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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “trays” is improperly capitalized in claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigsson et al. (US 2015/0307810) in view of Sisson et al. (US Pat. 2,894,880) and Mokkila (US 2011/0092724).
Considering Claims 1 and 3: Stigsson et al. teaches a process comprising separating a light stream comprising water and turpentine from a feedstock (Figure 2; ¶0061); separating the turpentine from the other volatile components (Figure 2); separating a light and heavy fraction from the feedstock in a thin film evaporator (Figure 2; ¶0062-63), where the heavy fraction comprises tall oil pitch (¶0062) and the depitched fraction is treated in a distillation step (¶0064).
Stigsson et al. does not teach using the claimed fractionator for the removal of the light stream. However, Sisson et al. teaches removing the odorous volatile fraction/light stream comprising turpentine through the use of a fractionator (143-57) comprising a reboiler and a condenser to produce a distillate and a reflux liquid (Fig. 1; 5:5-29). Stigsson et al. and Sisson et al. are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely tall oil processing. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the fractionater of Sisson et al. as the means for removing the light stream in the process of Stigsson et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Sisson et al. suggests, it allows for the removal of the odorous components without degrading the other components of the tall oil (1:28-43).
Stigsson et al. teaches separating the turpentine after the separation apparatus (Figure 2). Stigsson et al. is silent towards the means of separating the turpentine and water. However, Mokkila teaches that turpentine is typically separated from an aqueous phase by gravitational decanting/liquid-liquid separation (¶0027). Stigsson et al. and Mokkila are analogous art as they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely isolating components from oil. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the liquid-liquid separation of Mokkila in the process of Stigsson et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Mokkila suggests, it is the typical means of separating turpentine from an aqueous phase (¶0027).
Considering Claim 2: Stigsson et al. teaches the distillation of the depitched fraction results in a light phase comprising crude fatty acids, a gaseous phase comprising resin acids that is fed to a RA polishing tower, and a third phase comprising resin acids that goes to the thin film evaporator (Figure 2; ¶0110).
Considering Claim 8: Sisson et al. is silent as to whether the reboiler and the tower are within the same shell. However, the rearrangement of parts has been found to be obvious absent a change in the operation of the apparatus. See MPEP § 2144.04. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art toa have placed the fractionator components within a single shell, and the motivation to do so would have been, a person of ordinary skill in the art would expect the apparatus to function in the same manner.
Considering Claim 9: Stigsson et al. teaches isolating the turpentine from the other components, but is silent towards the concentration of the turpentine in the composition. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have purified the turpentine product to allow for its use in the diesel composition later int eh process (¶0112).
Considering Claims 10 and 11: Sisson et al. teaches the fractionator as being operating at 225 ºC and 30 mmHg/4 kPa (4:14-32).
Considering Claim 12: Stigsson et al. teaches hydrogenating the crude fatty acids fraction (¶0091).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stigsson et al. (US 2015/0307810) in view of Sisson et al. (US Pat. 2,894,880) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Drew (US Pat. 3,607,617).
Considering Claims 4-6: Stigsson et al. and Sisson et al. collectively teach the process of claim 1 as shown above.
Stigsson et al. does not teach the use of a dephlegmator for the condensation. However, Drew teaches using a dephlegmator to isolate turpentine from a gas phase (2:59-3:3). Drew teaches the dephlegmator as comprising internal baffles/flow redistributors (2:59-3:3). Stigsson et al. and Drew are analogous art as they are concerned with a similar technical difficulty, namely turpentine isolation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have used the dephlegmator of Drew in the process of Stigsson et al., and the motivation to do so would have been, as Drew suggests, to increase phase separation between the water and turpentine during separation (1:35-60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, because:
A) The applicant’s argument that it is not clear how the tower of Sisson et al. would be incorporated into the process of Stigsson et al. is not persuasive. Stigsson et al. teaches a process including the removal of a volatile fraction as a light stream. Sisson et al. teaches a means of removing volatiles from a feedstock, and thus it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the tower of Sisson et al. in the process of Stigsson et al. as the means for volatiles removal.
B) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the exclusion of water from distillate) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In fact, the current claims require the presence of water in the distillate.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIAM J HEINCER whose telephone number is (571)270-3297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights