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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 2, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 9 and 11 – 20 are pending.
Claims 1 -9 and 11 – 20 are rejected.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Clam 1 recites the terms “a hollow”, “a first end” and “a second end”. There is no support in the for these terms. The Examiner notes that there is reference to an upstream end and a downstream end. (pp. 6, para. [0023] & [0024]).
Clam 11 recites the terms “a first end” and “a second end”. There is no support in the for these terms. The Examiner notes that there is reference to an upstream end and a downstream end. (pp. 6, para. [0023] & [0024]).
Clams 3 and 14 recite that the L/D ratio is from 30 to 55 mm/µm. There is no support for “55 mm/µm”. The Examiner notes that there is reference to L/Dan on page 6 at paragraph ([0022]: “In some embodiments, the L/D ratio is at most 50, at most 30, at most 20, at most 15, or at most 12” or “the L/D ratio may range between any logical combination of the foregoing upper and lower limits, such as 0.5 to 50, 0.6 to 30, 3 to 50, 3.5 to 50, 3.5 to 30, 5 to 30, 6 to 30, or 5 to 20”).
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.
Claims 1 – 9 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 1 recites the limitation "the first open end" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested that the word “open” be deleted because there is support for the first end in line 5 of claim 1.
Claims 2 – 9 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base 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.
Claim(s) 1- 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-1998-0029862) (see English translation), in view of Davis et al. (US 2021/0069667), in view of Massingill (US 2006/0157411) and further in view of Neste OYJ (WO2021/038138), Chou (US 89,076,123) and Marafi et al. (Waste Management and the Environment IX, 2019).
The rejected claims cover, inter alia, The rejected claims cover, inter alia, a system comprised of: a conduit having a hollow interior, a first end, and a second end opposite the first end; an array of fibers disposed within the conduit; a feedstock oil vessel comprising a feedstock oil and configured to introduce the feedstock oil into the conduit proximate the first end at a first rate, wherein the feedstock oil comprises an impurity; and an aqueous vessel comprising an aqueous solution and configured to introduce the aqueous solution into the conduit proximate the first open end at a second rate, wherein the aqueous solution is immiscible with the feedstock oil; wherein the fibers have a length measured along an axial direction of the conduit and the fibers form microchannels therebetween; and wherein an L/D ratio of the length of the fibers to an average diameter of the microchannels is at least 15 mm/µm.
Dependent claims 2 and 4 further limits the feedstock oil. Dependent claims 3 and 5 further limit the L/D ration. Dependent claims 6 and 7 further limit the aqueous solution. Dependent claims 8 and 9 further limit the system.
However, Kim discloses The conduit contactor for performing the chemical reaction or the chemistry extraction (claim 1 reference). The top (column) of the cylindrical (claim 1, fig.1, and the identification number 6 reference). The fiber bundle (5) in which fibers are packed in high density within a column (claim 1, fig. 1-2, and pp. 2 and pp. 4, para. 7). An organic phase reservoir (11, = feedstock oil vessel). The organic phase passes in the conduit contactor to fixed flux (1.2mL/ min, = first-rate) (fig. 1, 2, 4 & pp. 2 & 4). Aqueous phase reservoir (9 = aqueous container). The aqueous phase reservoir passes in the conduit contactor to the fixed flux (= second speed). The organic phase and aqueous phase are immiscible (fig. 1, 2 & 4 and pp. 5 para. 1)..The infinitesimal capillary tube aggregate made with the fiber column standing close together at high density (it comes under the = micro channel). The high concentration fiber article in which the polyester fiber (40s/2) about 1,500 strand stands close together in the inside diameter 8.8mm, and the length 12.8cm Pyrex glass tube. The result of computation, and the length/diameter ratio are predicted as about 3.7 mm/μm. (pp. 5 para. 3-4). As shown in fig. 2 the apparatus has a thermostat (7) around the tube (6) containing the high concentration fiber article bundle (5). Also, as shown in fig. 2, two mixed liquids phases passing through the highly packed fiber column (5) and coming out are separated into the extraction phase reservoir (4) and a sinker afterimage reservoir (3) (raffinate) through the liquid – accumulator (2) and as written to be collected and corresponding to the collection chamber. Wherein the fiber bundle does not extend into the collection chamber. (fig. 2, pp. 5 para. 1).
The difference between the instantly claimed invention and Kim is as follows: the L/D ratio is at least 15 mm/µm; the L/D ratio is from 30 to 55 mm/µm (claim 3); the L/D ratio is at least 20 mm/µm (claim 5); the feed stock being a feedstock oil; the feedstock oil is distillers corn oil (DCO), used cooking oil (UCO), soybean oil (SBO), poultry grease, yellow grease, brown grease, or combinations thereof (claim 2); the feedstock oil comprises at least one cannabinoid or cannabinoid acid and the impurity comprises a metal (claim 4); the aqueous solution comprises citric acid, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, or combinations thereof (claim 6); the aqueous solution comprises ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), disodium tartrate dihydrate (DTD), or trisodium citrate dihydrate (TCD), or combinations thereof (claim 7).
With regard to L/D ratio is at least 15 mm/µm; the L/D ratio is from 30 to 55 mm/µm (claim 3); and the L/D ratio is at least 20 mm/µm (claim 5), the Examiner turns to the teaching of Kim and Davis. The prior art of Kim has a highly packed fiber bundle packed with approximately 1,500 strings of polyester (40s/2) within Pyrex glass tubes of 0.88 cm in diameter and of 12.8 cm in length. 1) First, when 1,500 strands of fiber are densely packed in a glass tube having an inner diameter of 8.8 mm, when calculating the diameter of the fibers, (assuming that the fivers are packed in high density and neglecting the thickness of the fiber) the maximum planar packing density of high-density circles is
PNG
media_image1.png
50
150
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the internal planar area of the glass tube is
PNG
media_image2.png
62
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the planar area of the single fiber is
PNG
media_image3.png
230
188
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, and
when calculating the average diameter of the fiber,
PNG
media_image4.png
44
160
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, approximately 0.217 mm.
2) When calculating the average diameter of the microchannel, (when the radius of the fiber is r (= 0.217/2) and the radius of a void which is the microchannel formed between three mutually contacting small cylinders is rv,
PNG
media_image5.png
48
168
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and
PNG
media_image6.png
46
124
media_image6.png
Greyscale
), the calculated radius rv of the microchannel is approximately 0.0167 mm, and the average diameter is approximately 0.034 mm.
3) When calculating the L/D ratio, since the fiber length L (the fiber length is the same as the conduit length) is 12.8 cm (128 mm) and the microchannel diameter D is 0.034 mm (34 µm) the L/D of Kim is predicted to be approximately 3.7mm/µm. However, this ratio is not within the ranges of claim 1, 3 and 5.
First, the description of the invention (see para. [0014 & 0051 to 0052]) describes that "The MFR 12 has an L/D ratio defined as a ratio of the length L of the fibers 14 (in mm) to the microchannel diameter D (in microns; L/D ratio having units of mm/um).
(omit) In some embodiments, the L/D ratio is at most 50, at most 30, at most 20, at most 15, or at most 12". However, there is no description on the numerical range limited in claim 3, nor is there any description on the technical significance of said numerical range.
Example 3 and FIG. 8 explains that "the Log D values can be decreased for chlorides, metals and phospholipids while decreased for FFAs at an L/D ratio of 32 in turn indicating that selective partitioning of organic compounds (i.e., phospholipids) can be selectively targeted in the presence of other competing organic molecules with similar partitioning and diffusivity coefficients (i.e., FFAs) by modifying critical aspect ratios of the microchannel domains," while adjusting the length of the microchannels to impart an L/D ratio of 11, 21, 32, and 53. As such, it is explained that when an L/D ratio is 32, selective partitioning of fatty acids can be adjusted. However, this result is hardly deemed to show a remarkable change in effect at the boundary of said numerical range (from 30 to 55 mm/um).
Furthermore, Davis discloses wherein the L/D ratio is at least 20 mm/µm (L/ID ratio is 40.32 mm/µm (calculated); paragraph [0026]).
Thus, the numerical limitation of the L/D ratio is considered as a simple numerical limitation which cannot be recognized to have a difficulty in constitution and remarkability in effect, and the desired ratio can easily be determined by routine experimentation. 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the feed stock being a feedstock oil; the feedstock oil is distillers corn oil (DCO), used cooking oil (UCO), soybean oil (SBO), poultry grease, yellow grease, brown grease, or combinations thereof (claim 2); and the feedstock oil comprises at least one cannabinoid or cannabinoid acid and the impurity comprises a metal (claim 4); the Examiner turns to the teaching of Massingill and Neste. The prior art of Massingill, like Kim, discloses the use of conduit reactor containing fibers to effect separation. ([0003] & [0015]). Further, Massingill discloses wherein the feedstock oil is distillers corn oil (DCO), used cooking oil (UCO), soybean oil (SBO) (wherein the continuous phase was commercial degummed soybean oil containing 0.13% free fatty acid (FFA); paragraph [0042]), poultry grease, yellow grease, brown grease, or combinations thereof.
The prior art of Neste relates to a method of purification of biological feedstock. (abstract). Specifically, Neste discloses wherein the feedstock oil comprises at least one cannabinoid or cannabinoid acid and the impurity comprises a metal (the biological feedstock comprising used cooking oil comprising hemp oil and may further contain other impurities comprising phosphorus and/or metals; page 5 lines 34-36 to page 6, line1 & page 6 lines 34-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the feedstock oil is distillers corn oil (DCO), used cooking oil (UCO), soybean oil (SBO), poultry grease, yellow grease, brown grease, or combinations thereof, as taught by Massingill, because, as discussed in Massingill, it offers excellent phase-to-phase contact for efficient extraction and processing of vegetable oils, and biodiesel, fast separation of the two phases, and elimination of long-lived dispersions caused by the soaps that form as result of caustic and water reacting with fatty acids (paragraph [0023], Massingill).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly clamed invention, to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the feedstock oil comprises at least one cannabinoid or cannabinoid acid and the impurity comprises a metal, as taught by NESTE, because fiber conduit offers excellent phase-to-phase contact for efficient extraction and processing of biological feedstock containing high amounts of impurities.
Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
With regard to the aqueous solution comprises citric acid, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, or combinations thereof (claim 6); and the aqueous solution comprises ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), disodium tartrate dihydrate (DTD), or trisodium citrate dihydrate (TCD), or combinations thereof (claim 7); the Examiner turns to the teaching of Massingill, Marafi and Chou. Massingill discloses a fiber conduit device for chemical reaction and separation between immiscible reaction components, discloses a method of extracting free fatty acid salts (= impurity) from vegetable oil contaminated with free fatty acids by using the fiber conduit device (see claim 37 and para. [0003]). Also, Massingill discloses the first stream comprising an aqueous solution, wherein the first stream is the constrained phase comprising liquid that wets the fibers preferentially, and the first stream includes water, water solutions, alcohols, and acids, and presents, as the specific examples of the acids, carboxylic acids and sulfuric acid (see claims 35 & 38 and para. [0023 & 0025]), and discloses that the components in the constrained phase first stream may be adjusted to increase the solubility of the component to be extracted that is comprised in the second stream. Further, Massingill teaches that that the conduit reactor can be used for degumming, neutralizing, washing, and/or bleaching fats, vegetable oils, and biodiesel (see para. [0021 & 0023]).
The prior art of Marafi disclose wherein the aqueous solution comprises citric acid, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, or combinations thereof (aqueous leaching agents solution comprising oxalic acid, citric acid; page 139, 2.2).
Additonally, Chou relates to the method for degumming oil, for removing phosphatide, which corresponds to gums, from crude oil, an aqueous solution containing an acid (e.g., citric acid, lactic acid, fumaric acid, tartaric acid, or phosphoric acid), a chelating agent (e.g., ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, ß-alaninediacetic acid, nitrilotriacetic acid, diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid, hydroxyethylethylenediaminetracetic acid, or iminodiacetate), or both is used. (col. 1, ln 44 – 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly clamed invention, to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the aqueous solution comprises citric acid, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, or combinations thereof, as taught by Massingill or Marafi, because organic acids such as oxalic acid, citric acid binds with heavy metal and increase the efficiency of extraction (abstract, & page 139 2.2 MARAFI). Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to modify the system of Kim to include wherein aqueous solution comprises ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), disodium tartrate dihydrate (DTD), or trisodium citrate dihydrate (TCD), or combinations thereof, as taught by Marafi or Chou. The reason is that in Marafi, it was found that the EDTA can remove 97% of Mo, 95% of Ni, and 94% of V under optimum process conditions (abstract, MARAFI).
Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 11 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 10-1998-0029862) (see English translation), in view of Davis et al. (US 2021/0069667), in view of Massingill (US 2006/0157411) and further in view of Neste OYJ (WO2021/038138), in view of Visionary Fiber Technologies (WO2020/191294) and further in view of Chou (US 89,076,123) and Marafi et al. (Waste Management and the Environment IX, 2019).
The rejected claim cover, inter alai, a method comprising: introducing (i) a feedstock oil comprising an impurity at a first rate and (ii) an aqueous solution at a second rate into a first end of a conduit having an array of fibers disposed therein, wherein the aqueous solution is immiscible with the feedstock oil; wherein the fibers form microchannels therebetween; reacting the feedstock oil and the aqueous solution within the microchannels such that at least a portion of the impurity is removed from the feedstock oil into the aqueous solution; and separately removing the feedstock oil having at least a portion of the impurity removed therefrom and the aqueous solution comprising the at least a portion of the impurity from a second end of the conduit opposite the first end; wherein the fibers have a length measured along an axial direction of the conduit and an L/D ratio of the length of the fibers to an average diameter of the microchannels is at least 15 mm/µm; and wherein a radial flux, defined as a sum of the first rate and the second rate divided by the average microchannel diameter, is at least 0.3 mL/µm•min.
However, Kim discloses a method comprises of a conduit contactor for performing a chemical reaction or a chemical extraction the reaction in which the formed uranyl-TBP complex moves to the organic phase and is extracted by using the contactor (see claim 1). The reaction in which an organic phase composed of a diluent mixed with 30 vol%, and an aqueous phase nitric acid solution containing uranyl ions are introduced into the capillary- type static liquid-liquid contactor comprising the highly packed fiber bundle, such that the formed uranyl-TBP complex moves to the organic phase and is extracted (see claim 1, FIG. 1, pp. 5 para.2]). The two mixed liquid phases passing through the highly packed fiber bundle (5) are separated into an extract and a raffinate by the liquid-liquid separator (2) (see fig. 1 & 2 & pp.5, para. 1). The highly packed fiber bundle by packing approximately 1,500 strings of polyester (40s/2) within Pyrex glass tubes of 0.88 cm in diameter and of 12.8 cm in length (see para. [0018]). as the calculation results, the L/D ratio is predicted to be approximately 3.7 mm/µm. The flow rate of the organic phase (= first speed) is 1.2 mL/min. the flow rate of the aqueous phase (= a second speed) is 2.0 to 9 mL/min in the column of 12.8 cm in length (see para. [0020] and FIG. 4). when the microchannel has a diameter of 0.034 mm (34 µm), the radial flux is (4.2 mL/min)/34 µm, i.e., 0.094 to 0.3 mL/µm-min. Also, as shown in fig. 2, two mixed liquids phases passing through the highly packed fiber column (5) and coming out are separated into the extraction phase reservoir (4) and a sinker afterimage reservoir (3) (raffinate) through the liquid – accumulator (2) and as written to be collected and corresponding to the collection chamber. Wherein the fiber bundle does not extend into the collection chamber. (fig. 2, pp. 5 para. 1).
The difference between the instantly clamed invention and Kim is as follows: the feedstock oil; the feedstock oil is distillers corn oil (DCO), used cooking oil (UCO), soybean oil (SBO), poultry grease, yellow grease, brown grease, or combinations thereof (claim 13); the feedstock oil comprises at least one cannabinoid or cannabinoid acid and the impurity comprises a metal (claim 15); a L/D ratio of at least 15 mm/µm; the L/D ratio is from 30 to 55 mm/µm (claim 14); a radial flux, defined as a sum of the first rate and the second rate divided by the average microchannel diameter, is at least 0.3 mL/µm•min; the radial flux is at least 7 mL/µm (claim 20); each of the first rate and the second rate is at least 150 mL/min (claim 12); the aqueous solution comprises citric acid, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), disodium tartrate dihydrate (DTD), or trisodium citrate dihydrate (TCD), or combinations thereof (claim 17); and heating at least one of the conduit, the aqueous vessel or the feedstock to a temperature of 40 to 80°C (claim 18).
With regard to the feedstock oil; the feedstock oil is distillers corn oil (DCO), used cooking oil (UCO), soybean oil (SBO), poultry grease, yellow grease, brown grease, or combinations thereof (claim 13), and the feedstock oil comprises at least one cannabinoid or cannabinoid acid and the impurity comprises a metal (claim 15); the Examiner turns to the teaching of Massingill and Neste. The prior art of Massingill, like Kim, discloses the use of conduit reactor containing fibers to effect separation. ([0003] & [0015]). Further, Massingill discloses wherein the feedstock oil is distillers corn oil (DCO), used cooking oil (UCO), soybean oil (SBO) (wherein the continuous phase was commercial degummed soybean oil containing 0.13% free fatty acid (FFA); paragraph [0042]), poultry grease, yellow grease, brown grease, or combinations thereof.
The prior art of Neste relates to a method of purification of biological feedstock. (abstract). Specifically, Neste discloses wherein the feedstock oil comprises at least one cannabinoid or cannabinoid acid and the impurity comprises a metal (the biological feedstock comprising used cooking oil comprising hemp oil and may further contain other impurities comprising phosphorus and/or metals; page 5 lines 34-36 to page 6, line1 & page 6 lines 34-35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the feedstock oil is distillers corn oil (DCO), used cooking oil (UCO), soybean oil (SBO), poultry grease, yellow grease, brown grease, or combinations thereof, as taught by Massingill, because, as discussed in Massingill, it offers excellent phase-to-phase contact for efficient extraction and processing of vegetable oils, and biodiesel, fast separation of the two phases, and elimination of long-lived dispersions caused by the soaps that form as result of caustic and water reacting with fatty acids (paragraph [0023], Massingill).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly clamed invention, to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the feedstock oil comprises at least one cannabinoid or cannabinoid acid and the impurity comprises a metal, as taught by NESTE, because fiber conduit offers excellent phase-to-phase contact for efficient extraction and processing of biological feedstock containing high amounts of impurities.
Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding a L/D ratio of at least 15 mm/µm; and the L/D ratio is from 30 to 55 mm/µm (claim 14); the Examiner turns to the teaching of Kim and Davis. Applicant is first directed to the calculations set out in paragraph 17 above. When calculating the L/D ratio, since the fiber length L (the fiber length is the same as the conduit length) is 12.8 cm (128 mm) and the microchannel diameter D is 0.034 mm (34 µm) the L/D of Kim is predicted to be approximately 3.7mm/µm. However, this ratio is not within the ranges of claim 11, 14 and 16.
First, the description of the invention (see para. [0014 & 0051 to 0052]) describes that "The MFR 12 has an L/D ratio defined as a ratio of the length L of the fibers 14 (in mm) to the microchannel diameter D (in microns; L/D ratio having units of mm/um)…(omit)… In some embodiments, the L/D ratio is at most 50, at most 30, at most 20, at most 15, or at most 12". However, there is no description on the numerical range limited in claim 3, nor is there any description on the technical significance of said numerical range.
Example 3 and FIG. 8 explains that "the Log D values can be decreased for chlorides, metals and phospholipids while decreased for FFAs at an L/D ratio of 32 in turn indicating that selective partitioning of organic compounds (i.e., phospholipids) can be selectively targeted in the presence of other competing organic molecules with similar partitioning and diffusivity coefficients (i.e., FFAs) by modifying critical aspect ratios of the microchannel domains," while adjusting the length of the microchannels to impart an L/D ratio of 11, 21, 32, and 53. As such, it is explained that when an L/D ratio is 32, selective partitioning of fatty acids can be adjusted. However, this result is hardly deemed to show a remarkable change in effect at the boundary of said numerical range (from 30 to 55 mm/um).
Furthermore, Davis discloses wherein the L/D ratio is at least 20 mm/µm (L/ID ratio is 40.32 mm/µm (calculated); paragraph [0026]).
Thus, in light of the teachings of the prior art and the numerical limitation of the L/D ratio is considered as a simple numerical limitation which cannot be recognized to have a difficulty in constitution and remarkability in effect, and the desired ratio can easily be determined by routine experimentation. 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding the limitations of a radial flux, defined as a sum of the first rate and the second rate divided by the average microchannel diameter, is at least 0.3 mL/µm•min; and the radial flux is at least 7 mL/µm (claim 20), the Examine turns to the teaching of Kim. The radial flux of the system, defined as a sum of the first rate and the second rate divided by the average microchannel diameter, is at least 0.3 mL/µm-min, whereas the radial flux predicted from FIG. 4 of Kim is 0.094 to 0.3 mL/µm-min, which overlap with but is not identical to the numerical range of the clams.
First, the description of the invention (see para. [0034 & 0056 to 0057]) explains that "A radial flux is equal to the reactants feed rate divided by the microchannel diameter D, wherein radial flux has units of mL/µm-min"; and FIGS. 5 to 7 explain that as the radial flux increases, the diffusivity values increase, thereby increasing partitioning of metals, chlorides, and phosphides into the aqueous phase. However, FIGS. 5 to 7 show that as the radial flux increases, the degree of removal of metals, chlorides, and phosphides first increases and then decreases.
Similarly, FIG. 4 of Kim also shows that at a constant organic phase flow rate of 1.2 mL/min and a column of 12.8 cm in length, increasing the aqueous phase flow rate initially increases extraction yield, but increasing the flow rate beyond a certain level decreases the extraction yield, and it explains that in order to obtain a sufficient extraction yield, the residence time and contact time sufficient such that the two liquid phases reach equilibrium in the extractor are required, so if the flow rate increases, the yield decreases (pp. 5, para 5 & 6). Thus, it is determined that a person skilled in the art can select flow rates and radial fluxes capable of achieving sufficient extraction yield by varying the flow rates of the organic and aqueous phases, and this may vary depending on the applied reaction. 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding each of the first rate and the second rate is at least 150 mL/min (claim 12), the Examiner turns to the teaching of Kim and Visionary. Kim discloses the method. Visionary discloses wherein each of the first rate and the second rate is at least 150 ml/min (the flow rate of the feedstock oil per 5 cm2 of reactor cross-sectional area is 100 to 2000 ml/min and the flow rate of the constrained phase per 5 cm2 is 70 to 120 ml/min; page 7, lines 28-34). VISIONARY '294 does not explicitly disclose the second flow rate of at least 150 ml/min, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skills in art to increase the second flow rate from 120 to 150 ml/min.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to modify the method of Kim to include wherein each of the first rate and the second rate is at least 150 ml/min, as taught by Visionary, because flow rate affects the radial flux of the liquids through the fiber microchannel with affects the overall efficacy of the extraction.
Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Regarding the aqueous solution comprises citric acid, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), disodium tartrate dihydrate (DTD), or trisodium citrate dihydrate (TCD), or combinations thereof (claim 17); the Examiner turns to the teaching of Massingill, Marafi and Chou. Massingill discloses a fiber conduit device for chemical reaction and separation between immiscible reaction components, discloses a method of extracting free fatty acid salts (= impurity) from vegetable oil contaminated with free fatty acids by using the fiber conduit device (see claim 37 and para. [0003]). Also, Massingill discloses the first stream comprising an aqueous solution, wherein the first stream is the constrained phase comprising liquid that wets the fibers preferentially, and the first stream includes water, water solutions, alcohols, and acids, and presents, as the specific examples of the acids, carboxylic acids and sulfuric acid (see claims 35 & 38 and para. [0023 & 0025]), and discloses that the components in the constrained phase first stream may be adjusted to increase the solubility of the component to be extracted that is comprised in the second stream. Further, Massingill teaches that that the conduit reactor can be used for degumming, neutralizing, washing, and/or bleaching fats, vegetable oils, and biodiesel (see para. [0021 & 0023]).
The prior art of Marafi disclose wherein the aqueous solution comprises citric acid, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, or combinations thereof (aqueous leaching agents solution comprising oxalic acid, citric acid; page 139, 2.2).
Additonally, Chou relates to the method for degumming oil, for removing phosphatide, which corresponds to gums, from crude oil, an aqueous solution containing an acid (e.g., citric acid, lactic acid, fumaric acid, tartaric acid, or phosphoric acid), a chelating agent (e.g., ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, ß-alaninediacetic acid, nitrilotriacetic acid, diethylene triamine pentaacetic acid, hydroxyethylethylenediaminetracetic acid, or iminodiacetate), or both is used. (col. 1, ln 44 – 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly clamed invention, to modify the system of Kim to include wherein the aqueous solution comprises citric acid, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, or combinations thereof, as taught by Massingill or Marafi, because organic acids such as oxalic acid, citric acid binds with heavy metal and increase the efficiency of extraction (abstract, & page 139 2.2 MARAFI). Further, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to modify the system of Kim to include wherein aqueous solution comprises ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), disodium tartrate dihydrate (DTD), or trisodium citrate dihydrate (TCD), or combinations thereof, as taught by Marafi or Chou. The reason is that in Marafi, it was found that the EDTA can remove 97% of Mo, 95% of Ni, and 94% of V under optimum process conditions (abstract, MARAFI).
Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
With regard to heating at least one of the conduit, the aqueous vessel or the feedstock to a temperature of 40 to 80°C (claim 18), the Examiner turns to the teaching of Kim, Chou and Davis. Kim discloses that since the liquid-liquid extraction process can be influenced by temperature, it is preferable that the fiber bundle contactor is housed in a water jacket to maintain the desired temperature; and Chou discloses that the degumming process for removing hydratable phosphatides generated by extracting phospholipase-treated crude oil with an aqueous solution comprising a chelating agent or an acid is performed at an appropriate temperature (see para. [0013]). Also, Davis discloses a further method comprising heating at least one of the conduits, the aqueous vessel, or the feedstock oil vessel to a temperature of 40 to 80 °C (the conduit contactor comprising conduit, the aqueous vessel, or the feedstock oil vessel may be heated or maintained at a temperature of 15° C to 100° C, or greater than 100° C; paragraphs [0021] and [0025]). These limitations are deemed to be obvious absent a showing of unexpected results.
A reference is good not only for what it teaches by direct anticipation but also for what one of ordinary skill in the art might reasonably infer from the teachings. (In re Opprecht 12 USPQ 2d 1235, 1236 (Fed Cir. 1989); In re Bode 193 USPQ 12 (CCPA) 1976). In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35USC 103(a). From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30).
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, Scarlett Y. Goon can be reached at (571) 270-5241. 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.
/YATE' K CUTLIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692