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 Claims
Claims 1-2, 6-11, and 13-19 are pending and currently under examination (claim set filed 06/20/2025).
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103, Obviousness
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, 6-10, 13-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel (An Overview of Potential Oleaginous Microorganisms and Their Role in Biodiesel and Omega-3 Fatty Acid-Based Industries; 2020 – previously cited), Macias-Sanchez (Optimization of biodiesel production from wet microalgal biomass by direct transesterification using the surface response methodology; 2018 – previously cited), Massoud (US 2010/0313468; Date of Publication: December 16, 2010 – newly cited), Haas (Moisture Removal Substantially Improves the Efficiency of in Situ Biodiesel Production from Soybeans; 2006 – newly cited), and Bi (Transcriptome and gene expression analysis of docosahexaenoic acid producer Schizochytrium sp. under different oxygen supply conditions; 2018 – newly cited).
Patel’s general disclosure relates to “the type of oleaginous microorganisms and their expertise in the field of biodiesel or omega-3 fatty acids, advances in metabolic engineering tools for enhanced lipid accumulation, upstream and downstream processing of lipids, including purification of biodiesel and concentration of omega-3 fatty acids” (see, e.g., Patel, abstract).
Regarding claim 1 pertaining to in situ synthesis, Patel teaches a one-step in-situ transesterification for lipid extraction (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 19, section 7.3) using oleaginous microorganisms (see, e.g., Patel, abstract).
Regarding claim 1(i) pertaining to combined osmotic and acidic treatments, Patel teaches that lipid extraction and transesterification can be achieved in one-step, direct or in-situ transesterification (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 19, section 7.3). Additionally, Patel teaches that osmotic shock, specifically hypo-osmotic conditions, has a significant role in lipid removal from microorganisms. Moreover, Patel teaches that application of osmotic shock with a mixture of polar and non-polar solvents from extraction of lipids from wet Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cells resulted in an increase in lipid recovery by two times compared to other processes (see, e.g., Pate, pg. 17, section 2.2). Further, Patel teaches a commonly used method, the Bligh & Dyer method, for lipid extraction, wherein mixtures of chloroform and ethanol are used a solvent. Patel suggests that the method is often used to improve liquid recovery by cell disruption. One modification taught by Patel is acid treatment with HCl for the biomass to improve lipid recovery and release more polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as omega-3 fatty acids (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 16, section 7.2.1). A skilled artisan would be motivated to use both osmotic treatment and acidic treatment to improve the lipid recovery of the process as taught by Patel.
Regarding claim 1(ii) pertaining to mixing the treated biomass slurry with an extraction mixture, Patel teaches an extraction method involving ethanol, chloroform, and hydrochloric acid (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 16, section 7.2.1). Therefore, Patel teaches or suggests using an extraction mixture to release fatty acids from microbial cells.
Regarding claims 1(iii)-(iv) pertaining to a non-polar and polar solvents, Patel teaches that the application of osmotic shock with a mixture of polar and non-polar solvents for the extraction of lipids from wet Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cells resulted in an increase in lipid recovery by two times compared to other processes (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 17, section 7.2.2). Additionally, Patel teaches that the water of the wet microalgal biomass acts as a co-solvent to solvents, such as methanol and ethanol, and can help eliminate the need for a de-watering step. Patel teaches that in most cases, to achieve a more successful transesterification reaction, a combination of two or more methods leads to better results (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 20, section 7.3).
Regarding claim 1(v) pertaining to mixing the extract with acidic ethanol, Patel teaches that chemically by transesterification, where triacylglycerides, regardless of their origin, interact with ethanol or methanol to form alkyl esters, such as fatty acid methyl and ethyl esters (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 1, section 1).
Regarding claim (vi) pertaining to hexane, Patel teaches the use of solvents, such as hexane, for purification (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 21, section 7.4).
Regarding claim (vii) pertaining to the use of an adsorbent, Patel teaches the use of adsorbents for a biodiesel purification method resulting in no product loss, lower cost, and higher efficiency (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 21, section 7.4).
Regarding claim 2 pertaining to the FAAEs, Patel teaches chemically by transesterification, where triacylglycerides, regardless of their origin, interact with ethanol or methanol to form alkyl esters, such as fatty acid methyl and ethyl esters (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 1, section 1).
Regarding claim 6 pertaining to the osmotic treatment step, Patel teaches that hypo-osmotic conditions play a significant role in lipid removal from microorganisms (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 17, section 7.2.2). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that hypo-osmotic conditions could include the use of a hypotonic solution, which includes single distilled, double distilled, triple distilled, or water having low TDS.
Regarding claim 7 pertaining to the acid treatment, Patel teaches that an acid treatment with HCl on the biomass improves lipid recovery and releases more polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as omega-3 fatty acids (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 16, section 7.2.1).
Regarding claim 8 pertaining to the non-polar solvent, Patel teaches an extraction method involving chloroform (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 16, section 7.2.1). Additionally, Patel teaches the use of solvents like hexane for purification (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 21, section 7.4).
Regarding claims 9-10 pertaining to polar solvents, Patel teaches an extraction method involving ethanol (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 16, section 7.2.1). Additionally, Patel teaches that chemically by transesterification, triacylglycerides (regardless of their origin) interact with short-chain alcohol, such as ethanol and/or methanol, to form alkyl esters, such as fatty acid methyl and ethyl esters (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 1, section1). Therefore, Patel teaches the use of ethanol and methanol as polar solvents. Inherently, ethanol has the ability to act as an acid due to its ability to donate its hydroxyl proton. Ethanol is no different than acidic ethanol compositionally.
Regarding claim 13 pertaining to the extraction mixture, Patel teaches an extraction mixture comprising ethanol and hydrochloric acid (see, e.g., Patel, pg.16, section 7.2.1).
Regarding claim 14 pertaining to the FAAEs, Patel teaches wherein the production of fatty acid alkyl esters is directed to the production of omega-3 fatty acids. Further, Patel teaches that the method results in high purity of DHA (see, e.g., Patel, pgs. 1-2, section 1).
Regarding claim 16 pertaining to dewaters of the oleaginous wet biomass slurry, Patel taches that the wet route of lipid extraction is advantageous over the dry route due to reduced cost and energy demands, which makes the lipid extraction more feasible by eliminating the drying process prior to extraction (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 16, section 7.2.1). The method outlined above is used in the wet route of lipid extraction, therefore eliminating the need to dewater or dry the oleaginous wet biomass slurry.
Regarding claim 17 pertaining to the osmotic and acidic treatments, Patel teaches that osmotic and acidic treatments improve lipid recovery and extraction (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 16, section 7.2.1 & pg. 17 section 7.2.2). It would be expected when used together that the osmotic and acidic treatments would have synergistic effects as both methods separately improve lipid recovery.
Regarding claim 18 pertaining to the omega-3 fatty acids, Patel teaches wherein the composition contains 30-60% DHA or a type of omega-3 fatty acid in terms of purity (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 22, section 7.5).
Regarding claim 19 pertaining to the method reducing time, Patel teaches that these methods enhance the quantity and quality of omega-3 lipids (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 22, section 7.5). By teaching enhanced quality, Patel likely reduced the oxidation and/or epoxidation of omega-3 fatty acids.
However, Patel does not teach: wherein the treated biomass slurry has a moisture content in a range of 80-90% (claim 1(i)); or wherein activated alumina or sodium sulphate is added to the extract (claim (vii)); or wherein the moisture adsorbent increases the FAAE transesterification efficiency up to 95% (claim (vii)); or wherein the oleaginous microbe is Schizochytrium sp. DBT-IOC1 (MTCC 5890) (claim (vii)); or wherein the FAAE is propyl ester (claim 2); or wherein the treated biomass slurry is mixed with the extraction mixture and is agitated at 100 rpm at a temperature of 90oC for a duration of 1 hour (claim 3); or wherein the FAAEs are obtained within 4 hours from a time of harvesting of the fermentation broth (claim 15); or wherein the method reduces a time of downstream processing (claim 19).
Macias-Sanchez’s general disclosure relates to optimization of the production of fatty acid methyl esters from wet Nannochloropsis gaditana microalgal biomass by direct acid-catalyzed methylation of the saponifiable lipids from the microalgal biomass and fatty acid methyl ester extraction with hexane (see, e.g., Macias-Sanchez, abstract).
Regarding claim 1(i) pertaining to the moisture content, Macias-Sanchez teaches that the wet microalgal biomass contains 81.8 wt% water (see, e.g., Patel, abstract).
Regarding claim 3 pertaining to the treated biomass slurry, Macias-Sanchez teaches mixing methanol and sulphuric acid with a wet biomass paste at 200 rpm, and teaches the reaction conditions of 90oC for 60 minutes (see, e.g., Macias-Sanchez, Table 4 & pg. 142, section 2.2).
Regarding claim 3’s agitation limitation, MPEP 2144.05 states that “Where the general conditions of a claims are disclosure in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. Those working in the biological and/or pharmaceutical arts would understand that the adjustments of particular conventional working conditions is deemed a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization, which is within the purview of the skilled artisan. For example, Patel teaches that the transesterification can be related to many different parameters, such as the lipid origin (type of microorganism), the reaction temperature, the selected solvents, the reaction time, and the type or content of the catalysts used (see, e.g., Patel, pgs. 18-19, section 7.3). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that altering the agitation speed would affect transesterification. This is motivation for someone of ordinary skill in the art to practice or test the parameter widely to find those that are functional or optimal which then would be inclusive or cover the steps as instantly claimed. Absent any teaching of criticality by the Applicant concerning agitation speed, it would be prima facie obvious that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize these limitations are result effective variable which can be met as a matter of routine optimization.
Regarding claim 15 pertaining to the time to obtain FAAEs, Macias-Sanchez teaches a reaction time of 105 minutes and showed that the purification using an adsorbent showed no significant difference in yield and purity from 1-24 hours (see, e.g., Macias-Sanchez, Table 7 & pg. 142, section 2.2). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the whole process to less than four hours.
Regarding claim 19 pertaining to reducing the time of downstream processing, Macias-Sanchez teaches a process that eliminate the extraction or harvesting step of a conventional method of transesterification of microalgal biomass (see, e.g., Macias-Sanchez, pg. 141, section 1). Additionally, Macias-Sanchez teaches a method that reduces downstream processing by using an adsorption process (see, e.g., Macias-Sanchez, Table 7).
Massoud’s general disclosure relates to methods for treating biofuels by purification and drying efficiently and in a cost effective manner (see, e.g., Massoud, [0001]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 1(vii) pertaining to the adsorbent, Massoud teaches the use of alumina as an adsorbent (see, e.g., Massoud, [0024]). Additionally, Massoud teaches that the adsorbent allows for purification and drying of the biomass and does not involve harvesting and drying before step (i) (see, e.g., Massoud, [0036], [0041]). Moreover, alumina and activated alumina are the same product.
Regarding claim 2 pertaining to the FAAE being propyl ester, Massoud teaches that propyl ester is included as a fatty acid alkyl ester (see, e.g., Massoud, [0023]).
Haas’ general disclosure relates to a method of in-situ transesterification that includes drying the substrate which results in a marked reduction in the reagent requirements (see, e.g., Haas, abstract).
Regarding claim 1(vii) pertaining to the FAAE transesterification efficiency, Haas teaches that decreased moisture content results in optimum reaction conditions for transesterification and efficient reactions when water was removed (see, e.g., Haas, “Conduct and Optimization of in Situ Transesterification, pg. 199). More specifically, these optimal conditions resulted in high efficiency (95%) (see, e.g., Haas, Introduction, pg. 198).
Bi’s general disclosure pertains “to investigate the differences of gene expression at different levels of oxygen availability in the DHA producer Schizochytrium” (see, e.g., Bi, abstract).
Regarding claim 1(vii) pertaining to Schizochytrium sp., Bi teaches Schizochytrium sp. which produces polyunsaturated fatty acids, particularly with regard to DHA (see, e.g., Bi, Introduction, pg. 2). With regards to Schizochytrium sp. DBT-IOC1 (MTCC 5890), it cannot be ascertained if the prior art strain of Bi and the instantly claimed Schizochytrium sp. DBT-IOC1 (MTCC 5890) strain are the same. However, it is the Examiner’s position that they are substantially similar since they share similar properties/functions:
Claimed Schizochytrium sp. DBT-IOC1 (MTCC 5890)
Genus, Species: Schizochytrium sp.
Microorganism type: Microalgae (oleaginous microbe) (see, e.g., instant Spec, pg. 12)
Source: Arabian sea (see, e.g., instant Spec, pg. 12)
Growth: Aerobic with continuous stirring in fermenters (see, e.g., instant Spec, pg. 12)
Function: Production of fatty acid alkyl esters (see, e.g., instant Spec, pgs. 12-13)
Prior Art Strain (Bi’s Schizochytrium sp.)
Genus, Species: Schizochytrium sp.
Microorganism type: Microalgae
Source: Sea water (see, e.g., Bi, Methods, pg. 10)
Growth: Aerobic with continuous stirring in fermenters (see, e.g., Bi, Methods, pg. 10)
Function: Production of fatty acids (see, e.g., Bi, Introduction pg. 2)
Therefore, the cited reference discloses Schizochytrium sp. (see, e.g., Bi, Introduction, pg. 2), which appears to be identical to the presently claimed strain since it is suitable for producing fatty acids. Consequently, the claimed strain appears to be the same as the reference strain. Furthermore, it appears that the Schizochytrium sp. strain, as taught by Bi, is structurally the same to that as instantly claimed (i.e., same microorganism); therefore, it would be capable of performing the intended use of producing fatty acids.
It would have been first obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extract fatty acid alkyl esters from an oleaginous microbe, as taught by Patel, wherein the microalgal biomass contains 81.8 wt% water, as taught by Macias-Sanchez. One would have been motivated to do so because Macias-Sanchez teaches that high moisture contents result in obtaining high fatty acid methyl ester yields via transesterification reaction (see, e.g., Macias-Sanchez, section 4, pg. 148). Therefore, based on the teachings of Patel and Macias-Sanchez, it would have been obvious to utilize a oleaginous microbe with a high moisture content. Furthermore, utilizing an oleaginous microbe with a high moisture content allows for increased production of fatty acid methyl ester yields which is advantageous or beneficial for Patel’s purpose of extracting fatty acid alkyl esters from oleaginous microbes.
It would have been secondly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix Patel’s treated biomass slurry with an extraction mixture, as taught by Macias-Sanchez. One would have been motivated to do so because Macias-Sanchez teaches that mixing the biomass slurry with methanol and sulphuric acid (i.e., extraction mixture) results in the transesterification reaction for extraction of fatty acid methyl esters (see, e.g., Macias-Sanchez, section 2.2, pg. 142). Therefore, based on the teachings of Patel and Macias-Sanchez, it would have been obvious to mix the biomass slurry with an extraction mixture. Furthermore, mixing the biomass slurry with an extraction mixture would have been advantageous or beneficial for Patel’s purpose of extracting fatty acid alkyl esters from oleaginous microbes.
It would have been thirdly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extract fatty acid alkyl esters, as taught by Patel, within 4 hours, as taught by Macias-Sanchez. One would have been motivated to do so because Macias-Sanchez teaches that transesterification reaction time of 105 minutes was optimized in a previous study and that the 105 minute reaction time was utilized for the transesterification reaction to obtain fatty acid methyl esters from the treated biomass slurry (see, e.g., Macias-Sanchez, section 2.2, pg. 142). Therefore, based on the teachings of Patel and Macias-Sanchez, it would have been obvious to utilize a 105 minute reaction time to obtain fatty acid alkyl esters from oleaginous microbes. Furthermore, utilizing a 105 minute reaction time (less than 4 hours) would have been advantageous or beneficial for Patel’s purpose of extracting fatty acid alkyl esters from oleaginous microbes.
It would have been fourthly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extract fatty acid alkyl esters from an oleaginous microbe, as taught by Patel, wherein the method reduces downstream processing by eliminating drying and extraction steps, as taught by Macias-Sanchez. One would have been motivated to do so because Macias-Sanchez teaches that “drying the microalgae after harvesting consumes a lot of energy, which accounts for 20-30% of the total cost of biodiesel production” and the extraction step takes more than 50% of the total energy consumption” (see, e.g., Macias-Sanchez, section 1, pg. 141). Therefore, based on the teachings of Patel and Macias-Sanchez, it would have been obvious eliminate the drying and/or harvesting steps during production of fatty acid alkyl esters. Furthermore, eliminating the drying and/or harvesting steps during production of fatty acid alkyl esters have been advantageous or beneficial for Patel’s purpose of extracting fatty acid alkyl esters from oleaginous microbes. One would have expected success because Patel and Macias-Sanchez both teach fatty acid production and extraction from oleaginous microbes via transesterification.
It would have been fifthly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce Patel’s fatty acid alkyl esters via transesterification, wherein an adsorbent, such as alumina is used, as taught by Massoud. One would have been motivated to do so because Massoud teaches adsorbents, such as alumina, replaces the drying step and removes impurities from biofuels (see, e.g., Massoud, [0036], [0043]), and wherein these purified biofuels can be subjected to a transesterification step to produce smaller ester molecules (see, e.g., Massoud, [0029]). Additionally, Haas teaches that decreased moisture content results in optimum reaction conditions for transesterification and efficient reactions when water was removed (see, e.g., Haas, “Conduct and Optimization of in Situ Transesterification, pg. 199). Therefore, based on the teachings of Patel, Massoud, and Haas, it would have been obvious to utilize an adsorbent, such as alumina, during production of fatty acid alkyl esters. Furthermore, utilization of an adsorbent, such as alumina, would have been advantageous or beneficial for Patel’s purpose of extracting fatty acid alkyl esters from oleaginous microbes. One would have expected success because Patel, Massoud, and Haas all teach fatty acid production and transesterification.
It would have been sixthly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce Patel’s fatty acid alkyl esters by utilizing Schizochytrium sp., as taught by Bi. One would have been motivated to do so because Bi teaches that “Schizochytrium sp. has a fast growth rate and high productivity, and it has been recognized as a great potential source for the production of polyunsaturated fatty acids” (see, e.g., Bi, Background, pg. 2). Therefore, based on the teachings of Patel and Bi, it would have been obvious to utilize Schizochytrium sp. for production of fatty acid alkyl esters. Furthermore, utilization of Schizochytrium sp. would have been advantageous or beneficial for Patel’s purpose of extracting fatty acid alkyl esters from oleaginous microbes. One would have expected success because Patel and Bi both teach oleaginous microbes.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel, Macias-Sanchez, Massoud, Haas, and Bi as applied to claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-16, and 18-19 above, and further in view of Shinde (U.S. Patent No. 9,416,336; Date of Publication: August 16, 2016 – previously cited).
The teachings of Patel, Macias-Sanchez, Massoud, Haas, and Bi, herein referred to as modified-Patel-Macias-Sanchez-Massoud-Haas-Bi, are discussed above as it pertains to extraction of fatty acid alkyl esters from an oleaginous wet biomass slurry.
However, modified-Patel-Macias-Sanchez-Massoud-Haas-Bi does not teach: wherein a ratio of the oleaginous wet biomass slurry to the acidic ethanol is in a range of 1:5-1:60 (claim 11).
Shinde’s general disclosure relates to methods of producing fatty acid ethyl esters using a direct transesterification process which uses low levels of chemical solvents, acid catalysts, and heating energy in order to increase efficiency (see, e.g., Shinde, abstract).
Regarding claim 11 pertaining to the ratio, Shinde teaches the use of ethanol as a solvent and teaches that the biomass:ethanol ratio may vary from 1:1 to 1:10 (see, e.g., Shinde, claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a biomass:ethanol ratio in the range of 1:1-1:10, as taught by Shinde, for the production of fatty acid alkyl esters, as taught by modified-Patel-Macias-Sanchez-Massoud-Haas-Bi. One would have been motivated to do so because Shinde teaches that utilizing a biomass:ethanol ratio in the range of 1:1-1:10 produces a reaction mixture that can produce an ester mixture comprising at least some of the lipids converted into a fatty acid ethyl ester product (see, e.g., Shinde, [6]). Therefore, based on the teachings of modified-Patel-Macias-Sanchez-Massoud-Haas-Bi and Shinde, it would have been obvious to utilize a biomass:ethanol ratio in the range of 1:1-1:10 for production of fatty acid ethyl esters. Furthermore, utilization a biomass:ethanol ratio in the range of 1:1-1:10 would have been advantageous or beneficial for modified-Patel-Macias-Sanchez-Massoud-Haas-Bi’s purpose of extracting fatty acid alkyl esters from oleaginous microbes. One would have expected success because modified-Patel-Macias-Sanchez-Massoud-Haas-Bi and Shinde both teach fatty acid extraction via transesterification.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel, Macias-Sanchez, Massoud, Haas, and Bi as applied to claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-16, and 18-19 above, and further in view of Pottahill (US 2012/0009660; Date of Publication: August 16, 2016 – previously cited).
The teachings of Patel, Macias-Sanchez, Massoud, Haas, and Bi, herein referred to as modified-Patel-Macias-Sanchez-Massoud-Haas-Bi, are discussed above as it pertains to extraction of fatty acid alkyl esters from an oleaginous wet biomass slurry.
However, modified-Patel-Macias-Sanchez-Massoud-Haas-Bi does not teach: wherein the osmotic treatment and the acidic treatment reduces an ash content of the oleaginous wet biomass slurry (claim 17).
Pottahill’s general disclosure pertains to “a process of reducing the ash content of a biomass feedstock or a biomass fraction” (see, e.g., Pottahill, abstract).
Regarding claim 17 pertaining to reducing the ash content, Pottahill teaches treating a microcrop biomass with alcohol and acid reduces the ash content prior to further process (see, e.g., Pottahill, [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reduce the ash content, as taught by Pottahill, within the biomass slurry, as taught by modified-Patel-Macias-Sanchez-Massoud-Haas-Bi. One would have been motivated to do so because Pottahill teaches “Ash in biomass lowers the energy yield because the ash cannot be converted into usable products or energy. The existence of ash also complicates the conversion of biomass into liquid fuels by catalyzing the formation of gaseous products, decreasing the initial decomposition temperature, decreasing the pyrolysis rate, lowering the heating value of the liquids produced and increasing char formation” (see, e.g., Pottahill, [0005]). Therefore, based on the teachings of modified-Patel-Macias-Sanchez-Massoud-Haas-Bi and Pottahill, it would have been obvious to reduce the ash content of the biomass slurry. Furthermore, reducing the ash content of the biomass slurry would have been advantageous or beneficial for modified-Patel-Macias-Sanchez-Massoud-Haas-Bi’s purpose of extracting fatty acid alkyl esters from oleaginous microbes. One would have expected success because modified-Patel-Macias-Sanchez-Massoud-Haas-Bi and Pottahill both teach transesterification.
Examiner’s Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and deemed insufficient to overcome the prior arts of record.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Massoud, Macias-Sanchez, and Bi do not teach or suggest that the adsorbent is added during the second transesterification reaction to achieve a higher transesterification efficiency (remarks, page 8), this argument is not persuasive for multiple reasons. First, the prior art of Patel teaches generation of the second extract because Patel teaches the use of solvents, such as hexane, for purification (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 21, section 7.4). From the teachings of Patel, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the second extract is merely a purified version of the first extract (i.e., FAAE extract). Moreover, Patel teaches wherein the production of fatty acid alkyl esters is directed to the production of omega-3 fatty acids. Further, Patel teaches that the method results in high purity of DHA (see, e.g., Patel, pgs. 1-2, section 1). Additionally, Patel teaches the use of adsorbents for a biodiesel purification method resulting in no product loss, lower cost, and higher efficiency (see, e.g., Patel, pg. 21, section 7.4). Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that addition of an adsorbent to the second extract would result in higher efficiency and be directed to the production of FAAEs rich in omaga-3 fatty acids. Secondly, Haas teaches that decreased moisture content results in optimum reaction conditions for transesterification and efficient reactions when water was removed (see, e.g., Haas, “Conduct and Optimization of in Situ Transesterification, pg. 199). More specifically, these optimal conditions resulted in high efficiency (95%) (see, e.g., Haas, Introduction, pg. 198). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the combined teachings of Patel and Haas that addition of an adsorbent would result in high transesterification efficiency. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that addition of the adsorbent to the second extract would be beneficial for increasing the transesterification efficiency to produce FAAEs rich in omega-3 fatty acids. Thirdly, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that dependent claims 2-3, 6-11, and 13-19 should be allowable due to their dependency on claim 1 (remarks, pages 9-10), this argument is not persuasive because claim 1 has been rejected.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 6-11, and 13-19 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
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.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATALIE IANNUZO whose telephone number is (703)756-5559. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:30-6:00 EST.
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, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
/NATALIE IANNUZO/Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/NGHI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653