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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 23, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1, 3-10, 12-20
Withdrawn claims:
None
Previously canceled claims:
11
Newly canceled claims:
2
Amended claims:
1
New claims:
None
Claims currently under consideration:
1, 3-10, 12-20
Currently rejected claims:
1, 3-10, 12-20
Allowed claims:
None
Cited Prior Art
The following prior art is cited in the subsequent 35 USC 103 rejections:
Bruse (WO 2018/217856 A1)(IDS Reference filed 01/30/2023);
Usman (Usman, M. A., et al. “Characterization, Acid Activation, and Bleaching Performance of Ibeshe Clay, Lagos, Nigeria”, International Scholarly Research Network Ceramics, Vol. 2012, Article 658608, published March 1, 2012 [accessed online May 19, 2025]);
Engineering Toolbox (“Oils – Melting Points”, Engineering Toolbox [accessed online November 13, 2025] https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/oil-melting-point-d_1088.html);
Doisaki (US 2014/0066644 A1);
Seguine (US Patent No. 4,378,317 A);
Maruyama (US PGPub 2006/0161012 A1);
Kruidenberg (WO 2012/107230);
Ruggeri (Ruggeri, Christine. “Is Sunflower Oil Good for You? Benefits, Risks & Alternatives”, Dr. Axe, published August 1, 2020 [accessed online November 13, 2025] https://draxe.com/nutrition/sunflower-oil/).
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruse as evidenced by Usman and Engineering Toolbox in view of Doisaki.
Regarding claim 1, Bruse teaches a method for preparing a refined vegetable oil (Abstract) comprising:
Subjecting a vegetable oil to short path evaporation ([0009]), where short path evaporation is performed at operating process pressures below 0.01 mbar ([0020], which matches the claimed range of “below 0.01 mbar”) and a temperature from 90 to 350[Symbol font/0xB0]C ([0022], which encompasses the claimed range of “from 200 to 300[Symbol font/0xB0]C”). Although Bruse does not explicitly teach that the short path evaporation results in a retentate vegetable oil and a distillate, it logically follows that the process results in vegetable oil retentate and distillate portions, as requires by the claims. Therefore, Bruse teaches vegetable oil retentate and distillate portions.
A bleaching step following short path evaporation ([0034], e-f) comprising a bleaching system with bleaching agents ([0035]), where bleaching agents are known in the art to be adsorbents. Evidence to support that bleaching agents are adsorbents is provided by Usman. Usman teaches that bleaching is an adsorption process that utilizes clay as an adsorbent (p. 1, col. 1, ¶ 1).
A deodorization step after short path evaporation and bleaching ([0034], e-g) comprising feeding oil into a deodorizer to obtain a deodorized oil ([0014]).
Although Bruse doesn’t explicitly teach the melting point of the vegetable oil used, Bruse does teach that the vegetable oil may be soybean oil, cottonseed oil, peanut oil, rapeseed oil, and sunflower oil (p. 12, lines 2-4), which all inherently have a melting point less than 20°C. Evidence to support that the above oils all have a melting point less than 20°C is provided by Engineering Toolbox. Engineering Toolbox teaches the following melting points of common oils: soybean oil (-16°C), cottonseed oil (-1°C), peanut oil (3°C), rapeseed oil (-10°C), and sunflower oil (-17°C) (p. 1, Table).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Bruse does not teach a feed rate per unit area of evaporator surface of the short path evaporation equipment in the range from 70 to 180 kg/h·m2 or wherein the retentate vegetable liquid oil has a content of MOSH and/or MOAH that is reduced by at least 50% compared to the vegetable liquid oil that is subjected to the short-path evaporation.
Regarding a feed rate per unit area of evaporator surface of the short path evaporation equipment in the range from 70 to 180 kg/h·m2, Doisaki teaches a method for lowering the content of sterols in oil (Abstract) comprising short path distillation with a flux rate of 20 to 200 kg/h·m2 ([0023]-[0025]), which encompasses the claimed range of “70 to 180 kg/h·m2”. Doisaki also teaches that the distillation process is at a temperature from 200 to 270°C ([0064]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bruse with the use of a flux rate (i.e., feed rate per unit area) as taught by Doisaki. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Doisaki teaches that productivity of the reaction declines when the flux rate is too low ([0064]).
Although the cited prior art does not teach wherein the retentate vegetable liquid oil has a content of MOSH and/or MOAH that is reduced by at least 50% compared to the vegetable liquid oil that is subjected to the short-path evaporation, this is an inherent result of performing short path evaporation on a vegetable oil as claimed. This finding is supported by the Applicant’s specification. The instant specification teaches examples of short path evaporation resulting MOSH and MOAH reductions of 84%, 54%, and 83% ([0067], Table 3), which all fall within the claimed range of “at least 50%”. Because Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of the process of claim 1 as described above, the process of the prior art would have the same results of that of the claimed inventions. Furthermore, because Table 3 shows that the minimum reduction of MOSH and/MOAH was 54%, it logically follows that any small variation from the claimed ranges would still result in a reduction of at least 50% as claimed.
Additionally, MPEP §2112.01 states where the claimed and prior art are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 3, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Bruse also teaches performing a degumming, bleaching, and deodorizing step prior to short path evaporation ([0034], steps a)-d)).
Regarding claim 4, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Bruse also teaches performing a degumming step before short path evaporation ([0034], step a)).
Regarding claim 6, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Bruse also teaches performing the deodorization step at a temperature below 230[Symbol font/0xB0]C ([0017]), which falls within the claimed range of “below 260[Symbol font/0xB0]C”.
Regarding claim 7, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Bruse also teaches performing the deodorization step at a temperature below 230[Symbol font/0xB0]C ([0017]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “below 220[Symbol font/0xB0]C”.
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 8, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Bruse also teaches wherein the deodorization step has steam bubbled through the oil (i.e., sparged) in an amount of 0.7-2.5 wt.% of the oil ([0019]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.1 to 2.0 wt%”.
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 12, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above.
Although the cited prior art does not teach wherein the yield of the retentate vegetable oil of the short-path evaporation is more than 75%, it logically follows that this is a result of performing short path evaporation on a vegetable oil. This finding is supported by the Applicant’s specification. The instant specification teaches examples of short path evaporation resulting in retentate yield of 100% ([0067], Table 3), which all fall within the claimed range of “more than 75%”. While the rate of 157.6 kg/h·m2 was the flow rate used in the given tests, absent evidence to the contrary, the difference in feed rate would not adversely impact the percent yield of the process. Because Bruse modified by Doisaki teach all elements of claim 1 as described above, the process of the prior art would have the same yield results as the claimed invention.
Additionally, MPEP §2112.01 states where the claimed and prior art are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Bruse also teaches that the oil may be selected from sunflower oil (p. 12, lines 2-4). Bruse also teaches that the oil may be subjected to a bleaching step and a deodorization step (p. 10, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 20, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Bruse also teaches that short path distillation is performed at a temperature from 90 to 350[Symbol font/0xB0]C ([0022], which encompasses the claimed range of “from 230 to 270[Symbol font/0xB0]C”).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruse as evidenced by Usman and Engineering Toolbox in view of Doisaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Usman.
Regarding claim 5, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Bruse also teaches that bleaching is carried out with activated bleaching clays (also known as bleaching earths; [0032]) in an amount of up to 10% based on the weight of vegetable oil (which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.3 to 4.0 wt%”; [0033]) at a temperature below 100[Symbol font/0xB0]C (which overlaps with the claimed range of “70 to 120[Symbol font/0xB0]C”; [0033]).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the adsorbent is acid activated and where the adsorbent is contacted with the retentate vegetable liquid oil for a period from 15 to 60 minutes.
However, in the same field of endeavor of adsorbant materials, Usman teaches of acid activation for clays (p. 1, col. 1, ¶ 1) and that the bleaching process is carried out at a contact time of 20 to 40 minutes (p. 2, col. 1, ¶ 1), which falls within the claimed range of “15 to 60 minutes”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the activated earth taught by Bruse with acid activation of the material as taught by Usman. One would be motivated to make this modification because Usman teaches that activated bleaching clays show a higher activity (p. 1, col 1, ¶ 1) and that acid activation promotes catalytic activities by increasing the number of Bronsted and Lewis acid sites, which are responsible for the decomposition of peroxides (p. 1, col. 2, ¶ 2).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bruse with the use of 20-40 minute contact for bleaching as taught by Usman. One would be motivated to make this modification because Usman teaches that within this time, absorption of coloring matter can be equilibrated with sufficient activation (p. 2, col. 2, ¶ 1).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruse as evidenced by Usman and Engineering Toolbox in view of Doisaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seguine and Maruyama.
Regarding claim 9, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the further refining is carried out in a stripping column with packing and not more than one oil collection tray and the packing having a specific surface of from 100 to 750 m2/m3.
Regarding wherein the further refining is carried out in a stripping column with packing and not more than one oil collection tray, Seguine teaches of a deodorization column that has stripped steam passed through it (i.e., a stripping column; col. 3, lines 25-30) that comprises packing (col. 6, lines 66-67) and a single lower reservoir containing a pool of dormant oil (i.e., not more than one oil collection tray; Fig. 1, element 5; col. 7, lines 3-5) where dormant oil is the collected deodorized oil (col. 5, lines 16-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the deodorization stripping column taught by Seguine as the deodorizer in the process of Bruse. One would be motivated to make this modification because Seguine teaches that the deodorization system is energy efficient and can be used without flavor degradation to the oil (Abstract).
Regarding the packing having a specific surface of from 100 to 750 m2/m3, Maruyama teaches of a deodorization step by distillation ([0006]) where the oil is flowed through a distillation column with packing material ([0015]) and the packing has a specific surface area of 200 to 700 m2/m3 ([0018]), which falls in the claimed range of “from 100 to 750 m2/m3”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the stripping column of Bruse modified by Seguine as described above with the use of packing material with a specific surface area of 200 to 700 m2/m3 as taught by Maruyama. One would be motivated to make this modification because Maruyama teaches that the oil treated by the disclosed process has been deodorized while also maintaining a good color ([0019]).
Regarding claim 10, Bruse modified by Doisaki, Seguine, and Maruyama teaches all elements of claim 9 as described above
Although the cited prior art does not teach wherein the oil loading is from 0.5 to 4.0 kg/m2h, Maruyama teaches that flow rate is decided in view of stability of the deodorization operation, deodorization efficiency, and productivity ([0017]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the oil loading rate during routine optimization to find the oil loading that resulted in the best deodorization efficiency for the column. MPEP §2144.05(II) states 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). The claimed range would thus be obvious.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruse as evidenced by Usman and Engineering Toolbox in view of Doisaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kruidenberg.
Regarding claim 13, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the retentate vegetable oil has a glycidyl esters content that is below 1.0 ppm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of vegetable oil refining, Kruidenberg teaches a refining process for vegetable oil resulting in a glycidyl ester and 3-MCPD ester content of no more than 1 ppm (p. 12, line 22-24). Therefore, the content of glycidyl ester must also be less than 1 ppm, which falls within the claimed range of “below 1.0 ppm”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process taught by Bruse with the final glycidyl ester concentration of less than 1 ppm as taught by Kruidenberg. One would be motivated to make this modification because Kruidenberg teaches that glycidyl esters are associated with carcinogenic effects (p. 1, lines 25-26).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruse as evidenced by Usman and Engineering Toolbox in view of Doisaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seguine.
Regarding claim 14, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the further refining is carried out in a stripping column with packing and not more than one oil collection tray and wherein the total residence time in the packing of the stripping column is not more than 20 minutes.
However, in the same field of endeavor of oil deodorization, Seguine teaches of a deodorization column that has stripped steam passed through it (i.e., a stripping column; col. 3, lines 25-30) that comprises packing (col. 6, lines 66-67) and a single lower reservoir containing a pool of dormant oil (i.e., not more than one oil collection tray; Fig. 1, element 5; col. 7, lines 3-5) where dormant oil is the collected deodorized oil (col. 5, lines 16-19). Seguine also teaches that the residence time of oil in the upper chamber (i.e., through the packing) is about a minute (col. 10, lines 16-17), which falls within the claimed range of “not more than 20 minutes”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the deodorization stripping column and the residence time taught by Seguine as the deodorizer in the process of Bruse. One would be motivated to make this modification because Seguine teaches that the deodorization system is energy efficient and can be used without flavor degradation to the oil (Abstract).
Regarding claim 15, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the refined retentate vegetable liquid oil obtained in step c) has an overall flavour quality score of from 7 to 10 according to AOCS method Cg 2-83.
However, in the same field of endeavor of oil deodorization, Seguine teaches of a deodorization column that has stripped steam passed through it (i.e., a stripping column; col. 3, lines 25-30), where the resulting oils have a flavor score of 7.1, 7.3, and 7.3 (which fall within the claimed range of “7 to 10”; col. 10, lines 64-65) on a scale of 10 to 1, with 10 being bland and 1 being strong off-flavor (col. 10, lines 39-41). Although Seguine does not state that the flavor is evaluated using AOCS method Cg 2-83, the instant specification states that AOCS method Cg 2-83 is also a rating from 1 to 10, with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best ([0061]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the flavor evaluations are comparable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the deodorization stripping column taught by Seguine as the deodorizer in the process of Bruse. One would be motivated to make this modification because Seguine teaches that the deodorization system is energy efficient and can be used without flavor degradation to the oil (Abstract).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruse as evidenced by Usman and Engineering Toolbox in view of Doisaki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ruggeri.
Regarding claims 18 and 19, Bruse modified by Doisaki teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the vegetable oil is mid-oleic (claim 18) or high-oleic (claim 19) sunflower oil.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Ruggeri teaches that types of sunflower oil include mid-oleic and high-oleic sunflower oil (p. 3, ¶ 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Bruse to use mid-oleic (claim 18) or high-oleic (claim 19) sunflower oil as taught by Ruggeri. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Ruggeri teaches that mid-oleic and high-oleic sunflower oils are considered healthier options (p. 3, ¶ 3).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant has overcome the objections to the claims based on amendments in the Claims. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-12, 16-17 and 20 over Bruse, Usman, Engineering Toolbox, Doisaki, and Elert: Applicant’s arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that the references cited by the Examiner fail to teach or suggest the features of the present claims and would not have had a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant further argued that none of the cited references teach or suggest reducing the MOSH and MOAH in vegetable oil (Remarks, p. 6, ¶ 2- p. 8, ¶ 1).
This argument has been considered. However, the Examiner maintains that the reduction of MOSH and MOAH as recited would be an inherent result of performing the method as claimed. Data to support that the recited reduction of MOSH and MOAH would be an inherent result is provided by the instant specification. The instant specification teaches that MOSH and MOAH content was reduced by 83% ([0064]-[0066]; Table 3, col. 3). Because Bruse in view of Doisaki teach the claimed method, it necessarily follows that the process of Bruse and Doisaki would have the claimed MOSH and MOAH reduction. MPEP §2112(I) states "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
Furthermore, MPEP §2112(V) states "once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence or reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the applicant" and "'[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same.' In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) (footnote and citation omitted)." The Applicant has not provided any evidence or reasoning to prove that the reduction of MOSH and MOAH content would not be an inherent result of performing the method as claimed.
Applicant further argued that Doisaki states that productivity declines when the flux rate is excessively low, and one of ordinary skill wouldn't be motivated to modify the flux rate in Bruse unless the flux rate was excessively low (Remarks, p. 8, ¶ 2).
This argument has been considered. However, because Bruse does not disclose the flux rate for the short path evaporation, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to consult another reference such as Doisaki to determine an appropriate flux rate for short path evaporation equipment. Although Doisaki does state that productivity declines when flux is excessively low, the Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill would be motivated to modify Bruse with a flux rate taught by Doisaki to ensure a flux rate that is not excessively low.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-10, 12-20 have been maintained herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00a-4:00p, F 8:00a-1:00p ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights