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 Application Claims 1- 23 are pending and under current examination. 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 8 and 9 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim s 8 and 9 are indefinite as these claim s recite “ substantially degummed ”, which renders the se claim s indefinite. This is because “ substantially ” is a relative term and said phrase is not defined by the claim s , and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), fourth paragraph: Subject to the [fifth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA)], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 is in an improper dependent form because , the claim refers to LCC as algal oil, which is not rendered or animal fat. Thus, the claim is not further limiting. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by Dayton (US 2008/0182322 A1) as evidenced by Univar ( www.univarsolutions.com/citric-acid-50-3091008# ; downloaded 02/25/2026 ) and as evidenced by Jamil (US 6015915) . Dayton teaches a process of treating lipid containing compound (LCC), such as coconut oil, soyabean oil etc. (meets limitations of white and yellow grease) comprising producing a first mixture havi n g a pH lower than 2 by vig orously mixing LCC with PLA1 and 50%w/w citric acid in water solution (as evidenced by Univar, pH of 50%w/w citric acid solution in water ranges 1-3, 1 and less than 2 reads on the instant claim pH); and producing a second mixture having a pH of 4.5 (reads on the instant claim 23) by adding a base NaOH; separating wet gum (aqueous gum) of the second mixture and removing it using centrifugation from a lipid containing phase of the second mixture and thereby reducing content of undesirable phosphorous . The cited prior art further teaches that the separated degummed oil may be further processed through well known steps in the art, such as bleaching and deodorizing and thereby further reducing undesirable phosphorous content (entire application, especially paragraph 0009-0032, 0066, examples 1 and 2): Example 1 of the cited prior art teaches water degumming step wherein LCC is mixed with deionized water and decanting the mixture of the LCC and water thereby reducing content of undesirable phosphorous. The cited prior art teaches carrying water degumming prior to acid degumming or other harsh gumming steps , i.e. making a third mixture prior to mixing LCC with acid step (entire application, especially paragraph 0009-0032, 0066, examples 1 and 2) (same as claim 12 , 13 and 20) . As evidenced by Jamil, Soya oil does has a free fatty acid content of more than 2% on an oleic acid basis. Since the cited prior art reads on all the limitations of the instant claims 1 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 23 , these claims are anticipated. 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 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 of this title, 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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- 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayton (US 2008/0182322 A1) , Jamil (US 6015915) and Pandian (US 20240392207 A1; effective filing date 11/14/2022) in combination and as evidenced by Univar ( www.univarsolutions.com/citric-acid-50-3091008# ; downloaded 02/25/2026). Determining the scope and contents of the prior art Dayton teaches a process of treating lipid containing compound (LCC), such as coconut oil, soyabean oil etc. (meets limitations of white and yellow grease) comprising producing a first mixture having a pH lower than 2 by vigorously mixing LCC with PLA1 and 50%w/w citric acid in water solution (as evidenced by Univar, pH of 50%w/w citric acid solution in water ranges 1-3, 1 and less than 2 reads on the instant claim pH); and producing a second mixture having a pH of 4.5 (reads on the instant claim 23) by adding a base NaOH; separating wet gum (aqueous gum) of the second mixture and removing it using centrifugation from a lipid containing phase of the second mixture and thereby reducing content of undesirable phosphorous. The cited prior art further teaches that the separated degummed oil may be further processed (physical refining) through well - known steps in the art, such as bleaching and deodorizing and thereby further reducing undesirable phosphorous content (entire application, especially paragraph 0009-0032, 0066, examples 1 and 2): Example 1 of the cited prior art teaches water degumming step wherein LCC is mixed with deionized water and decanting the mixture of the LCC and water thereby reducing content of undesirable phosphorous. The cited prior art teaches carrying water degumming prior to acid degumming or other harsh gumming steps, i.e. making a third mixture prior to mixing LCC with acid step (entire application, especially paragraph 0009-0032, 0066, examples 1 and 2) (same as claim 12, 13 and 20). Jamil teach es a further degumming process (already delecithinated and has a reduced phosphorus content, such as 73ppm, 80ppm etc.) of LCC, animal or vegetable oil or fat or fatty substance by contacting the fatty substance with an aqueous solution of a chelating agent with example of EDTA and reducing undesirable phosphorous content to about 2.2ppm (entire patent, especially abstract and examples 1-4 ) : The cited prior art further teaches that soya oil has oleic acid content of more than 2. Pandian teach a method of physical refining of LCC comprising steps of well-known process in the art of degumming using water and citric acid (same as described by Dayton) followed by bleaching the oil for removal of impurities using well-established process using adsorbent, such as silica, neutral, acid activate earth (same as bleaching clay of the instant claims) (entire application, especially abstract, paragraphs 0043, 0049-0052 and claims). Specifically, the cited prior art teaches steps : well-known process in the art of degumming using water and citric acid (same as described by Dayton) : Followed by another well-known step of bleaching using: wherein after removing aqueous gum using the step of centrifugation and holding lipid for time before the next step , the oil or lipid is mixed with an amount of bleaching agent, heating under vacuum, holding lipid for an interval of time, removing or separating bleaching agent from lipid phase. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue Dayton teaches a process of treating lipid containing compound (LCC), using steps of water degumming, degumming using acid and base steps at same pH as in the instant claims and reducing phosphorous content and fatty acid content. The cited prior art further teaches that the process further comprises well-known refining steps in the art of bleaching and deodorizing for further reduction of impurities. However, the cited prior art is silent about the step of bleaching; treating animal fats in the process; treating of lipid phase with chelate. Jamil teach es a further degumming process (already delecithinated and has a reduced phosphorus content, such as 73ppm, 80ppm etc.) of LCC, animal or vegetable oil or fat or fatty substance by contacting the fatty substance with an aqueous solution of a chelating agent with example of EDTA and reducing undesirable phosphorous content to about 2.2ppm , but fails on elaborating steps of degumming carried before EDTA treatment. Pandian teach a method of physical refining of LCC comprising steps of well-known process in the art of degumming using water and citric acid (same as described by Dayton) followed by bleaching the oil for removal of impurities using well-established process using adsorbent, such as silica, neutral, acid activate earth (same as bleaching clay of the instant claims) , but fails to elaborate on degumming process using EDTA . Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art Dayton teaches a process of treating lipid containing compound (LCC), using steps of water degumming, degumming using acid and base steps at same pH as in the instant claims and reducing phosphorous content and fatty acid content. The cited prior art further teaches that the process further comprises well-known refining steps in the art of bleaching and deodorizing for further reduction of impurities ; Jamil teach es a further degumming process (already delecithinated and has a reduced phosphorus content, such as 73ppm, 80ppm etc.) of LCC, animal or vegetable oil or fat or fatty substance by contacting the fatty substance with an aqueous solution of a chelating agent with example of EDTA and reducing undesirable phosphorous content to about 2.2ppm and Pandian teach a method of physical refining of LCC comprising steps of well-known process in the art of degumming using water and citric acid (same as described by Dayton) followed by bleaching the oil for removal of impurities using well-established process using adsorbent, such as silica, neutral, acid activate earth . Thus, with the guidance provided by the cited prior art it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that LCC from animal source or vegetable source may be processed similarly using steps of water degumming, acid degumming, base treatment and EDTA treatment to reduce impurities of phosphorous and fatty acid. Further, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine water degumming, acid degumming, base treatment and EDTA treatment to reduce undesirable impurities of phosphorous and fatty acid as taught by the cited prior art . Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that a bleaching step with an adsorbent is a necessary step to remove undesirable impurities from lipid and as taught by the cited prior art. Based on the teaching of Pandian , it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to either vacuum dry lipid prior to adsorbent treatment or vacuum dry step may be carried out while treatment with adsorbent to remove impurities. Therefore , combination reads applicants claims. Based on the above established facts, it appears that the combination of teachings of above cited prior art read applicants’ process. Therefore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled person in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met: (1) the prior art reference must teach or suggest all the claim limitations; (2) there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings; and (3) there must be a reasonable expectation of success; and (MPEP § 2143). In this case, Dayton teaches a process of treating lipid containing compound (LCC), using steps of water degumming, degumming using acid and base steps at same pH as in the instant claims and reducing phosphorous content and fatty acid content. The cited prior art further teaches that the process further comprises well-known refining steps in the art of bleaching and deodorizing for further reduction of impurities; Jamil teach es a further degumming process (already delecithinated and has a reduced phosphorus content, such as 73ppm, 80ppm etc.) of LCC, animal or vegetable oil or fat or fatty substance by contacting the fatty substance with an aqueous solution of a chelating agent with example of EDTA and reducing undesirable phosphorous content to about 2.2ppm and Pandian teach a method of physical refining of LCC comprising steps of well-known process in the art of degumming using water and citric acid (same as described by Dayton) followed by bleaching the oil for removal of impurities using well-established process using adsorbent, such as silica, neutral, acid activate earth. So, the combination of prior art read applicants claims. In KSR International Vo. V. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d (U.S. 2007), the Supreme Court particularly emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on a combination of elements found in the prior art,” (Id. At 1395) and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” (Id. At 1395). See MPEP 2143 - Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness [R-9] . In th is case at least prong (E) “Obvious to try ” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success would apply. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is well within the skill of the organic chemist to recognize the fact that applicants claimed process is nothing but the combination of known individual chemical processes. Further, there is a reasonable expectation of success that LCC from animal or plant source may be treated similarly and can be made by combination of the above cited prior art . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by taking the advantage of the teaching of the above cited references and to make the instantly claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying such parameters is prima facie obvious because an ordinary artisan would be motivated to develop an alternative process for economic reasons or convenient purposes from a known individual reaction steps, and to arrive applicants process with a reasonable expectation of success, since it is within the scope to modify the process through a routine experimentation. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1 -23 in the instant application are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims 1-30 of co-pending US application 18368454 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reasons: The claims of instant application and co-pending application are drawn to a process of treating LCC using same process steps with a difference in wording. The difference of wording, however, does not constitute a patentable distinction, because the claims in the present invention simply fall within the scope of co-pending application . For the foregoing reasons, the instantly claimed process is made obvious. This is provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not been patented yet. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PANCHAM BAKSHI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3463 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Thu 7-4.30 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Milligan Adam can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-2707674 . 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. /PANCHAM BAKSHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1623