acid (column 36, lines 48-50). In some embodiments, the enzyme catalyst can be a lipase derived from Bacillus (column 23, lines 17-19) or an esterase (column 5, line 4). Evidentiary reference of Oh is cited to demonstrate that Bacillus is a major source of carboxylic-ester hydrolase (CEHs), EC 3.1.1.3 (page 2, para 1 and table 1). As such, Examiner is interpreting the claimed ‘EC 3.1.1.3’ as the same enzyme taught by Anton. Anton further teaches the stream of free fatty acid and catalyst can then be introduced into the fermentation vessel to produce alcohol via fermenting microorganisms by catalytically hydrolyzing the feedstock oil into carboxylic acid (column 21, lines 54-56 and column 36, lines 50-54, 58-59). Anton defines carboxylic acid as free fatty acids (column 32, lines 4-5). Specifically, the alcohol produced by microorganism (oleyl alcohol) is esterified with carboxylic acid using catalyst (examiner interpreting EC 3.1.1.3) to form alcohol esters (column 22, lines 66-67 and column 23, lines 1). Anton teaches 4 wt % corn oil can be treated with amylase and subsequently treated with 0.1 ppm of lipase for the conversion of 30% to 99% fatty acid content in lipids to free fatty acids (column 34, lines 59-67), specifically into carboxylic acid (free fatty acids) (column 22, lines 58-61). Absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that 0.1 ppm of lipase is within the recited range of an esterase enzyme component present in an amount from greater than 0 and up to 0.05 % w/w of the weight of the first grain oil portion. Additionally, it is the Examiner’s position that Anton’s method would necessarily yield a second free fatty acid content that is less than the first free fatty acid content, especially since Anton teaches the lipase (catalyst) is added at 0.1 ppm of lipase (column 34, lines 62). As such, absent evidence otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that Anton teaches the second free fatty acid content is less than the first free fatty acid content as recited in the instant application claim 1. Anton further teaches in some embodiments, the concentration of the carboxylic acid (free fatty acid) in the fermentation vessel exceeds the solubility limit in the aqueous phase and results in the production of a two-phase fermentation mixture comprising an organic phase and an aqueous phase (column 23, lines 6-10). Examiner is interpreting said teaching by Anton to be separating the second composition into an oil fraction and an aqueous fraction as recited in claim 1 of the instant application. With reference to the mineral content limitations of claim 1 of the instant application and those dependent therefrom, it is the Examiner’s position that Anton’s method would necessarily yield a first minerals content from 30 to 5,000 ppm and a second minerals content from 20 to 200 ppm especially since Anton teaches the lipase (catalyst) is added at 0.1 ppm of lipase (column 34, lines 62), which is within the claimed ranged of enzyme of 0 to up to 0.05% w/w. As such, Examiner is interpreting the second mineral content would be less than the first mineral content. Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing Applicants’ mineral content of the first and second oil fractions with the first and second oil fractions of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art (i.e., that the first and second mineral content of the prior art does not possess the same mineral composition of the claimed first and second mineral content). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.
With respect to claim 3, Anton teaches a method wherein within some embodiments, the oleic acid content of normal corn oil is about 24 wt % (column 21, lines 22-23). It is well-known in the art that oleic acid is a type of fatty acid. As such, Examiner is interpreting the oleic acid taught by Anton to be the same fatty acid recited in the instant application claim 3. After hydrolysis by the catalyst, the corn oil fatty acid is at least about 10% (column 32, line 67).
With respect to claim 4, Anton teaches a method wherein lipids can be directly transesterfied by the catalyst to produce alcohol esters (column 3, lines 30-31). Examiner is interpreting the composition before the addition of the catalyst to be the first grain oil composition with the first grain oil. Furthermore, Examiner is interpreting alcohol esters as fatty acid alkyl esters as they are comprised of alcohol and fatty acids due to esterification. Anton further teaches the ester-containing organic phase can be separated from the fermentation medium after the percent conversion of COFA is at least 100% (column 32, lines 65-67 and column 33, line 1). Examiner is interpreting the resulting composition to be a second grain oil composition with a second grain oil. Additionally, Examiner is interpreting the teaching of ‘the ester-containing organic phase can be separated from the fermentation medium after the percent conversion of COFA is at least 100% (column 32, lines 65-67 and column 33, line 1) by Anton to be ‘the second fatty acid alkyl ester content is greater than the first fatty acid alkyl ester content’ as recited in the instant application claim 4 as at least 100% of the COFA is converted into an ester-containing organic phase, at which Examiner is interpreting as fatty acid alkyl ester.
With respect to claim 5, Anton teaches a method wherein the fatty acid alkyl ester content is less than 20% of the total weight of the first grain oil portion of the first composition with the teaching of the conversion of about 100% of COFA, based on total weight, to an ester-containing organic phase (column 33, lines 1-3). Examiner is interpreting 0% conversion of COFA to fatty acid alky ester within the first composition as the first composition is interpreted as being before the addition of the catalyst. Furthermore, Examiner is interpreting the conversion of about 100% COFA, based on total weight, into an organic ester phase to be the same as 100% conversion of COFA into fatty alkyl ester as Anton teaches the transesterification of COFA into alcohol esters by the catalyst in the presence of alcohol (column 3, lines 30-31). Examiner is interpreting fatty acid ethyl esters to be the same as alcohol esters as they are comprised of fatty acids and alcohol through the process of esterification (Anton: column 10, lines 55-56).
With respect to claim 6, Anton teaches a method wherein the water phase including suspended and dissolved solids may be centrifuged to produce a wet cake and thin stillage (column 42, lines 36-38). Examiner is interpreting the recitation ‘optionally evaporating at least a portion of water from the thin stillage to condense the thin stillage into a syrup; and b) separating the thin stillage or syrup into the oil fraction and the aqueous fraction’ as not being a required limitation of the claims due to the recitation ‘optionally.’
With respect to claims 7-8, Anton teaches a method wherein milled grain and one or more enzymes are combined to generate a slurried grain (corn processed by the hammer mill) (column 41, lines 27-30). Examiner is interpreting the slurried grain to be a first grain oil portion. The slurried grain is cooked and liquified, resulting in cooked mash (column 41, lines 30-31). The cooked mash is then filtered to generate a wet cake and a filtrate (column 41, lines 31-33). Examiner is interpreting the filtrate to be the first oil composition, containing the first oil fraction and first aqueous fraction. Examiner is interpreting the filtrate as an emulsion as it is comprised of 2 liquids that do not naturally mix together (oil and water). The water phase may be centrifuged to produce a wet cake and thin stillage (column 42, lines 36-38). Anton further teaches the emulsion can be separated by exposing it to sodium hydroxide and heat (column 113, lines 50-51). Examiner is interpreting the exposure of the emulsion to sodium hydroxide and heat as breaking the emulsion to separate the first oil fraction into the second oil fraction and the second aqueous phase, with the product being comprised of both the second oil fraction and the aqueous phase. Furthermore, Examiner is interpreting said teaching to be the same as ‘breaking the emulsion comprises exposing the emulsion to an alkali base’ as recited in claim 8 as it is well-known in the art that sodium hydroxide is an alkali base. Additionally, it is the Examiner’s position that given that Anton teaches the addition of sodium hydroxide to the emulsion, the pH would rise to 7 or above as sodium hydroxide is an alkali base that is well-known in the art to increase the pH of samples. Examiner is interpreting the resulting oil from the breaking of the emulsion of the thin stillage as being the second oil fraction. The split also provides thin stillage which may be pumped to evaporators for further processing (column 42, lines 43-44). In another embodiment, the thin stillage may also be evaporated to generate a syrup (column 43, lines 38-50). Examiner is interpreting the evaporation of the thin stillage into a syrup as separating the first oil fraction from the second oil fraction with the second oil fraction being the syrup.
With respect to claim 9, Anton teaches a method of combining the grain oil composition feedstock (milled grain) with water to form an oil-water mixture (slurried grain) (column 41, lines 27-33) at about 50g/L (column 28, line 29) which Examiner is interpreting as 5% water, based on the oil-water mixture composition. Anton further teaches the mixture is exposed to a temperature of 50C to form an aqueous and emulsion-like phase, wherein the aqueous layer was drained (column 113, lines 52-56). The oil phase was recovered (column 113, line 57). Since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing Applicants’ grain oil product with the grain oil product of the prior art, the burden is on the applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art (i.e., that the grain oil product of the prior art does not possess the same mineral content as the claimed grain oil). See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald et al., 205 USPQ 594.” Absent otherwise, it is the Examiner’s position that Anton would necessarily have a grain oil product with minerals content from 0 to less than 20 ppm.
For the reasons stated herein, the teachings of Anton anticipates claims 1-9.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant in summary contends that Anton does not teach or anticipate ‘the esterase enzyme component is present in an amount from greater than 0 and up to 0.05 % w/w of the weight of the first grain oil portion.’
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that Anton teaches the addition of 0.1 ppm lipase (esterase enzyme) to corn oil for the conversion of fatty acid content in lipids into free fatty acids (column 34, lines 62-67) which fits within the parameters of ‘wherein the esterase enzyme component is present in an amount from greater than 0 and up to 0.05 % w/w of the weight of the first grain oil portion,’ as recited in the instant application claim 1. Regardless, the recitation of ‘wherein the esterase enzyme component is present in an amount from greater than 0 and up to 0.05 % w/w of the weight of the first grain oil portion’ would be rejected under ‘In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)’ (Routine Optimization) if Anton did not explicitly teach the claim limitations of ‘wherein the esterase enzyme component is present in an amount from greater than 0 and up to 0.05 % w/w of the weight of the first grain oil portion’ (instant application claim 1) since MPEP 2144.05 states "[W]here 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 IIA)." As such, irrespective of Anton’s teaches of ‘the addition of 0.1 ppm lipase (esterase enzyme) to corn oil for the conversion of fatty acid content in lipids into free fatty acids (column 34, lines 62-67),’ one of ordinary skill would desire to optimize the amount of esterase enzyme component added to the grain oil depending on the particular application. It would be routine for one to arrive at the concentration of esterase enzyme for the application they intend on using the grain oil. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious.
In response to Dr. McCurdy’s Declaration dated 3/12/2026, Examiner appreciates Dr. McCurdy’s position and clarification on the calculation of esterase component taught by Anton. However, it is the Examiner’s position that Anton does in fact teach the claim limitation of ‘wherein the esterase enzyme component is present in an amount from greater than 0 and up to 0.05 % w/w of the weight of the first grain oil portion’ (instant application claim 1) since Anton explicitly teaches the addition of 0.1 ppm lipase (column 34, line 62).
Maintained 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 rejection of claims 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anton et al (2015, US 9,175,315 B2. Date Filed: Jun. 17, 2011, Date of Patent: Nov. 3, 2015, cited on PTO-892 dated 9/6/2024) {herein Anton} as applied to claims 1-9 above in view of Wang et al (2016, Research Article, examiner cited) {herein Wang} and Schurz et al (2008, WO 2008/012072 A1, Date Filed: July, 24, 2007, Date Published: January, 31, 2008, machine translated, cited on PTO-892 dated 9/6/2024) {herein Schurz) as evidenced by Jackson et al. (2020, Wine Science (Fifth Edition) pages 573-723, doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816118-0.00008-8, cited on PTO-892 dated 9/6/2024) {herein Jackson} is maintained.
Original claim 10 is drawn to the method of claim 9, further comprising bleaching the grain oil product.
Original claim 11 is drawn to the method of claim 10, wherein bleaching comprises contacting the grain oil product with an oxidizing gas under conditions to form a bleached grain oil product.
Original claim 12 is drawn to the method of claim 11, wherein the grain oil product has a color value chosen from a red color value greater than 15 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale according to AOCS Cc 13J-97, a yellow color value greater than 70 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale according to AOCS Cc 13J-97, and combinations thereof, and wherein the bleached grain oil product has a color value chosen from a red color value less than 5 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale according to AOCS Cc 13J-97, a yellow color value less than 30 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale according to AOCS Cc 13J-97, and combinations thereof
Original claim 13 is drawn to the method of claim 11, wherein the bleached grain oil product has a Brookfield viscosity in the range from 20 to less than 40 centiPoise (cP) when measured at 40°C and #SC 418 spindle.
The teachings of Anton as applied to claims 1-9 are set forth in the 103 rejection above.
However, Anton does not teach the method of claim 10, comprising bleaching the grain oil product. Anton does not teach the method of claim 11, wherein bleaching comprises contacting the grain oil product with an oxidizing gas under conditions to form a bleached grain oil product. Anton does not teach to the method of claim 12, wherein the grain oil product has a color value chosen from a red color value greater than 15 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale according to AOCS Cc 13J-97, a yellow color value greater than 70 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale according to AOCS Cc 13J-97, and combinations thereof, and wherein the bleached grain oil product has a color value chosen from a red color value less than 5 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale according to AOCS Cc 13J-97, a yellow color value less than 30 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale according to AOCS Cc 13J-97, and combinations thereof . Anton does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein the bleached grain oil product has a Brookfield viscosity in the range from 20 to less than 40 centiPoise (cP) when measured at 40°C and #SC 418 spindle.
With respect to claims 10-11, Wang teaches a method wherein ozone was used to bleach grain oil, including corn oil (abstract and page 7, para 3), which is an oxidizing gas (page 2, para 2).
However, Wang does not teach the method of claim 12 wherein the grain oil product has a color value chosen from a red color value greater than 15 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale according to AOCS Cc 13J-97, a yellow color value greater than 70 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale according to AOCS Cc 13J-97, and combinations thereof, and wherein the bleached grain oil product has a color value chosen from a red color value less than 5 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale according to AOCS Cc 13J-97, a yellow color value less than 30 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale according to AOCS Cc 13J-97, and combinations thereof. Wang does not teach the method of claim 13, wherein the bleached grain oil product has a Brookfield viscosity in the range from 20 to less than 40 centiPoise (cP) when measured at 40°C and #SC 418 spindle.
With respect to claim 12, Schurz teaches a method wherein a Lovibond red color number of 16.5 is achieved after bleaching (page 11, lines 421-422) to remove oxidation accelerators (page 1, line 17). Adsorptive cleaning can significantly improve the taste, color and storage stability of oils (page 1, lines 17-18). Examiner is interpreting absorptive cleaning as bleaching. The color numbers in oils (Lovibond color numbers) were determined according to AOCS Cc 13b-45 (page 8, lines 323-324). Examiner is interpreting the recitation of AOCS Cc 13J-97 with the instant application claim 12 to fit within the recited range of AOCS Cc 13b-45 by Schurz (page 8, lines 323) as it is well-known in the art that AOCS Cc 13b-45 encompasses AOCS Cc 13J-97. Lovibond yellow color number of 26 is obtained (page 12, line 485).
With respect to claim 13, since Anton, in view of Wang and Schurz teaches the structure of the bleached grain oil, it is the Examiner’s interpretation that the bleached grain oil product would necessarily have a Brookfield viscosity in the range from 20 to less than 40 centiPoise (cP) when measured at 40°C and #SC 418 spindle.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Anton whom teaches a method of reducing the free fatty acid content in a grain oil or combine the teachings of Wang and Schurz because Wang teaches a method wherein ozone was used to bleach grain oil, including corn oil (abstract and page 7, para 3), which is an oxidizing gas (page 2, para 2). Schurz teaches grain oil with a Lovibond red color number of 16.5 (Schurz: page 11, lines 421-422) and a Lovibond yellow color number of 26 (Schurz: page 12, line 485) after bleaching said grain to serve as an indication of improved taste, color and storage stability of oils (Schurz: page 1, lines 17-18). While Anton teaches a method for producing a product alcohol wherein the method comprises providing a biomass feedstock comprised of oil (Anton: column 9, lines 19-21) and wherein in some embodiments, the lipase (catalyst) may be 0.5 ppm (Anton: column 34, lines 62-62).
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to either use the teachings of Anton by itself or combine the teachings of Wang and Schurz because Wang provides the motivation for Anton to bleach the gain oil by utilizing ozone as ozone has been widely used in the food industry as an effective antimicrobial agent for Deoxynivalenol (DON) detoxification which is a secondary metabolite produced by Fusarium fungi, is a common contaminant of corn (page 1, para 1). Additionally, ozone rapidly decomposes (half-life of 20–50 min) to molecular oxygen, leaves no residue, can be generated on site, and requires no storage and subsequent disposal of chemical containers (Wang: page 2, para 2). While Schurz provides the motivation for Anton to achieve a Lovibond color number red of greater than 15 and a yellow color value less than 30 according to the AOCS Cc13J-97 as said colors are an indication of very little mineral content (Schurz: page 3, lines 101-102) which could negatively affect the quality of the grain oil. One would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictability since the method taught by Anton satisfies the need for alternative extractive fermentation methods which do not necessitate the partitioning of the product alcohol between the fermentation medium and the extractant as a means to reduce the toxic effect of the product alcohol (such as butanol) on the microorganism (Anton: column 20, lines 4-10). Anton further teaches esterification of a product alcohol with a carboxylic acid during fermentation can provide improvements in the fermentation performance (Anton: column 20, lines 59-51). While Wang and Schultz provide the standard for improving the quality of the grain oil via bleaching with ozone and ensuring its quality by measuring the red and yellow color on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale.
One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success to make and use the claimed method for bleaching grain oil using ozone to obtain a red color that is greater than 15 and the yellow color that is less than 30 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale because Wang provides the basic method for bleaching grain oil using ozone. Schultz provides the teaching of a grain oil with a red color greater than 15 and the yellow color less than 30 on the LOVIBOND RYBN color scale as indications of very little mineral content (page 3, lines 101-102), thereby good quality grain oil. While Anton provides the method for producing grain oil by utilizing fatty acids, alcohol and an esterase. Therefore there would be a reasonable expectation of success to arrive at the above invention. Therefore, the above invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
RESPONSE TO REMARKS: Beginning on p. 7 of Applicant’s remarks, Applicant in summary contends that Anton does not teach ‘the esterase enzyme component is present in an amount from greater than 0 and up to 0.05 % w/w of the weight of the first grain oil portion.’
This argument is found to be not persuasive. Examiner contends that Anton teaches the addition of 0.1 ppm lipase (esterase enzyme) to corn oil for the conversion of fatty acid content in lipids into free fatty acids (column 34, lines 62-67). As such, Anton in view of Wang and Shurz teaches the instant application claims.
Conclusion
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending
Claims 14-20 remain withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b).
Claims 1-13 are pending and examined on the merits.
Claims 1-13 are rejected.
No claims are in condition for allowance.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0360. The examiner can normally be reached mf 7:30a - 4:30p.
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 at 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.
/ERICA NICOLE JONES-FOSTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1656
/MANJUNATH N RAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights