Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/040,051

REMOVAL OF UNWANTED MINERAL OIL HYDROCARBONS

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jan 31, 2023
Examiner
ZILBERING, ASSAF
Art Unit
1792
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Cargill Incorporated
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
33%
Grant Probability
At Risk
2-3
OA Rounds
4y 9m
To Grant
60%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 33% of cases
33%
Career Allow Rate
206 granted / 619 resolved
-31.7% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 9m
Avg Prosecution
81 currently pending
Career history
700
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
57.9%
+17.9% vs TC avg
§102
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 619 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims Note: The amendment of October 7th 2025 has been considered. Claims 1-4, 10 and 11 have been amended. Claims 5-8 are cancelled. Claims 12-17 were added. Claims 1-4 and 9-17 are pending and examined in the current application. Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 In light of Applicants’ amendments and clarification filed on October 7th 2025, the indefiniteness rejections of claims 1-6 and 8-11 have been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-4 and 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruse et al. (WO 2018/200773 A1) in view of NPL Ahmad et al., “Mineral Oil Saturated Hydrocarbons in Crude Palm Oil-Current Status in Sime Darby Palm Oil Mills” (from Journal of Advanced Agricultural Technologies Vol. 6, No. 4, December 2019). Evidenced by “The Wiped-Film/Short Path Distillation Process” (‘Pope’) (available online at https://www.popeinc.com/equipment/wiped-film-distillation-equipment/process/). Regarding claims 1-4 and 9, 12, 13: Bruse discloses a method of increasing the stability of short-path evaporated vegetable oil(s) (e.g., palm oil), which is the retentate of the short-path evaporation process (see Bruse abstract; paragraphs [0030], [0031] and [0039]-[0044]), where the short-path evaporated vegetable oils had been refined (i.e., degummed, bleached and/or deodorized) prior to the short-path evaporation treatment (see Bruse paragraphs [0051]-[0055]). Moreover, Bruse discloses the short-path evaporation process is performed at pressure from bellow 0.01 mbar (see Bruse paragraph [0039]) at temperatures from 220°C to 270°C (see Bruse paragraph [0043]). Given the fact the claimed temperature range overlaps the temperature range in Bruse, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05). Furthermore, Bruse fails to disclose the feed rate per unit are of evaporator surface of the sort-path evaporation equipment as recited in claims 1 and 9; However, according to page 1 in Pope, the throughput (i.e., kg/h per evaporation surface area) in short-path distillation can be adjusted by focusing on the feed rate and vacuum levels, and skilled operators can fine-tune these settings to enhance the throughput and yield, ensuring an even and homogeneous liquid film for efficient evaporation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Bruse and to adjust the operating settings and thus the throughput, in order to ensure even and homogenous film for efficient evaporation, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations. As set forth in MPEP §2144.05 discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, involves only routine skill in the art. As to reducing the contents of mineral oil saturated hydrocarbons (MOSH) and/or mineral oil aromatic hydrocarbons (MOAH) recited in claims 1 and 12: Bruse discloses the short path evaporation process reduces or removes propanol components from the vegetable oil (see Bruse paragraph [0040]), but fails to contemplate MOSH and/or MOAH reduction; However, given the fact that the short-path evaporation process of refined palm oil in modified Bruse is the same or similar to the claimed process, and since MOSH and MOAH residues are known to be present in refined oils (e.g., palm oil) (see Ahmad page 299, Introduction), it is examiner’s position that the MOSH and/or MOAH reduction recited in claims 1 and 12, would flow naturally during the short-path evaporation process of refined palm oil in modified Bruse, as suggested in the prior art. As set forth in MPEP §2145, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Regarding claim 8: Bruse discloses the short-path evaporation process is performed at temperature from 240°C to 260°C, or 220°C to 270°C (see Bruse paragraph [0043]). Regarding claims 10, 16 and 17: Bruse discloses the short-path evaporation process removes glycidyl esters (i.e., epoxypropanol fatty acid esters) (see Bruse paragraph [0040]). Regarding claim 11, 14 and 15: Bruse discloses the vegetable oil may be deodorized following the short-path evaporation (see Bruse paragraph [0051]), which is known to involve a treatment with steam through the oil (i.e., sparge steam) (see Bruse paragraph [0063]) for up to two hours. Applicant's arguments filed on October 7th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Response to Arguments Applicant argues on pages 7-9 of the “Remarks” that the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because Pope fails to disclose the claimed feed rate, which Applicant had shown to be the optimized point for MOSH and/or MOAH reduction. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that To clarify, the disclosure in Pope that the throughput (i.e., kg/h per evaporation surface area) in short-path distillation can be adjusted by focusing on the feed rate and vacuum levels, and skilled operators can fine-tune these settings to enhance the throughput and yield, ensuring an even and homogeneous liquid film for efficient evaporation. The fact that applicant had shown that fine-tunning to enhance the throughput and yield, also optimized MOSH and/MOAH reduction does not render the claimed invention obvious over the prior art, as the short-path evaporation process of refined palm oil in modified Bruse is the same or similar to the claimed process, and since MOSH and MOAH residues are known to be present in refined oils (e.g., palm oil) (see Ahmad page 299, Introduction), the claimed MOSH and/or MOAH reduction flows naturally during the short-path evaporation process of refined palm oil in modified Bruse, Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of 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. /ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 31, 2023
Application Filed
May 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Oct 07, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599143
EMULSIFIED OIL AND FAT COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588688
METHOD FOR PRODUCING AN INGREDIENT COMPRISING A COMBINATION OF AT LEAST THREE MILK PROTEINS AND USE OF THE INGREDIENT OBTAINED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582135
DHA Enriched Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Compositions
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577593
DHA ENRICHED POLYUNSATURATED FATTY ACID COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564198
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SN-2 PALMITIC TRIACYLGLYCEROLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
33%
Grant Probability
60%
With Interview (+27.2%)
4y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 619 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month