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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/31/2026 has been entered.
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 1-3, 5, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamil et al., US 6,015,915 in view of Canakci et al. “Biodiesel Production From Oils and Fats with High Free Fatty Acids” American Society of Agricultural Engineers ISSN 0001-2351 2001, Vol. 44(6) pages 1429-1436.
Jamil teaches a process for treating lipid-containing materials comprising mixing an aqueous chelate comprising EDTA with an oil/fat feedstock (col. 2, lines 7–15), subjecting the mixture to high-shear mixing (col. 2, lines 40–50), and separating an aqueous gum-containing phase from a lipid-containing phase (col. 2, lines 60–65). Jamil further teaches use of animal fats (col. 1, lines 7–12) and achieving low phosphorus levels (Example 3).
Jamil does not explicitly disclose that the feedstock is an inedible rendered fat having a free fatty acid content greater than 5%.
Canakci teaches that rendered animal fats and waste oils (e.g., yellow grease and brown grease) are commonly used feedstocks and contain elevated free fatty acid levels, for example about 12% and 33% FFA, respectively, with typical waste grease containing about 10–25% FFA (pp. 1429–1430).
Claims 1 and 13
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jamil to apply its EDTA degumming process to inedible rendered fats having FFA contents greater than 5%, as taught by Canakci, since such feedstocks were well known and present the same phospholipid removal challenges.
Claims 2–3 and 14–16
Jamil teaches animal fats broadly (col. 1, lines 7–12), and Canakci teaches specific rendered fats including yellow grease and brown grease (pp. 1–2). The claimed FFA levels (>2%) are inherent in the disclosed high-FFA feedstocks (10–25% typical range).
Claim 5
Jamil teaches phosphorus level below 3 ppm (Example 3).
Claims 4, 6, 7, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Jamil et al., US 6,015,915 and Canakci and further in view of Chanrai et al. (US 6,780,321 B2)
Jamil does not expressly disclose bleaching.
Chanrai teaches bleaching with clay/earth and removal of spent bleaching earth cake (col. 4, lines 10–36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Jamil to incorporate conventional bleaching after degumming as suggested by Chanrai to further reduce contaminants.
Claim 17 is rejected under §103 over Jamil et al., US 6,015,915, Canakci, Dayton et al. (US 2008/0182322 A1) and further in view of Chanrai et al. (US 6,780,321 B2)
Jamil and Canakci teach the base process and feedstock as above.
Dayton teaches adjusting pH in oil treatment processes using acid or base and performing
such conditioning in reaction vessels prior to separation.
Chanrai teaches downstream refining including bleaching and removal of solids.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Jamil to include a dedicated pH-adjustment reactor after degumming and prior to separation, as taught by Dayton, and to further include downstream bleaching and solids removal as taught by Chanrai, since such staged processing is conventional in refining high-FFA feedstocks.
Claims 8-9 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamil et al. (US 6,015,915) and Canakci further in view of Dayton et al. (US 2008/0182322 A1).
Jamil does not expressly disclose a separate pH-adjustment step.
Dayton teaches adjusting pH by adding acid or base an operating within ranges overlapping 3-7. [0063].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified process of Jamil to adjust pH within the known degumming range (3-7) to improve phospholipid removal as suggested by Dayton.
Claims 10, 11, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamil et al. (US 6,015,915), Canakci and further in view of Tao et al. (WO2014/116646 A1).
The process of Jamil is as discussed above.
Jamil does not teach adding a salt as such sodium chloride as claimed.
Canakci teaches that high-FFA feedstocks form stable emulsions that hinder separation (p. 2).
Tao teaches a separation process wherein sodium chloride or Na2SO4 is added to destabilized oil-water emulsion and increased ionic strength improves phase separation. See abstract.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Jamil by adding sodium chloride as suggested by Tao to perform a second chelate treatment after separation to further reduce residual phosphorus.
Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jamil in view of Canakci and further in view of Shahidi et al. (US 3,904,685).
Jamil teaches the use of EDTA and its salts as chelating agents (col. 2, lines 7–15).
Shahidi teaches polyacrylic acid, a polymer containing carboxylic acid groups, as a chelating or sequestering agent capable of binding metal ions (col. 1, lines 8-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute or include polymeric carboxylic acid-containing chelating agents, such as polyacrylic acid as taught by Shahidi in place of or in addition to EDTA in Jamil because Jamil relied on EDTA, a carboxylate-based chelating agent, to blind metal ions, one of skill in the art would have recognized Shahidi’s polymeric carboxylic acid materials as functionally similar chelating agents and would have been motivate to substitute or include such materials in Jamil’s process to achieve the same metal-binding function.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jamil et al. (US 6,015,915) and Canakci in view of Hindawi “refining vegetable oils: Chemical and physical refining” The Scientific World Journal, volume 2022, October 2020.
The process of Jamil is as discussed above.
Jamil discloses a single chelate treatment stage.
Hindawi teaches multi-stage aqueous treatment of oils to further reduce residual phosphorus content and explains that sequential treatments improve phospholipid removal efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Jamil’s process by performing a second aqueous chelate treatment after separation in order to further reduce residual phosphorus, as taught by Hindawi.
Claims 26–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Jamil et al. (US 6,015,915) in view of Canakci and Hindawi “refining vegetable oils: Chemical and physical refining” The Scientific World Journal, volume 2022, October 2020 and further in view of Choukri et al. “Improved Oil Treatment Conditions for Soft Degumming” Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society November 2001.
The process of Jamil is as discussed above.
Choukri also teaches that phospholipid ionization state and hydratability depend on pH relative to the pKa of phosphatidic acid and that changes in pH alter phospholipid extractability. Because Hindawi teaches sequential treatment to improve phosphorus removal, and Choukri teaches that phospholipid removal efficiency depends on pH relative to pKa, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conduct sequential chelate treatments at differing pH values, including values near the pKa of phosphatidic acid and near neutral, in order to enhance phospholipid removal. The claimed pH ranges overlap known operative ranges in the art and represent predictable use of a known result-effective variable.
Response to Arguments
Because the new Non-Final Office Action introduces new prior art, the previous applicant arguments are not addressed in this action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1452. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Frid.
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, Prem C Singh can be reached at 571-273-6381. 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.
/TAM M NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights