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 February 5th 2026 has been considered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 4 was cancelled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-16 are pending in the current application.
Claim 16 has been withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-3 and 5-15 are examined in the current application.
Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn.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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malm (USPatPub. 2019/0203154 A1).
Regarding claim 1,2 and 7-15: Malm discloses a method for processing crude oil/used oil feedstock by filtering impurities out using filtering aid followed by degumming and bleaching the oil (see Malm abstract; paragraphs [0007]-[0016]), but fails to disclose cooling the oil prior to the filtering step; However, given the fact filtering oil at room temperature is well known and conventional, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have lowered the temperature of the crude oil/fat to room temperature, as known and conventional, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
As to the polymers present in the oil and filtered out: Malm discloses filtering out impurities, such as phospholipids and metal ions (see Malm paragraphs [0005], [0015] and [0016]), but fails to disclose the type of impurities (i.e., polymers) recited in the claim 1; However, since the oil purifying process in Malm is similar to the claimed oil purifying process, the only difference appears to be the source of the oil. Since impurities in Malm and the polymer impurities recited in claim 1 are immiscible in oil, the claimed removal of the polymer impurities would flow naturally when processing oil comprising the claimed polymer impurities, 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 claims 3-6: Malm discloses removing polymers that are smaller than 50microns (see Malm examples 1-2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 5th 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because Malm fails to disclose the removal of the claimed polymers. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As stated above, given the fact the oil purifying process in Malm is similar to the claimed oil purifying process, the only difference appears to be the source of the oil. Since impurities in Malm and the polymer impurities recited in claim 1 are immiscible in oil, the claimed removal of the polymer impurities would flow naturally when processing oil comprising the claimed polymer impurities, 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).
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 on 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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights