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. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/056692 which claims the benefit of IT 102021000006410 with an effective filing date of 1 7 March 2021 as reflected in the filing receipt mailed on 29 February 2024 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement ha s been considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim s 3, 4, 9, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3, 4, and 11 state “said step a)”; while, the remainder of the claims do not use “said” prior to the identification of a step. For example, claim 2 states “step a)”. For consistency amongst the claims, “said” should be placed prior to every step identification in the remainder of the claims. Claim 9 , line 2 states “before to step a)”, which appears to include a typographical mistake. The claim is interpreted to state “before to step a)”. 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. Claim s 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Regarding claim 8 , the claim contains a parenthetical which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parenthetical are part of the claimed invention, see MPEP § 2173.05(d). The claim is interpreted without the parenthetical. Claim 9 , step (iii) recites the limitation “the free carboxylic and monocarboxylic acids”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is interpreted as “ the free carboxylic and monocarboxylic acids”. In the Spirit of Compact Prosecution While the examiner has attempted to identify all objections and clarity issues amongst the claims, applicant is advised that some objections and clarity issues may still remain. Going forward, the examiner respectfully requests applicant to perform a detailed review of the claims regarding clarity, grammar, antecedent basis, word spacing, and spelling issues. 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 1-5, 7-14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capuzzi et al. (US20190202768, published 04 July 2019, hereinafter Capuzzi) in view of Bhaggan (US20090042985, published 12 February 2009). Capuzzi is in the known prior art field of “a process for the purification of dicarboxylic acids obtained from the hydrolysis of carboxylic acid triglycerides” from “vegetable oils or animal fats” “having more than one acid functional group”, see Abstract; Paras. [0006]-[0013];[0027]-[0033]; Figs. 1-2, where “the aqueous phase separated in step b) is purified by means of one or more crystallization operations to recover the dicarboxylic acids contained therein”, such as “chemical reaction” and “salting out”, see Para. [0079]. Regarding instant application claim 1, Capuzzi teaches “a process for the preparation and isolation of dicarboxylic acids starting from a mixture containing carboxylic acid triglycerides having more than one acid functional group comprising the steps of: a) hydrolysing the said mixture containing triglycerides in the presence of water, obtaining a reaction product comprising dicarboxylic acids and glycerine ”, see Paras. [0006]-[0013];[0060]; Fig. 2, meeting most of step a) in instant application claim 1 . Then “ b) separating out an aqueous phase containing at least part of the glycerine from an organic phase containing the remaining reaction product from step a)”, see Paras. [0006]-[0013];[0073];[0078]-[0079], where “the aqueous phase separated in step b) is purified by means of one or more crystallization operations to recover the dicarboxylic acids contained therein” by “chemical reaction” and “salting out”, see Paras. [0078]-[0079], i.e., partially dissociated dicarboxylic acid salts, meeting step c) in instant application claim 1 . The method ends with a recovery step of high yields dicarboxylic acids, see Paras. [0006]-[0013];[0090];[0111]; Fig. 2, meeting the process for obtaining and yielding dicarboxylic acids in instant application claim 1 . Regarding instant application claims 3, 4, and 11, Capuzzi teaches the step a) hydrolysis is conducted “at temperatures between 150 and 350° C”, see Para. [0061], meeting within the temperature range in instant application claim 3, instant application claim 4, and in instant application claim 11 . Regarding instant application claims 7, 19, and 20, Capuzzi teaches the separation “is performed in accordance with procedures known to those skilled in the art, for example by decanting or centrifuging”, see Para. [0073], “the aqueous phase separated in step b) is purified by means of one or more crystallization operations to recover the dicarboxylic acids contained therein” by “chemical reaction” and “salting out”/settling, see Paras. [0078]-[0079], meeting step c) operations in instant application claim 7, in instant application claim 19, and in instant application claim 20 . Regarding instant application claim 8, Capuzzi teaches “the starting mixture may advantageously be obtained for example from unsaturated triglycerides present in vegetable oils or animal fats”, such as “the oxidative cleavage reactions of the double bonds present in the acyl groups of the said unsaturated triglycerides”, see Paras. [0027]-[0033];[0084]-[0085], meeting the starting mixture of triglycerides in instant application claim 8 . Regarding instant application claim 9, Capuzzi teaches “ a process for the preparation and isolation of dicarboxylic acids starting from a mixture containing carboxylic acid triglycerides having more than one acid functional group comprising the steps of: a) hydrolysing the said mixture containing triglycerides in the presence of water, obtaining a reaction product comprising dicarboxylic acids and glycerine ; b) separating out an aqueous phase containing at least part of the glycerine from an organic phase containing the remaining reaction product from step a)”, see Paras. [0006]-[0013];[0071]-[0073];[0078], meeting steps ( i ) and (ii) in instant application claim 9 ; and, “c) evaporating and/or distilling the organic phase obtained in step b), separating out a residue ” separating “ at least one fraction rich in dicarboxylic acids from a high boiling point residue” see Paras. [0006]-[0013];[0083]; Fig. 2, meeting steps ( i ) and (ii) in instant application claim 9 . The obtained mother liquor containing an evaporation and/or distillation residue comprising a mixture of unhydrolyzed, partially hydrolyzed glycerides of dicarboxylic acids, and/or “a quantity of dicarboxylic acids in solution which is below 1% by weight, even more advantageously below 0.8% by weight” is recycled back to step a), see Paras. [0058];[0108]-[0118]; Fig. 2, meeting the distillation/evaporation residue recycle in instant application claim 9 . Regarding instant application claim 10, Capuzzi teaches “the dicarboxylic acids extracted in the aqueous phase are crystallised from solution”, see Paras. [0105]-[0108], meeting the crystallization in instant application claim 10 . Capuzzi does not teach: The instant application claim 1 step a) hydrolysis in basic aqueous solution; the step b) acidifying after hydrolysis ; and the step d) acidifying the aqueous phase. The limitations in instant application claims 2, 5, and 12-14. Bhaggan is in the known prior art field of obtaining the desired carboxylic acid “derived from an animal or vegetable” sourced fatty acid mixture by hydrolysis, separation, and purification of the desired carboxylic acid , see Paras. [0015];[0023]-[0024], where the acidification of a crude carboxylic acid mixture is known to separate and purify the carboxylic acids from each other in the mixture, see Paras. [0015];[0024];[0029]-[0030] . Regarding instant application claim 1, Bhaggan teaches “fatty acid mixture is preferably obtained by a method comprising the hydrolysis of the oil, for example with a base, such as sodium hydroxide … in the presence of a solvent”, such as water and ethanol, see Paras. [0020]-[0021];[0024], meeting the step a) hydrolysis basic aqueous solution in instant application claim 1 . After the hydrolysis in the basic aqueous solution the crude mixture is then acidified to separate the aqueous phase containing the first fatty acid from the organic phase, where the organic layer is further separated from the aqueous phase by evaporation, see Paras. [0020]-[0024];[0047], meeting step b) in instant application claim 1 . The resultant aqueous phase containing the second fatty acid, i.e., the first fatty acid left over in the aqueous phase, is “suitably isolated from the crude reaction mixture by the addition of diluted acid to the soap formed until an acidic pH is achieved (preferably: pH 1 to 3), whereupon the oil is separated from the water”, see Paras. [0029]-[0030];[0047], i.e., acidification is used to separate and purify the fatty acid from each mixture, meeting step d) and within the pH range in instant application claim 1 . Regarding instant application claim 2, Bhaggan teaches the hydrolysis is performed in the presence of a base, such as “sodium hydroxide” and KOH, see Paras. [0024];[0028], meeting the specific base in instant application claim 2 . Regarding instant application claims 5 and 12-14, Bhaggan teaches the acidification acid used after the hydrolysis is sulfuric acid, see Para. [0047], meeting the specific acid in instant application claim 5, in instant application claim 12, in instant application claim 13, and in instant application claim 14 . In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified separation process of Capuzzi to acidify the crude alkaline mixture as taught by Bhaggan with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and selectively separating the desired carboxylic acid based on the carboxylic acids solubility at differing pH levels, see Bhaggan , Paras. [0015];[0024];[0029]-[0030]; and, MPEP 2141. 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”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Capuzzi and Bhaggan both teach obtaining the desired carboxylic acid derived from an animal or vegetable sourced fatty acid mixture by hydrolysis, separation, and purification of the desired carboxylic acid in the hydrolysis purification industry , a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Capuzzi by relying upon Bhaggan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the hydrolysis purification art regarding the separation of the crude hydrolysis product , see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently and selectively separating the desired carboxylic acid based on the carboxylic acids solubility at differing pH levels, see Bhaggan , Paras. [0015];[0024];[0029]-[0030]; and, MPEP 2141. As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. , 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141. Selection of a known material, such as an inorganic acid, based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. , 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), see MPEP 2144.07. In addition, “[ i ]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as pH ranges, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capuzzi et al. (US20190202768, published 04 July 2019, hereinafter Capuzzi) in view of Bhaggan (US20090042985, published 12 February 2009) , as applied to claims 1-5, 7-14, 19, and 20 in the 35 USC rejection above, and in further view of Qin et al. (CN104418721, published 18 March 2015, see machine translation, hereinafter Qin). Capuzzi does not teach the limitations of instant application claims 6 and 15-18. As stated above, Capuzzi is in the known prior art field of “a process for the purification of dicarboxylic acids obtained from the hydrolysis of carboxylic acid triglycerides” from “vegetable oils or animal fats” “having more than one acid functional group”, see Abstract; Paras. [0006]-[0013];[0027]-[0033]; Figs. 1-2, where “the aqueous phase separated in step b) is purified by means of one or more crystallization operations to recover the dicarboxylic acids contained therein”, such as “chemical reaction” and “salting out”, see Para. [0079]. Qin is in the known prior art field of alkaline hydrolysis of vegetable oil triglycerides, such as castor oil, followed by acidification, separation, further acidification, and crystallization to obtain a dicarboxylic acid, such as sebacic acid, see Abstract; Paras. [0005];[0007];[0009];[0051]. Regarding instant application claims 6 and 15-18, Qin teaches acidification pH values are based upon the desired dicarboxylic acid to separate and purify from the mixture, see Paras. [0042]-[0043] , and after alkaline hydrolysis the acidification of the solution may be performed with sulfuric acid to a pH value of 2-5, see Paras. [0005];[0042]-[0043];[0049]-[0051], meeting within the pH range in instant application claim 6, in instant application claim 15, in instant application claim 16, in instant application claim 17, and in instant application claim 18 . In reference to the above claims, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified separation process of Capuzzi to acidify the crude alkaline mixture as taught by Qin with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and selectively separating the desired carboxylic acid based on the carboxylic acids solubility at differing pH levels, see Qin, Paras. [0005]; [0042]-[0043] . The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of modifying the separation and crystallization of Capuzza by applying th e known technique of the chemical reaction of acidification salting out along with separation and crystallization as taught by Qin with a reasonable predictability of success for the purpose of efficiently and selectively separating the desired carboxylic acid based on the carboxylic acids solubility at differing pH levels, see Qin, Abstract; Paras. [0005]; [0042]-[0043] ; and MPEP 2143 I. B-D. 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”, see MPEP 2143 I.E. Since patents are part of the literature of the prior art relevant for all they contain, see MPEP 2123, and Capuzzi and Qin both teach obtaining the desired carboxylic acid derived from a vegetable sourced fatty acid mixture by hydrolysis, separation, and purification of the desired carboxylic acid in the hydrolysis purification industry , a person of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to modify Capuzzi by relying upon Qin before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for knowledge generally available within the hydrolysis purification art regarding the separation of the crude hydrolysis product , see MPEP 2143 B & G and 2141, for the benefit of efficiently and selectively separating the desired carboxylic acid based on the carboxylic acids solubility at differing pH levels, see Qin, Paras. [0005]; [0042]-[0043]; and, MPEP 2141. As stated in Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc. , 425 U.S. 273, 189 USPQ 449, reh’g denied, 426 U.S. 955 (1976), “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill”, see MPEP 2141. In addition, “[ i ]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions,” such as pH ranges, “or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions. In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929)”, see MPEP 2144.05. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Y. Lynnette Kelly-O'Neill whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3456 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Tuesday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 6:30 p.m., EST, with Flex Time . 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 Scarlett Yen-Ye Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /YO/ Examiner, Art Unit 1692 /FEREYDOUN G SAJJADI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1699