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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on June 7, 2023. The earliest effective filing date of the application is June 8, 2022.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d),
filed on June 8, 2022.
Status of Application
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1 – 10
Withdrawn claims: None
Claims currently under examination: 1 – 10
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 8, and 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “a) adding a certain amount of inert solid powder to a heated melted polyunsaturated fatty acid grease, and stirring evenly, the inert solid powder is selected from…;” which should be “a) adding a certain amount of inert solid powder to a heated melted polyunsaturated fatty acid grease, and stirring evenly, wherein the inert solid powder is selected from…”.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 recite “b) cooling crystallization the polyunsaturated fatty acid grease containing the inert solid powder obtained by step a), to obtain a crystalline mixture;” which should be “b) cooling the polyunsaturated fatty acid grease containing the inert solid powder obtained by step a), to obtain a crystalline mixture;” or “b) crystallizing the polyunsaturated fatty acid grease containing the inert solid powder obtained by step a) by cooling, to obtain a crystalline mixture;” or some variation therein to recite step (b) as an active step, while expressing the mixture of step (a) is cooled, resulting in crystallization.
Claim 1 recites “d) introducing hot gas into the filter to make a solid fat melted into a liquid…” which should be “d) introducing hot gas into the filter to make a solid fat melt into a liquid…”.
Claim 10 recites “wherein, in step d), the hot gas is a heating steam, a heating nitrogen, a heating air; a temperature of the hot gas is 30°C-100°C…” which should be “wherein, in step d), the hot gas is a heating steam, a heating nitrogen, a heating air; and a temperature of the hot gas is 30°C-100°C…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the broad recitation “a temperature of a hot gas is 30 °C – 100 °C”, and the claim also recites “preferably, a temperature of the hot gas is 80 °C – 100 °C”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purpose of examination, the broader range, a temperature of a hot gas is 30 °C – 100 °C, is considered.
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.
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 – 6 and 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai et al. (US 20130274495 A1) in view of Benesi et al. (US 20070256984 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murai teaches a dry fractionation method for separating solid and liquid oil fractions comprising the steps of:
a. heating while stirring a raw material oil-and-fat (i.e., polyunsaturated fatty acid grease) to completely melt ([0020]; [0022]); then adding a filtration aid (i.e., inert solid powder), such as activated carbon, diatomaceous material (i.e., diatomite), or perlite material (i.e., adding a certain amount of inert solid powder to a heated melted polyunsaturated fatty acid grease, and stirring evenly, the inert solid powder is selected from the group consisting of activated carbon, diatomite and perlite – [0023]; [0037]);
b. crystallizing by cooling and stirring to form a slurry (i.e., cooling crystallization the polyunsaturated fatty acid grease containing the inert solid powder obtained by step a), to obtain a crystalline mixture – [0024] – [0025]);
c. press-filtering the slurry to be separated into a crystal fraction and a liquid fraction (i.e., filtering the crystalline mixture obtained by step b) through a filter, to obtain a clarified polyunsaturated fatty acid grease and a filter cake – [0029] – [0030]); and
d. recovering the filtration aid after the press-filtering for repeated use (i.e., recovering a filter cake with inert solid powder – [0037]).
Murai does not teach introducing hot gas into the filter after step (c) to make a solid fat melted into a liquid, and then recovering a liquid solid fat.
Benesi teaches a method of separating a quantity of slurry into solids and liquids, the method comprising:
(i) introducing a quantity of a slurry, comprising solids and liquids, in at least one filtration chamber;
(ii) extracting an initial portion of said liquids from the slurry within the filtration chamber whereby a cake is formed, by applying a pressure differential thereto, the applied pressure resulting in a first pressure within the chamber; and
(iii) extracting a subsequent portion of said slurry liquids from the filtration chamber by introducing to the filtration chamber a quantity of a first treatment gas at an elevated temperature, wherein said elevated temperature of the gas is obtained by compressing the gas in a compressor means, wherein a heat of compression is substantially retained by the gas; and wherein the method is energy efficient (Claim 1).
Benesi teaches following the introduction of the first fluid (i.e., the slurry of step (i), there is introduced a second fluid comprising a conditioning gas (i.e., the treatment gas of step (iii) – [0049]). Benesi teaches the conditioning gas can condition the cake for further liquid extraction, by heating and/or by increasing cake permeability, thus permitting an additional amount of liquids to be forced from the slurry and/or further drying the cake ([0049]). Benesi teaches the introduction of conditioning fluids, comprising gases to the slurry, has been found to maximize and/or optimize liquid/solid separation ([0053]). Benesi teaches in one embodiment of the present invention, the introduction of hot compressed gas has been found to increase the efficiency of extraction of liquids from the cake ([0053]).
Murai and Benesi are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, solid/liquid separation via filtration. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extract a second liquid portion through the filter of Murai by introducing the crystal portion of step (c) to a quantity of a first treatment gas at an elevated temperature (i.e., introducing hot gas into the filter to make a solid fat melted into a liquid, and then recovering a liquid solid fat), as taught by Benesi because the introduction of hot compressed gas has been found to increase the efficiency of extraction of liquids from a filter cake produced by the filtration of a solid/liquid slurry.
Murai does not teach further introducing nitrogen into the filter, blowing dry residual solid fat after melting the liquid solid fat through the filter prior to step (d).
Benesi teaches it is desirable to further treat the formed cake and to increase its dryness ([0049]). Benesi teaches filter may also have blowdown gas (which may comprise air) introduced to the cake to continue the treatment of the cake prior to its discharge ([0050]). Benesi teaches such blowdown gas may be conditioning, or conditioned, gas, and may also be used to control the temperature of the cake and/or the chamber to approach a desired exit temperature, pressure, flow, or other process parameter ([0050]). Benesi teaches blowdown gas functions to squeeze or express the cake, and can act as a heat transfer and/or drying agent ([0050]). As further taught by Benesi, in an example, direct compressed air, steam, or a combination of compressed air and steam may be used to effectively dewater the slurry and dry the resultant filter cake comprising diatomaceous earth (i.e., diatomite – [0105]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to pass air (which is known to comprise nitrogen) as a blowdown gas through the filter of Murai after introducing a treatment gas (i.e., introducing nitrogen into the filter, blowing dry residual solid fat after melting the liquid solid fat through the filter) and before the recovery of the filtration aid (i.e., inert solid powder) in step (d), as taught by Benesi because the introduction of blowdown gas functions to squeeze or express the cake, and can act as a heat transfer and/or drying agent, thereby aiding in the recovery of the filtration aid (i.e., inert solid powder).
Regarding claim 2, Murai teaches the method is applicable to fish oil ([0038]).
Regarding claim 3, Murai teaches the oil-and-fat (i.e., polyunsaturated fatty acid grease) is a mixture of triglycerides (i.e., glycerides – [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, Murai teaches the heating of step (a) is conducted at 30 °C or higher ([0022]).
The range of oil-and-fat (i.e., polyunsaturated fatty acid grease) heating temperatures, 30 °C or higher, as disclosed by Murai, overlaps with the claimed range of 30 – 100 °C. 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 claims 5, Murai teaches the filtration aid of step (a) is added thereto in an amount corresponding to an amount of 10 to 120% by weight with respect to estimated crystal content (SFC) after the oil-and-fat (i.e., polyunsaturated fatty acid grease) is crystalized, and then mixed with each other ([0023]). Murai teaches, in example, the crystal amount achieved by the method of Murai is 13.0% as SFC ([0046]). Therefore, given the crystal content of the oil-and-fat (i.e., polyunsaturated fatty acid grease) utilized in the method of Murai and the amount of filtration aid recommended based on the crystal content of the oil-and-fat slurry, the recommended amount of filtration aid in the method of Murai is 1.3 wt% to 15.6 wt%.
The range of filtration aid (i.e., inert solid) wt% added, 1.3 wt% to 15.6 wt%, as disclosed by Murai, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 – 6.0 wt%. 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 6, Murai teaches the filtration aid (i.e., inert solid) can be added before or after the crystallization, or can be separately added before and after the crystallization ([0028]). Therefore, Murai teaches embodiments wherein none of the filtration aid is added in step (a), and all of it is added between steps (b) and (c) (i.e., after crystallization), and vice versa.
The range of filtration aid (i.e., inert solid) wt% added during step (a), 0 – 15.6 wt%, as disclosed by Murai, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.1 – 1.0 wt%. 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 8, Murai teaches between steps (b) and (c), adding additional filtration aid (i.e., inert solid – [0028]).
Regarding claim 9, Murai teaches the filtration aid of step (a) is added thereto in an amount corresponding to an amount of 10 to 120% by weight with respect to estimated crystal content (SFC) after the oil-and-fat is crystalized, and then mixed with each other ([0023]). Murai teaches, in example, the crystal amount achieved by the method of Murai is 13.0% as SFC ([0046]). Therefore, given the crystal content of the oil-and-fat slurry utilized in the method of Murai and the amount of filtration aid recommended based on the crystal content of the oil-and-fat slurry, the recommended amount of filtration aid in the method of Murai is 1.3 wt% to 15.6 wt%. Murai further teaches the filtration aid (i.e., inert solid) can be added before or after the crystallization, or can be separately added before and after the crystallization ([0028]). Therefore, Murai teaches embodiments wherein none of the filtration aid is added in step (a), and all of it is added between steps (b) and (c) (i.e., after crystallization), and vice versa.
The range of filtration aid (i.e., inert solid) wt% added between steps (b) and (c), 0 – 15.6 wt%, as disclosed by Murai, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 – 6.0 wt%. 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 10, Murai does not teach the hot gas is a heating steam, a heating nitrogen, a heating air.
Benesi teaches the second fluid (i.e., the treatment gas of step (iii)) may comprise steam (i.e., the hot gas is steam) to continue the extraction of liquids from the formed cake ([0049]).
Murai does not teach the temperature of the hot gas is 30 °C to 100 °C, however Murai teaches to melt the raw material oil-and-fat, a heating temperature of 30 °C or higher is recommended to completely melt the raw material (i.e., the liquid an solid fat – [0022]). Therefore, Murai teaches a temperature of 30 °C and above is recommended for melting any of the fats in the oil-and-fat, including the solid fat.
Benesi further teaches the second fluid (i.e., the treatment gas of step (iii)) is preferably a gas, which may be at ambient temperature or at elevated temperature as dictated by an analysis of the slurry to be treated an accord with the temperature that results in the desired, maximal or optimal separation of the slurry ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected a temperature of 30 °C and above as taught by Murai for the temperature of the second fluid (i.e., the treatment gas of step (iii)) of Benesi in the modified method of Murai because Murai teaches the temperature range of 30 °C and above is capable of melting all of the raw material, including the solid fat, and Benesi teaches the temperature of the second fluid (i.e., the treatment gas of step (iii)) may be elevated to achieve the desired separation results. It would have also been obvious to select the overlapping range, 30 °C to 100 °C, of the second fluid (i.e., the treatment gas of step (iii)). 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murai et al. (US 20130274495 A1) in view of Benesi et al. (US 20070256984 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oteza (Winterization. Oteza. (2018) Retrieved from: https://oteza.sk/en/refinement/refining-of-vegetable-oils/winterization/).
Murai teaches, during step (b), the temperature of the coolant is appropriately set in such a manner that a product to be obtained after the crystallization will be a crystal slurry having a flowability permitting the slurry to be transported with a pump ([0025]).
Murai does not teach the cooling temperature is -10 to 5 °C.
Oteza teaches winterizer equipment and the principles behind winterization. Oteza teaches winterization is a thermo-mechanical process in which solids are crystallized under controlled temperature conditions (p. 3, paragraph 1). Oteza teaches the process is used for oils that produce turbidity below 5°C, such as cotton and sunflower oil (p. 3, paragraph 1). Oteza teaches the cause of turbidity may be an increased content of saturated triglycerides or the presence of waxes (p. 3, paragraph 1). Oteza teaches the equipment works on the principle of crystallization of waxes with the aid of a crystallizing agent while gradually cooling the oil, followed by filtration on a horizontal plate filter (p. 3, paragraph 2).
Murai and Oteza are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, oil fractionation through crystallization. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have cooled the composition of step (a) of Murai to between -10 to 5 °C, as taught by Oteza because doing so would winterize the liquid oil in addition to any fat fractionation.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARK JULIA MORENO whose telephone number is (571)272-2337. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 - 4:30 M - F.
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.
/L.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793