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 .
Status of Claims
Withdrawn – claims 1-2, 15-28
Canceled – claims 5, 7, 9, 11
Pending – 3-4, 6, 8, 10, 12-14
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3-4, 6, 8, 10, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107325125 (hereafter CN’125).
Applicant’s arguments filed November 24, 2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim 3 has been amended to recite, inter alia: (i) soaking soybean oil sediment particles in water and settling naturally; (ii) a mass ratio of soybean oil sediment particles to water of 1:1 to 1:3.5; (iii) particle size of 0.3–5 mm; and (iv) a resulting product having a water content of 70–80 g/100 g and an acetone-insoluble content on a dry basis of 92.5–95.5 g/100 g.
Applicant argues that CN’125 requires a homogeneous hydration system, whereas amended claim 3 recites soaking and settling. This argument is not persuasive. CN’125 teaches hydrating oil sediment with water to obtain a hydrated product. Mixing to achieve hydration does not exclude soaking followed by sedimentation. Achieving homogeneous hydration during contact does not preclude subsequent phase separation or settling. The claimed steps do not exclude initial mixing and do not require any structural or functional limitation that would be incompatible with the hydration method of CN’125. The distinction is therefore one of characterization rather than a structural or process exclusion that would render the claimed method non-obvious.
Applicant further contends that CN’125 discloses lower water addition amounts and that the presently claimed mass ratio of 1:1 to 1:3.5 is different. However, as acknowledged by Applicant, CN’125 discloses an equation defining the amount of water added relative to sediment moisture content. Using Applicant’s own calculation based on commonly used moisture contents, CN’125 yields a water-to-sediment ratio range of approximately 0.245–0.743. The lower portion of Applicant’s claimed range corresponds to a ratio of 1:1 (0.5), which falls within the 0.245–0.743 range derived from CN’125. To the extent that the ranges overlap, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence of criticality across the full claimed range of 1:1 to 1:3.5, nor evidence that the upper portion of the range produces an unexpected result relative to the hydration teachings of CN’125. Selection of a particular value within or reasonably adjacent to an overlapping range constitutes routine optimization absent a demonstrated critical effect.
With respect to the recited particle size of 0.3–5 mm, Applicant argues that CN’125 does not expressly disclose particle size. However, control of solid particle size prior to hydration is a conventional parameter in solid–liquid processing and would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization to improve contact efficiency, hydration rate, or downstream handling.
Applicant has not demonstrated that the claimed particle size range yields a result that is unexpected or critical relative to the general hydration method disclosed in CN’125. The absence of an express disclosure of particle size in CN’125 does not render the claimed range non-obvious where the parameter is a known process variable.
Applicant also relies on the recited product characteristics, specifically a water content of 70–80 g/100 g and an acetone-insoluble content on a dry basis of 92.5–95.5 g/100 g, and asserts that CN’125 achieves only about 92% acetone-insoluble content. However, Applicant has not provided comparative data establishing that the claimed method, when compared directly to CN’125 under similar conditions, produces a statistically significant or unexpected improvement attributable to the claimed features. An alleged improvement of approximately 0.5 g/100 g, without supporting experimental evidence demonstrating unexpected results across the claimed scope, is insufficient to rebut the prima facie case. Optimization of hydration conditions to improve purity or acetone-insoluble content would have been within the ordinary skill in the art.
The dependent claims add limitations directed to sensory index, soaking temperature, soaking time, sedimentation time, and addition of electrolytes. The recited temperature range of 60–95°C and soaking time of 1–3 hours are typical hydration conditions and represent routine process parameters. The addition of electrolytes, including commonly used acids, bases, and salts, constitutes conventional modification of aqueous systems to influence hydration or separation behavior. No persuasive evidence has been presented that these limitations produce a synergistic or unexpected effect beyond what would have been expected from ordinary experimentation.
For the foregoing reasons, the amendments and arguments do not overcome the rejection. Claims 3-4, 6, 8, 10, 12-14 remain unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over CN’125. The rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEBORAH D CARR whose telephone number is (571)272-0637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10:30 am -6:30 pm).
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, Renee Claytor can be reached at 572-272-8394. 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.
/DEBORAH D CARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691