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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 depends from cancelled claim 6 and claim 11 depends from cancelled claim 10. The scope of these claims is unclear since the dependency is not clearly set forth. For the purpose of examination, claims 7 and 11 are interpreted as dependent upon claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1511953 (Asahi) in view of CN 104711118 (CN ‘118).
Asahi teaches a process for refining oil and the exemplified oil is palm oil (page 2, line 130). The process steps include: acid treatment that forms gum that can be removed easily (page 1, line 83-page 2, line 9); neutralization by adding a base (page 2, lines 13-20); filtering insoluble materials by filtration or centrifuge (page 2, lines 60-65); distillation to remove fatty acid (page 2, lines 66-80); absorbent treatment by adding activated or natural clay (considered bleaching) (page 2, lines 89-95); and deodorization (page 2, lines 113-120). All of the steps in claim 1 are disclosed by Asahi and notably. The step of adding absorbent (clay) is considered bleaching as it is consistent with statements in the instant specification that bleaching comprises adding clay (natural or acidic (activated)) (page 9 of instant specification). The phrase “for inhibiting or reducing…” and “thereby inhibiting or reducing” of claim 1 is considered intended use and an outcome of performing the steps of the claim. Asahi teaches that the process for refining the oil results in removal of impurities and foreign matter such as pigments, proteins, phosphatides and metals and gives refined oils of good quality in color, flavor and oxidation stability page 1, lines 30-35, lines 65-71). Furthermore, the steps of Asahi are the same steps required by claim 1 and the reduction or inhibition of the cited materials is reasonably expected to result from the process of Asahi.
Regarding stirring under vacuum as part of the bleaching step (iii), Asahi teaches the adsorbent treatment (bleaching) is performed by adding activated clay or natural clay at a temperature of preferably 90-115C which is within the claimed range of below 120C. As an example, Asahi discloses adding activated clay at reduced pressure and stirring. After cooling to 80C, the oil is filtered with suction (vacuum). The claim requires stirring under vacuum but does not provide any units for the vacuum pressure. The instant application indicates on page 6 that “about 1mbar” is referenced as “(vacuum)” but also refers to “reduced pressure (vacuum)”. Thus, the definition of vacuum is not clearly limited to a particular unit and a “reduced pressure” is seen to encompass the claimed “vacuum”. Here, 10-20mmHg is a reduced pressure and is seen to meet the limitation of “vacuum” inasmuch as it is disclosed as a “reduced pressure”. Moreover, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably taken the disclosure of “reduced pressure” by Asahi to indicate that reducing the pressure to a point at which the adsorption is accomplished would be within the bounds of the disclosure and further decreasing the amount of vacuum would have been obvious to provide an optimal atmosphere for adsorption. Still further, CN 104711118 teaches bleaching palm oil including the step of bleaching where the bleaching is performed at 90-110C and vacuum stirring (abstract). Thus, CN ‘118 illustrates that it was known to one of ordinary skill in the art to vacuum stir the bleaching agent under similar temperatures as Asahi to successfully bleach the oil, thus one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to modify Asahi to stir under vacuum with a reasonable expectation of successfully performing the bleaching step.
Claim 1 was amended to require “the method comprises only one bleaching step”. Note that claim 1 and the instant specification do not clearly define “bleaching step”. The instant specification states on page 11 that more than one bleaching step may be performed and “each bleaching step comprises cooling the oil to a temperature of 120C,… and adding acidic clay under vacuum.”. Asahi discloses that the oil is degummed (discussed above), followed by neutralization with a base, filtering to remove insoluble materials, deacidification by distillation, adsorbent treatment with an activated clay (considered to meet the bleaching step as noted above) and finally deodorizing. Asahi discloses that the filtering after neutralization may preferably use activated clay at temperatures of 65C-110C but states that the filtering step preferably adds a filter. Thus, the use of a filtering aid is seen to be optional due to it being a preference and not required. Moreover, Asahi discloses that diatomaceous earth may be used as the filter aid, which would not clearly involve “bleaching” as the step of bleaching is not clearly defined and appears to be intended to encompass acid-activated clay at a temperature below 120C (note above with respect to instant specification page 11). Thus, the filtering of Asahi following neutralization is not considered a bleaching step as it is not required to have the use of acid activated clay.
Regarding claim 2, Asahi gives an example (Example 1) of acid degumming with 75% ortho-phosphoric acid which is understood to be an aqueous concentration of phosphoric acid, thus water is present. Asahi teaches the use of centrifuge to remove insoluble (which would include gums) which is consistent with the centrifuge disclosed in the instant specification (separator 1 of instant specification).
Regarding claim 3, Asahi teaches addition of the base before fatty acid distillation and with wherein the fatty acid distillation is performed by continuously introducing steam at 180-260C, preferably 220-250C, under reduced pressure of 0.5-5mm Hg (0.37-3.75 mbar) which is within the range of less than 10mbar (page 2, lines 69-75, claim 4). The preferred temperature range of 220-250C is seen to anticipate the claimed range of higher than 240C with sufficient specificity based upon the expression that the preferred values for the temperature include up to 250C.
Alternatively, with regard to claim 3, as discussed above, Asahi teaches the temperature range for steam distillation removal of fatty acids of 180-260C, preferably 220-250C. Alternative to anticipation explained above, this teaching overlaps with the claimed range of higher than 240C and thus is prima facie obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, Asahi teaches deodorization is performed by continuously introducing steam under a reduced pressure of 0.5-6mmHg which is considered a vacuum and corresponds to 0.667-7.9 mbar (page 2, lines 115-120). This value is a reduced pressure and also overlaps with the indication in the specification that vacuum could be considered 1mbar.
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 11, Asahi does not expressly state the values of 3-MCPD and 2-MCPD, GE and DAK. However, as explained above, Asahi as modified above performs all of the claimed process limitations which are similar to if not identical to the claimed process steps, thus one of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected the oil to have a reduced amount of these compounds after being subjected to such a treatment. As explained above, the order of steps is not required to be sequential, and Asahi does generally have the same sequence and similar parameters for each of the claimed steps. For example, as explained on page 6 of the instant specification, the acid (dosage 1), and caustic (dosage 3) may be added to the oil followed by separation by filter or centrifuge. Asahi teaches addition of acid, addition of caustic (base) and filtering using a filtering aid before distillation. Bleaching and deodorizing are performed after distillation, in this order. Thus, the order of steps are essentially identical to that which is disclosed and is commensurate with the steps claimed. Absent a showing that the process of Asahi cannot reasonably be seen to achieve the same or similar results, one of ordinary skill given the similarity of the disclosed steps would reasonably expect a similar outcome. Regarding the alteration of solid fat content of the oil, based upon the similarity of the method steps as outlined above, one of ordinary skill would expect that the solid fat content of the treated palm oil is not altered.
Claims 4, 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1511953 (Asahi) in view of CN 104711118 (CN ‘118) and further in view of WO 2019/139533 (Johansen).
Asahi teaches addition of the neutralizing agents (base) at a temperature of 45-85C and stirring. Example 1 teaches stirring for 10 minutes which falls within the claimed range. Asahi also gives an example of adding calcium carbonate to the oil in an amount of 0.3% by weight of the oil (Example 1). Claim 4 requires greater than 50mg/kg which converts to greater than 0.005%. Thus, the teaching of 0.3% is considered to render obvious the claimed range. Asahi does not teach cooling to a temperature higher than 180C. Johansen teaches oil processing including the steps of adding a base to the palm oil and heating the palm oil in the presence of the base to a temperature of at least 180 degrees to obtain FFA reduced palm oil for a time less than one hour (abstract). The oil may be heated before or after the addition of the base. Johansen teaches the base is sodium carbonate or metal bicarbonate (page 9) which is similar to the bases used by Asahi. Johansen teaches that the by adding the base (metal carbonate or metal bicarbonate), the amounts of 2 and 3-MCPD may be extremely low, such as lower than 0.5 or 0.1 ppm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the base of Asahi with the temperature parameter of Johansen as the goal of both references is to decrease impurities and other compounds and to provide a refined palm oil to provide the base with increased temperature to improve the quality of the palm oil (pages 2, 7, 8 of Johansen).
Regarding claim 5, Asahi teaches the addition of hydroxide and/or basic salt of an alkali metal and/or an alkaline earth metal, such as sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, and sodium hydroxide (page 2, lines 14-18).
Regarding claim 21, Johansen discloses measuring 3-MCPD of crude palm oil which his considered to be a measurement before degumming. The 3-MCPD is again measured after treatments which would mean the measurements are taken after treatment (trials) (Table 1). It would have been obvious to measure 3-MCPD in Asahi prior to degumming and after degumming to gauge how effective the treatments are. Taking a measurement prior to a treatment and after a treatment is a well-known scientific practice utilized to establish a before/after comparison and ascertain the effectiveness of a treatment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Asahi cannot anticipate claim 1 because the reference does not disclose a method of treating oil comprising one step of bleaching by cooling the fatty acid-depleted palm oil to a temperature below 120C, adding acid deactivated bleaching clay and stirring under vacuum and filtering. Applicant has not added any further explanation as to why Asahi is considered to teach more than one bleaching step. As previously stated, Asahi discloses only one absorption step (see page 11 of previous action). As explained above, and reiterated here, the instant specification states on page 11 that more than one bleaching step may be performed and “each bleaching step comprises cooling the oil to a temperature of 120C,… and adding acidic clay under vacuum.”. Asahi discloses that the oil is degummed (discussed above), followed by neutralization with a base, filtering to remove insoluble materials, deacidification by distillation, adsorbent treatment with an activated clay (considered to meet the bleaching step as noted above) and finally deodorizing. Asahi discloses that the filtering after neutralization may preferably use activated clay at temperatures of 65C-110C but states that the filtering step preferably adds a filter. Thus, the use of a filtering aid is seen to be optional due to it being a preference and not required. Moreover, Asahi discloses that diatomaceous earth may be used as the filter aid, which would not clearly involve “bleaching” as the step of bleaching is not clearly defined and appears to be intended to encompass acid-activated clay at a temperature below 120C (note above with respect to instant specification page 11). Thus, the filtering of Asahi following neutralization is not considered a bleaching step as it is not required to have the use of acid activated clay.
Regarding the step of cooling the fatty acid-depleted palm oil to a temperature below 120C, adding acid-activated bleaching clay and stirring under vacuum, this limitation was addressed in the last office action (see page 9 with regard to original claim 6). Applicant has not argued any of the merits of the rejection made on the basis of Asahi in view of CN ‘118. CN ‘118 was relied upon to obviate the limitation of original claim 6. No arguments are found regarding the rejection.
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 JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1793
/Jennifer McNeil/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793