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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s communication in response to the Office action dated: 11/24/2025 is noted. Amendment to claim 1 is entered. Claims 1-4 are pending. Objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Kim et al (US 8,895,765 B2) reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott (US 2008/0275260 A1).
With respect to claims 1-2, Elliott discloses a two staged reactor (or two staged combination of reactors). In a first reaction, a feed (e.g., a high free fatty acid content triglyceride), an alcohol (e.g., BtOH), and a co-solvent (MEK) are contacted in a first reactor or first combination of reactors with a first solid acid catalyst to form a first product mixture or reactor effluent. The generated product mixture which may then be treated to remove water (and optionally remove glycerin and/or co-solvent from the first reactor(s)) to produce a dried product mixture. The dried product mixture from the one or more first reactors may be fed along with an alcohol (e.g., BtOH) and optionally additional co-solvent (if needed) and contacted with a solid acid catalyst in a second reactor or second combination of reactors. (Paragraph 0046, 0047, 0048; Fig. 1B, and Fig. 2). Elliott further discloses methods for the removal of water from the product mixture are known to one of ordinary skill in the art and may include for example and without limitation contacting the product mixture with water abating materials such as drying agents. Additional water removal methods known to those of ordinary skill in the art include use of a flash drum, distillation, molecular sieves, or combinations thereof (Paragraph 0045). It is to be noted here that a fatty acid is a carboxylic acid.
With respect to claim 3, Elliott discloses a carboxylic acid supply passage, and a first alcohol supply passage connected with the primary reactor and a second alcohol supply passage connected with the main reactor (Figure 2, Paragraph 0046).
With respect to claim 4, Elliott discloses recovering water and alcohol separated from the distillation column and alcohol being recycled back to the reactor (Paragraph 0051). It is to be noted that recovery and/or recycle of water and alcohol from distillation column is done through a condenser at the top and refluxing a part of the condensed alcohol, as evidenced by Zuber et al.
Zuber et al (US 7,329,774 B2) disclose a method and plant for the manufacture of carboxylic acid ester by means of a reactive distillation (title and abstract). Zuber et al also disclose details of reflux from the top of the distillation column (Fig.1, 3; column 5, lines 1-10).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 PREM C SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-6381. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00 AM to 3:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
/PREM C SINGH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights