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 the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed April 13, 2026 is acknowledged.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1, 3-11, 23
Withdrawn claims:
None
Previously canceled claims:
2, 12-22
Newly canceled claims:
None
Amended claims:
3
New claims:
None
Claims currently under consideration:
1, 3-11, 23
Currently rejected claims:
1, 3-11, 23
Allowed claims:
None
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, 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickardt (US 2012/0009287 A1)(IDS filed 04/12/2023) in view of Wittenberg (US 2012/0130099 A1) (IDS filed 04/12/2023) and Berk (Berk, Zeki. “Chapter 6: Size Reduction”, Food Process Engineering and Technology, p. 153-174, published 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373660-4.X0001-4 [accessed online December 17, 2025]).
Regarding claim 1, Pickardt teaches mechanical deoiling of sunflower seeds (Abstract) comprising:
Dehulling of the sunflower seeds to a residual hull content of ≤5% (i.e., a low-hull fraction, [0016]);
Pressing the sunflower seeds with a low residual hull content, controlling the temperature to under 60[Symbol font/0xB0]C ([0039]; where “under 60[Symbol font/0xB0]C” falls within the claimed range “limited to 70[Symbol font/0xB0]C”), where pressing is carried out with a nozzle to form stable oil cakes ([0040]).
Pickardt does not teach temporarily heating up a part of the press cake to above 100[Symbol font/0xB0]C, supplying pressurized steam to the part of the press cake, expanding the part of the press cake and the pressurized steam to form collets, performing controlled crushing of the collets until a weight-average size of the collets is at least 100% and at maximum 400% of at least one of an average particle size of the low-hull grain fraction and an average particle size of the grains of the oil-containing seed, returning and mixing the collets with the low-hull grain fraction prior to the pressing, cooling the collets down to a temperature below 60[Symbol font/0xB0]C and pressing the cooled collets mixed with the low-hull grain fraction once again.
Regarding temporarily heating up a part of the press cake to above 100[Symbol font/0xB0]C, supplying pressurized steam to the part of the press cake, expanding the part of the press cake and the pressurized steam to form collets, Wittenberg teaches of an expander process where steam is injected into oilseed cakes under pressure to form collets ([0061]).
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 for producing seed oil taught by Pickardt with the use of an expander process taught by Wittenberg on the resulting press cake. One would be motivated to make this modification because, as taught by Wittenberg, the higher bulk density of collets after treatment with an expander allow for increased efficiency during extraction ([0061]).
Although Wittenberg doesn’t explicitly teach heating the press cake to 100[Symbol font/0xB0]C before supplying pressurized steam, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the temperature of the press cake entering the extruder during routine optimization to find the optimum starting temperature that results in the best performance of the expander. 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 temperature would thus be obvious.
Regarding returning and mixing the collets with the low-hull grain fraction prior to the pressing, cooling the collets down to a temperature below 60[Symbol font/0xB0]C and pressing the cooled collets mixed with the low-hull grain fraction once again, Wittenberg teaches collecting spent biomass or press cake and recycling the material back into the press with fresh feedstock ([0162]).
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 Pickardt modified by Wittenberg by recycling the collets into the low-hull feed for pressing. One would be motivated to make this modification because recycling of the collets would allow for more residual oil to be pressed from the collets when going through a second round of processing.
Although Wittenberg does not explicitly teach cooling the collets down to a temperature below 60[Symbol font/0xB0]C, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the temperature of collets before addition to the feed during routine optimization to find the temperature of collets that was low enough to not raise the pressing temperature to above 70[Symbol font/0xB0]C. 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 temperature would thus be obvious.
Regarding performing controlled crushing of the collets, Berk teaches that in food processing, intermediate products often must be subjected to size reduction operations such as grinding or milling (i.e., crushing; p. 153, ¶ 1).
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 Pickardt and Wittenberg with the addition of crushing of the intermediate product as taught by Berk. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make this modification because Berk teaches that that size reduction can facilitate mass transfer, such as prior to extraction (p. 153, ¶ 4, bullet 6).
Although the prior art does not explicitly teach that the average size of the collets is at least 100% and at maximum 400% of the average particle size of the low-hull grain fraction, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the size of the collets during routine optimization to find the collet size that resulted in the best pressing when mixed with low-hull grain fraction. 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 size ratio would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Although the prior art does not explicitly teach that the average size of the collets is at maximum 300% of the average particle size of the low-hull grain fraction, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the size of the collets during routine optimization to find the collet size that resulted in the best pressing when mixed with low-hull grain fraction. 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 size ratio would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Although the cited prior art does not teach the temperature of the collets mixed in with the low-hull grain fraction, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the temperature of the collets mixed back into the low-hull grain fraction during routine optimization to find the temperature that results in the best oil yield during pressing. 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 temperature would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Although the cited prior art does not teach the amount of collets that make up the press cake, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount of the collets mixed back into the low-hull grain fraction during routine optimization to find the composition that results in the best oil yield during pressing. 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 percentage of collets in the cake would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Pickardt also teaches that pressing takes place to a residual oil content of 10-35% ([0040]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “8 to 22 percent”.
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 11, Pickardt also teaches that the screw press is cooled to under 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C ([0039]). Therefore, it logically follows that if the system is being cooled, there is no heat being added during pressing.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickardt (US 2012/0009287 A1) (IDS filed 04/12/2023) in view of Wittenberg (US 2012/0130099 A1) (IDS filed 04/12/2023) and Berk (Berk, Zeki. “Chapter 6: Size Reduction”, Food Process Engineering and Technology, p. 153-174, published 2009, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-373660-4.X0001-4 [accessed online December 16, 2025]) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stibora (Stibora, Eric. “Utilization of Expanders to Maximize Oil Recovery on Pre-Press Cake”, Anderson International Corp., published October 23, 2017 [accessed online March 10, 2025]).
Regarding claim 4, The cited prior art does not teach wherein the pressurized steam is metered such that the press cake is temporarily heated to above 100[Symbol font/0xB0]C, and that the collets, after expanding, have a temperature from 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 95[Symbol font/0xB0]C.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Stibora teaches that steam is injected into an expander to elevate the temperature above the boiling point of water (i.e., above 100[Symbol font/0xB0]C, p. 3, ¶ 4). Although Stibora does not teach that the collets have a temperature of 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 95[Symbol font/0xB0]C after expanding, Stibora does teach that the hot material at 105-115[Symbol font/0xB0]C exits the expander, and that cooling collets in a forced air vessel assures that the materials is below the boiling point of a solvent before sent to the extractor (p. 3, ¶ 4 – p. 4, ¶ 1). It logically follows that during the cooling process, the hot collets above the boiling point of water were cooled to at least a temperature of 80[Symbol font/0xB0]C to 95[Symbol font/0xB0] at some point while being cooled to a temperature below that of the solvent to be used.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consult Stibora to determine the temperature of the press cake while inside the expander. One would be motivated to consult Stibora for the temperature in the expander because the prior art is silent regarding the temperature that the press cake is brought to in the formation of collets.
Regarding claim 5, Pickardt teaches extraction step with at least one solvent of the partially deoiled dehulled sunflower seeds ([0018]).
Pickardt does not teach wherein the entire press cake is expanded to form collets or wherein the collets mixed with low-hull grain fraction are taken prior to extracting, after extracting, or both.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wittenberg teaches that spent biomass into the press with feedstock ([0162]) and that spent biomass is pressed cake that has been by subjecting to mechanical pressing in an oilseed press ([0085]). Therefore, it logically follows that the spent biomass that is recycled has been taken prior to a solvent extraction step.
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 obtaining oil from seeds taught by Pickardt with recycling material prior to solvent extraction taught by Wittenberg. One would be motivated to make this modification because recycling material taken prior to solvent extraction will ensure that there is no residual solvent present in the pressing process.
Although the cited prior art does not explicitly teach wherein the entire press cake is expanded to form collets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to subject the entire press cake to expansion to form collets. Stibora teaches that the dense structure of the pre-press cake works against the processor, so a solution is to feed the cake into an expander to make a collet (p. 5, ¶ 1). Therefore, one would be motivated to convert all of the press cake into collets to have more efficient processing.
Regarding claim 6, Pickardt also teaches extraction with alcohol and then a subsequent alcohol-water extraction ([0033]) that extraction liquids can be pure fluids such as alcohols ([0044]).
Although Pickardt does not explicitly teach swelling in an alcohol-water mixture, swelling would inherently occur when the collets are subjected to the alcohol-water mixture.
Regarding claim 7, The cited prior art does not teach wherein the press cake is comminuted prior to supplying the pressurized steam.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Stibora teaches that inside an expander, the material is shredded before steam is injected (p. 3, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consult Stibora to determine that a material fed into an expander is shredded prior to exposure to the steam. One would be motivated to consult Stibora because the prior art is silent regarding whether or not the material is intact prior to being brought into contact with steam.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pickardt (US 2012/0009287 A1)(IDS filed 04/12/2023) in view of Wittenberg (US 2012/0130099 A1) (IDS filed 04/12/2023) and Mayo (Mayo, Matt, et al. “Dry Separation Methods”, Solids Processing, Chemical Engineering, p. 61-64, published August 2014 [accessed online December 17, 2025]).
Regarding claim 23, Pickardt teaches mechanical deoiling of sunflower seeds (Abstract) comprising:
Dehulling of the sunflower seeds to a residual hull content of ≤5% (i.e., a low-hull fraction, [0016]);
Pressing the sunflower seeds with a low residual hull content, controlling the temperature to under 60[Symbol font/0xB0]C ([0039]; where “under 60[Symbol font/0xB0]C” falls within the claimed range “limited to 70[Symbol font/0xB0]C”), where pressing is carried out with a nozzle to form stable oil cakes ([0040]).
Pickardt does not teach temporarily heating up a part of the press cake to above 100[Symbol font/0xB0]C, supplying pressurized steam to the part of the press cake, expanding the part of the press cake and the pressurized steam to form collets, performing seiving of the collets until a weight-average size of the collets is at least 100% and at maximum 400% of at least one of an average particle size of the low-hull grain fraction and an average particle size of the grains of the oil-containing seed, returning and mixing the collets with the low-hull grain fraction prior to the pressing, cooling the collets down to a temperature below 60[Symbol font/0xB0]C and pressing the cooled collets mixed with the low-hull grain fraction once again.
Regarding temporarily heating up a part of the press cake to above 100[Symbol font/0xB0]C, supplying pressurized steam to the part of the press cake, expanding the part of the press cake and the pressurized steam to form collets, Wittenberg teaches of an expander process where steam is injected into oilseed cakes under pressure to form collets ([0061]).
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 for producing seed oil taught by Pickardt with the use of an expander process taught by Wittenberg on the resulting press cake. One would be motivated to make this modification because, as taught by Wittenberg, the higher bulk density of collets after treatment with an expander allow for increased efficiency during extraction ([0061]).
Although Wittenberg doesn’t explicitly teach heating the press cake to 100[Symbol font/0xB0]C before supplying pressurized steam, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the temperature of the press cake entering the extruder during routine optimization to find the optimum starting temperature that results in the best performance of the expander. 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 temperature would thus be obvious.
Regarding returning and mixing the collets with the low-hull grain fraction prior to the pressing, cooling the collets down to a temperature below 60[Symbol font/0xB0]C and pressing the cooled collets mixed with the low-hull grain fraction once again, Wittenberg teaches collecting spent biomass or press cake and recycling the material back into the press with fresh feedstock ([0162]).
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 Pickardt modified by Wittenberg by recycling the collets into the low-hull feed for pressing. One would be motivated to make this modification because recycling of the collets would allow for more residual oil to be pressed from the collets when going through a second round of processing.
Although Wittenberg does not explicitly teach cooling the collets down to a temperature below 60[Symbol font/0xB0]C, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the temperature of collets before addition to the feed during routine optimization to find the temperature of collets that was low enough to not raise the pressing temperature to above 70[Symbol font/0xB0]C. 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 temperature would thus be obvious.
Regarding performing sieving of the collets, Mayo teaches that screening or sieving involves the separation of dry granular solids according to particle size (p. 62, col. 1, ¶ 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 Pickardt and Wittenberg with the addition of sieving to separate out particles as taught by Mayo. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Mayo teaches separation is used to isolate specific material fractions according to particle size (p. 61, col. 1, ¶ 1).
Although the prior art does not explicitly teach that the average size of the collets is at least 100% and at maximum 400% of the average particle size of the low-hull grain fraction, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the size of the collets during routine optimization to find the collet size that resulted in the best pressing when mixed with low-hull grain fraction. 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 size ratio would thus be obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §112(b): Applicant has overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claim 3 based on amendments to the claims and/or cancelation. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1, 3, ad 8-11 over Pickardt, Wittenberg, and Berk: Applicant’s arguments filed April 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Wittenberg only refers to the use of an expanders to prepare plant seed oil derived from collets in the context of solvent extraction, which is distinguishable from extraction by pressing. Applicant further argues that that hindsight reasoning was used (Remarks, p. 7, ¶ 2- p. 8, ¶ 3).
This argument has been considered. However, Wittenberg is merely relied upon to teach an expander process where steam is injected into oilseed cakes under pressure to form collets ([0061]). The Examiner does not rely on the inventive concept of Wittenberg, but rather than definition of an expander that is provided. Although Wittenberg does state that expanders are typically used for solvent extraction ([0061]), the disclosure of Wittenberg does not preclude the use of an expander for extraction by pressing. MPEP §2123(I) states “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). The Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to implement the expander process as taught by Wittenberg in the process of Pickardt to increase efficiency during extraction.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant's arguments as related to claim 1 were determined to be unpersuasive as detailed previously herein. Examiner further maintains that the dependent claims are properly rejected in light of the cited combinations of prior art as described in the claim rejections.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-11, 23 have been maintained herein.
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 Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Generally available M-Th 8:00a-5:00p, F 8:00-2:00.
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, 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