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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are under examination. Claims 1-20 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Filing Receipt
PNG
media_image1.png
140
969
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
43
974
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
85
971
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
94
973
media_image4.png
Greyscale
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 1-11, 17 and 19-20 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 1 and 17 are directed to providing “rapid hydrolysis of phospholipid molecules”. The term “rapid” in claims 1 and 17, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “rapid” is not defined by the claim, 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.
The term “rapid” may mean 100% hydrolysis of all phospholipid molecules in a certain amount of time, or a timeframe wherein initial hydrolyzed phospholipids start to appear, or a maximum of phospholipids that can be hydrolyzed are hydrolyzed in a certain timeframe.
The term “rapid” is recited in claim 1 and 17. Claims 1, and 17 and the dependent claims do not define the term “rapid”. The specification exemplifies the term “rapid” on page 22 as a time or a space time. The examples of the term “rapid” provided by the specification are not a definition. Clarification is needed.
Concerning claim 13 and the use of the phrase “rapid hydrolysis”. The word “rapid” herein is interpreted to be definite because of the “space time” of 10 seconds to 2 minutes in claim 12 from where claim 13 depends. Any rapid hydrolysis must be conducted within the claimed timeframe. Thus, the word “rapid” is interpreted to be 10 seconds to 2 minutes.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bjorklof et al. (USPGPub2020/0190426, Published 06-2020), La Tourangelle (Is Vegetable Oil Bad for You?, 5 pages, Published online 07/16/2021) and Coppola et al. (USPGPub 2016/0124028, Published 07-2016).
Scope of the Prior Art
Bjorklof et al. teach the following (claim 1).
PNG
media_image5.png
90
505
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
87
495
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
62
494
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The above 5 to 70 bar equates to 72 to 1015 psi. This pressure and the above temperatures overlap the current pressures and temperatures in claims 7 and 12.
Concerning the current space time, Bjorklof et al. teach residence times of 10 min. to 12 hours (par. 102). This overlaps with ranges of 10 seconds to 15 minutes utilized by the specification that exemplifies the space time parameter (par. 0023).
The first and second streams are the current partitioning and separation of the aqueous phase and refined vegetable oil.
PNG
media_image8.png
87
505
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
96
496
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Concerning the at least one reactant/metal scavenger (claim 3), Bjorklof et al. teach “In the purification, the renewable feedstock comprising fatty acid, is treated with an aqueous medium” (par. 84). Bjorklof et al. goes on to teach “In an embodiment, the aqueous medium comprises an acid selected from sulphuric acid, citric, and/or C1-C10 organic acids (par. 90).
Concerning the hydrolysis of phospholipid molecules, Bjorklof et al. teach “In the purification, phospholipids present in the feedstock are selectively hydrolyzed whereby the phosphorus can be found in the aqueous phase and the liberated fatty acid in the oil phase (par. 112).
Concerning the current inorganic contaminants, Bjorklof et al. teach overlapping inorganic contaminants (par. 33).
Concerning the minimization of hydrolysis of glycerides, Bjorklof et al. teach “The purification process removes effectively the impurities but maintains the valuable organic compounds in the stream comprising oil, without effecting hydrolysis of acylglycerols to any significant extent” (par. 83).
Concerning the minimization of glycerides and/or free fatty acid (FFA) content in the organic portion, this would have occurred when minimizing the hydrolysis of acylglycerols to any significant degree as taught by Bjorklof et al. (par. 83).
Concerning the prevention of thermal cracking of organic acids and isomerization, Bjorklof et al. teach “The purification process removes effectively the impurities but maintains the valuable organic compounds in the stream comprising oil, without effecting hydrolysis of acylglycerols to any significant extent” (par. 83). The maintenance of the valuable organic compounds would have precluded any and all alterations thereof, including the current thermal cracking and isomerization. Additionally, the maintenance of the valuable organic compounds would have precluded an increase in total acid number of the organic portion of less than 500% due to a lack of the hydrolysis of the acylglycerols to any significant extent (current claim 9).
Concerning the separation of the effluent into the aqueous phase and a refined
vegetable oil having lower concentration of the inorganic contaminants, Bjorklof et al. teach
PNG
media_image10.png
214
502
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Concerning the hydrothermal reactor, Bjorklof et al. teach the purification process may be carried out in any suitable reactor, such as a plug-flow reactor (par. 100). The plug-flow reactor is the current hydrothermal reactor. Current claim 8.
Concerning claim 6, Bjorklof et al. teach fractionation and/or drying of the second stream can be accomplished via vacuum distillation. Upon applying a vacuum the volatile substances and water would be stripped from the oil phase and flash to steam.
Ascertain the Differences
Bjorklof et al. does not teach vegetable oil nor the turbulent flow condition.
Secondary References
La Tourangelle teach vegetable oil is a broad term for many different types of plant-based oils (page 2 of 5). The vegetable oil taught by La Tourangelle is the current crude vegetable oil.
Coppola et al. teach hydrothermal reactors include plug-flow reactors (PFR) (par. 27). Coppola et al. teach “In general, PFR systems will exhibit a Reynold Number (Re) of at least 2,000, such as 2,000-4,000, resulting in turbulent flow, high-heat transfer rate, and intimate mixing (par. 27). Coppola et al. teach Reynolds Numbers greater than 40,000 (page 8, Table 3). The above Re numbers overlap the current Re numbers in claims 8, 12, and 18.
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized plant oils with a reasonable expectation of success in the process for purifying renewable feedstock taught by Bjorklof et al. The reason being Bjorklof et al. taught plant oils.
Next, It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the vegetable oil taught by La Tourangelle as a feedstock in the process for purifying renewable feedstock taught by Bjorklof et al. with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have done so with a reasonable expectation of success to satisfy a source of plant oils. Moreover, due to vegetable oil being a plant-based oil.
The ordinary artisan would have next utilized the plug-flow reactors (PFR) taught by Coppola et al. to satisfy a source for the plug-flow reactor taught by Bjorklof et al. Additionally, the ordinary artisan would have utilized the plug-flow reactor to achieve turbulent flow, high-heat transfer rate, and intimate mixing. A reasonable expectation of success because Bjorklof et al. teach the purification process may be carried out in any
suitable reactor, such as a plug-flow reactor (par. 100).
The ordinary artisan would next have utilized sulphuric acid, citric, and/or C1-C10 organic acids in the process for purifying renewable feedstock arrived at by the ordinary artisan. The ordinary artisan would have done so with a reasonable expectation of success because Bjorklof et al. teach “In an embodiment, the aqueous medium comprises an acid selected from sulphuric acid, citric, and/or C1-C10 organic acids (par. 90). Upon adding the vegetable oil and water and the acid, the oil-water mixture would have been prepared. Next adding the mixture to the plug-flow reactor would have been obvious so that the process to purify a renewable feedstock would proceed.
Concerning the predetermined process parameters of temperature, pressure and space time, MPEP 2144.05 I.: “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).” Upon applying the obvious pressures and temperatures, the oil-water mixture would have been under pressure and subjected to heat within the hydrothermal reactor.
Upon arriving at the current predetermined process parameters, rapid hydrolysis of phospholipid molecules and reaction of inorganic contaminants with the at least one reactant forming inorganic salts that partition into an aqueous phase would have occurred. The reason being, substantially identical methods yield substantially identical
products.
The prior art was argued to have overlapping contaminants and reactants/metal scavengers within the current oil/water mixture. Thus, any and all reactions and products therefrom achieved by the combinational teachings of the prior art would have
been at least substantially identical to those instantly claimed.
The methods arrived at by the ordinary artisan are substantially identical to those of the current invention as articulated above. See MPEP 2112.01 I. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709,
15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Concerning the minimize hydrolysis of glycerides and minimize free fatty acid content in an organic portion of the oil-water mixture, to prevent thermal cracking of organic acids, and further selected to prevent one or more compounds in the organic portion of the oil-water mixture from isomerizing to form a hydrothermal reactor effluent, the ordinary artisan would have set up the process parameters to remove the impurities but maintained the valuable organic compounds in the stream comprising oil, without effecting hydrolysis of acylglycerols to any significant extent. Thus, the minimizing free fatty acid content, preventing thermal cracking of organic acids, and preventing isomerization of one or more compounds in the organic stream to form a hydrothermal reactor effluent would have occurred while maintaining the valuable organic compounds. Cracking and isomerization would not have occurred if the valuable organic compounds were maintained.
Concerning the separation of the effluent (claimed reactor effluent) into the aqueous phase and a refined vegetable oil having lower concentration of the inorganic contaminants, see Bjorklof et al. paragraph 103.
PNG
media_image11.png
203
500
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Upon completion of the separation the ordinary artisan would have obtained the claimed refined vegetable oil having edible oil specifications.
Without a definition of specifications associated with edible oil, the current process would have led to the claimed edible oil specifications. Thus, arriving at and completing the claimed process steps, the ordinary artisan would have obtained the refined crude vegetable oil that meets edible oil specifications.
Concerning claims 2 and 4-5 and any limitation concerning steps, e.g. preheating, premixing and/or sequence of steps, e.g. addition of reagents, Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) and Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). See MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Concerning claim 9, upon maintaining the valuable organic compounds, an increase in total acid number of the organic portion of less than 500% would have occurred. (current claim 9).
Concerning claim 19 and the less than 5 mg of KOH/g of oil, this would have
occurred due to substantially identical methods yield substantially identical products and when maintaining the valuable organic compounds.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Bjorklof et al. (USPGPub2020/0190426, Published 06-2020), La Tourangelle (Is Vegetable Oil Bad for You?, 5 pages, Published online 07/16/2021) and Coppola et
al. (USPGPub 2016/0124028, Published 07-2016) as applied to claims 1-9, 17 and 19 and in further view Ghazani et al. (Minor Components in Canola Oil and Effects of Refining on These Constituents: A Review, J Am Oil Chem Soc, 90, pp. 923–932 Published 2013).
Scope of the Prior Art
The teachings of Bjorklof et al., La Tourangelle and Coppola et al. are in the
above 103 rejection and are incorporated by reference.
As a reminder Bjorklof et al. teach the use of citric acid when processing vegetable oils (par. 92).
Additional teachings of Bjorklof et al. are as follows. Bjorklof et al. teach the second stream containing the processed oil may contain fatty acids (par. 104). Additionally, as argued above, the products obtained from the combinational teachings of the prior art are substantially identical to those instantly claimed. Thus, fatty acids, phospholipids, chlorophyll and other colored bodies would have been present in the product oil obtained from the combinational teachings of the prior art.
Ascertain the Differences
The prior art does not teach a caustic step that removes free fatty acids, phospholipids, and chlorophyll and other colored bodies.
Secondary References
Ghazani et al. teach a caustic step (NaOH) after subjecting canola oil to citric acid for removal of fatty acid as a soap stock with centrifugation (p. 927, right column).
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious for an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have treated the obtained current product from the combinational teachings of the prior art with caustic (NaOH) and remove the fatty acids as a soap stock using centrifugation with a reasonable expectation of success. The ordinary artisan would have done so because, the prior art taught the existence of fatty acids after subjecting vegetable oil to acids and the subsequent removal of the fatty acids as a soap stock via centrifugation.
Concerning the phospholipids, and chlorophyll and other colored bodies, due to the products and methods of the prior art being substantially identical to those of the current invention, the product would have contained phospholipids, and chlorophyll and other colored bodies. Additionally, after performing the current caustic step on the substantially identical product arrived at by the ordinary artisan, the phospholipids, and chlorophyll and other colored bodies would have necessarily been removed.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9, 11-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,781,075 (075’) in view of Bjorklof et al. (USPGPub2020/0190426, Published 06-2020), La Tourangelle (Is Vegetable Oil Bad for You?, 5 pages, Published online 07/16/2021) and Coppola et al. (USPGPub 2016/0124028, Published 07-2016) and Ghazani et al. (Minor Components in Canola Oil and Effects of Refining on These Constituents: A Review, J Am Oil Chem Soc, 90, pp. 923–932 Published 2013).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct
from each other because the instantly claimed subject matter embraces or is embraced by the patented subject matter. For example, 075’ claims the following.
PNG
media_image12.png
117
502
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
158
479
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
227
472
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
128
475
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
134
481
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
109
492
media_image17.png
Greyscale
075’ does not claim a vegetable oil but does claim plant oils in claim 3.
The combinational teachings of the prior art Bjorklof et al., La Tourangelle, Coppola et al. and Ghazani et al. teach this limitation.
Furthermore the combinational teachings of the prior art are in the above 103
rejections and are incorporated by reference. Additionally, any and all remaining limitations in the current claims are met with combinational teachings of the prior art.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation
of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patented subject matter.
Note: the claims directed to the current bleaching are not being currently rejected over any of the claims in 075’.
Claims 1-9, 11-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,630,772 (772’) in view of Bjorklof et al. (USPGPub2020/0190426, Published 06-2020), La Tourangelle (Is Vegetable Oil Bad for You?, 5 pages, Published online 07/16/2021) and Coppola et al. (USPGPub 2016/0124028, Published 07-2016) and Ghazani et al. (Minor Components in Canola Oil and Effects of Refining on These Constituents: A Review, J Am Oil Chem Soc, 90, pp. 923–932 Published 2013).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instantly claimed subject matter embraces or is embraced by the patented subject matter. For example, 772’ claims the following.
limitations in the current claims are met with the combinational teachings of the prior art.
PNG
media_image18.png
114
496
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
182
487
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
136
478
media_image20.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image21.png
142
484
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
105
487
media_image22.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image23.png
91
499
media_image23.png
Greyscale
772’ does not claim a vegetable oil. However, the combinational teachings of the prior art Bjorklof et al., La Tourangelle, Coppola et al. and Ghazani et al. teach this limitation.
Furthermore the combinational teachings of the prior art are in the above 103
rejections and are incorporated by reference. Additionally, any and all remaining limitations in the current claims are met with combinational teachings of the prior art.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patented subject matter.
Note: the claims directed to the current bleaching are not being currently rejected
over any of the claims in 772’.
Claims 1-9, 11, 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,606,772 (772’) in view of Bjorklof et al. (USPGPub2020/0190426, Published 06-2020), La Tourangelle (Is Vegetable Oil Bad for You?, 5 pages, Published online 07/16/2021) and Coppola et al. (USPGPub 2016/0124028, Published 07-2016) and Ghazani et al. (Minor Components in Canola Oil and Effects of Refining on These Constituents: A Review, J Am Oil Chem Soc, 90, pp. 923–932 Published 2013).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instantly claimed subject matter embraces or is embraced by the patented subject matter. For example, 772’ claims the following.
limitations in the current claims are met with the combinational teachings of the prior art.
PNG
media_image24.png
268
501
media_image24.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image25.png
177
483
media_image25.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image26.png
197
477
media_image26.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image27.png
98
500
media_image27.png
Greyscale
772’ does not claim adding at least one reactant . However, the combinational teachings of the prior art Bjorklof et al., La Tourangelle, Coppola et al. and Ghazani et al. teach this limitation.
Furthermore the combinational teachings of the prior art are in the above 103
rejections and are incorporated by reference. Additionally, any and all remaining limitations in the current claims are met with combinational teachings of the prior art.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patented subject matter.
Note: the claims directed to the current bleaching and residence times are not being currently rejected over any of the claims in 772’. 772’ only claims generally a residence time and not specific numerical values.
Claims 1-9, 11-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/629,378 (378’) in view of Bjorklof et al. (USPGPub2020/0190426, Published 06-2020), La Tourangelle (Is Vegetable Oil Bad for You?, 5 pages, Published online 07/16/2021) and Coppola et al. (USPGPub 2016/0124028, Published 07-2016) and Ghazani et al. (Minor Components in Canola Oil and Effects of Refining on These Constituents: A Review, J Am Oil Chem Soc, 90, pp. 923–932 Published 2013).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct
from each other because the instantly claimed subject matter embraces or is embraced by the copending subject matter. For example, 378’ claims the following.
PNG
media_image28.png
332
965
media_image28.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image29.png
251
879
media_image29.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image30.png
154
883
media_image30.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image31.png
252
995
media_image31.png
Greyscale
…. .
PNG
media_image32.png
111
955
media_image32.png
Greyscale
378’ does not claim a vegetable oil. However, the combinational teachings of the prior art Bjorklof et al., La Tourangelle, Coppola et al. and Ghazani et al. teach this limitation.
Bjorklof et al. teach plant oils being processed in acidic aqueous mixtures in plug-flow reactors. See above 103 combinational teachings. Thus it would have been obvious for the ordinary artisan in need of a contaminated feedstock to utilize the plant-oils.
La Tourangelle teach the vegetable oil being a plant oil. Utilizing veg. oils would have been obvious.
Furthermore the combinational teachings of the prior art are in the above 103
rejections and are incorporated by reference. Additionally, any and all remaining limitations in the current claims are met with combinational teachings of the prior art.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patented subject matter.
Note: the claims directed to the current bleaching are not being currently rejected
over any of the claims in 378’.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-9, 11, 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/629,411 (411’) in view of Bjorklof et al. (USPGPub2020/0190426, Published 06-2020), La Tourangelle (Is Vegetable Oil Bad for You?, 5 pages, Published online 07/16/2021) and Coppola et al. (USPGPub 2016/0124028, Published 07-2016) and Ghazani et al. (Minor Components in Canola Oil and Effects of Refining on These Constituents: A Review, J Am Oil Chem Soc, 90, pp. 923–932 Published 2013).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct
from each other because the instantly claimed subject matter embraces or is embraced by the copending subject matter. For example, 411’ claims the following.
PNG
media_image33.png
400
942
media_image33.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image34.png
238
947
media_image34.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image35.png
319
940
media_image35.png
Greyscale
411’ does not claim a vegetable oil. However, the combinational teachings of the prior art Bjorklof et al., La Tourangelle, Coppola et al. and Ghazani et al. teach this limitation.
Bjorklof et al. teach plant oils being processed in acidic aqueous mixtures in plug-flow reactors. See above 103 combinational teachings. Thus it would have been obvious for the ordinary artisan in need of a contaminated feedstock to utilize the plant-oils.
La Tourangelle teach the vegetable oil being a plant oil. Utilizing veg. oils would have been obvious.
Furthermore the combinational teachings of the prior art are in the above 103
rejections and are incorporated by reference. Additionally, any and all remaining limitations in the current claims are met with combinational teachings of the prior art.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patented subject matter.
Note: the claims directed to the current bleaching and residence times are not being currently rejected over any of the claims in 411’. 411’ only claims generally a residence time and not specific numerical values.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16 and 18 would be allowable upon overcoming the rejections of record. Claims 12-16 and 18 do not pertain to the closest prior art as follows.
The closest prior art to claim 12 and 18 is Bjorklof et al. (USPGPub2020/0190426, Published 06-2020). Bjorklof et al. teach residence times of 10 min. to 12 hours (par. 102). This is well outside the claimed range of 10 sec. to 2 minutes.
It would not have been obvious to have modified the prior art to arrive at the current invention. There being no motivation to do so.
Note: Claim 18 would be allowable after overcoming the 112(b) and nonstatutory double patenting rejections of record. Claim 18 has the limitation of a “space time” of 10 seconds to 2 minutes. Currently claim 18 is not rejected under 112(b) but its base claim 17 is.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 112(b), but would be allowable upon
remedying the 112(b) rejections presently applied to claim 10 and 20 and to any and all base claims, and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The closest prior art to claims 10 and 20 is Bjorklof et al. (USPGPub2020/0190426, Published 06-2020). Bjorklof et al. teach away from the use of bleaching as required in claims 10 and 20. For example Bjorklof et al. teach the following.
PNG
media_image36.png
113
496
media_image36.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image37.png
81
499
media_image37.png
Greyscale
Par. 23
PNG
media_image38.png
117
498
media_image38.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image39.png
95
504
media_image39.png
Greyscale
Upon reading of the above passages of Bjorklof et al., it would not have been obvious to have modified the prior art to arrive at the current invention. There being no motivation to do so.
NOTE: Ghazani et al. teach a clear distinction between the caustic step of claim 11 and the bleaching step of claim 10, see Ghazani et al. pp. 927 right column to 928 left column. The caustic step is performed with NaOH while the bleaching step is performed with activated or natural bleaching clays. Thus, removing chlorophyll in claim 11 with the use of caustic is not the bleaching step of claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLAINE G DOLETSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)270-5241. 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.
/B.G.D/ Examiner, Art Unit 1692 /Andrew D Kosar/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights