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
1. Preliminary amendment and claims 13-32 filed 11/1/23 is acknowledged.
2. IDS filed 11/1/23 is acknowledged. A signed copy of the IDS is provided with this Office Action.
3. Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers (foreign priority filed 5/4/21) submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
4. Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
5. Claims 13-32 are drawn to as follows:
13. A method of producing oil raw material for HVO production having reduced phosphorus content from vegetable oil feedstock, said method comprising steps of: (a) mixing the vegetable oil feedstock with water; (b) hydrolyzing the vegetable oil feedstock mixture of step a) with a composition comprising a polypeptide having phospholipase activity and a polypeptide having lipase activity; (c) separating the light and heavy phase, and (d) subjecting the light phase to bleaching or distillation.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein the vegetable oil feedstock mixture comprises >20% water.
15. The method of claim 13, wherein the free fatty acid is >50% of the light phase after separation.
16. The method of claim 13, wherein the free fatty acid is >70% of the light phase after separation.
17. The method of claim 13, wherein the free fatty acid is >80% of the light phase after separation.
18. The method of claim 13, wherein the free fatty acid is >90% of the light phase after separation.
19. The method of claim 13, wherein step b) is carried out at temperature 25° C.-80° C.
20. The method of claim 13, wherein step b) is carried out at temperature 40° C.-70° C.
21. The method of claim 13, wherein step b) is carried out at temperature 50° C.-70° C.
22. The method of claim 13, wherein at least about 30 percent of the original content of phosphorous in the vegetable oil feedstock is removed.
23. The method of claim 13, wherein at least about 50 percent of the original content of phosphorous in the vegetable oil feedstock is removed.
24. The method of claim 13, wherein at least about 80 percent of the original content of phosphorous in the vegetable oil feedstock is removed.
25. The method of claim 13, wherein at least about 90 percent of the original content of phosphorous in the vegetable oil feedstock is removed.
26. The method of claim 13, wherein the vegetable oil feedstock is selected from the group consisting of rapeseed oil, corn oil, mustard oil, olive oil, palm oil, palm kernel oil, peanut oil, safflower oil, sesame oil, soybean oil, nut oil, cottonseed oil, crambe oil, coconut oil, meadowfoam oil, vernonia oil, canola oil, jatropha oil, jojoba oil, grape seed oil, sunflower oil, and mixtures thereof.
27. The method of claim 13, wherein separation is performed using gravity separation, a decanter, a centrifuge, a separator, membranes, or any combination thereof.
28. The method of claim 13, wherein antioxidant agent is added to the vegetable oil feedstock before or during step b).
29. The method of claim 13, wherein said polypeptide having a polypeptide having lipase activity is derived from any one of Rhizomucor miehei, Pseudomonas sp., Rhizopus niveus, Mucor javanicus, Rhizopus oryzae, Aspergillus niger, Penicillium camembertii, Alcaligenes sp., Acromobacter sp., Burkholderia sp., Thermomyces lanuginosus, Chromobacterium viscosum, Candida antarctica B, Candida rugosa, Candida antarctica A, papaya seeds and pancreatin.
30. The method of claim 13, wherein said polypeptide having phospholipase activity is/are selected from the group consisting of: a. A phospholipase C having specificity for Phosphatidylinositol (PI), b. A phospholipase C having specificity for phosphatidyl choline (PC) and Phosphatidyl ethanolamine (PE). c. A phospholipase C having specificity for Phosphatidyl choline (PC), Phosphatidyl ethanolamine (PE) Phosphatidic acid (PA) and Phosphatidylinositol (PI), d. A combination of a phospholipase A and a phospholipase C, such as a phospholipase C as defined in a) or b), e. A combination of a phospholipase A and a lyso-phospholipase, f. A phospholipase A, g. A combination of a) and b) h. and/or combinations thereof.
31. The method of claim 13, wherein the light phase is further processed by distillation to reduce the phosphorous further before it is used for production of HVO.
32. The method of claim 13, wherein the light phase is further processed by bleaching to reduce the phosphorous further before it is used for production of HVO.
6. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (second paragraph)
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 13-32 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.
Claims 13 recite –
abbreviation HVO, an uncommon abbreviated – makes the claim indefinite. The first occurrence of such an abbreviation must be spelled out.
Claim 13 - (d) subjecting the light phase to bleaching or distillation. The claim is unclear about what bleach is used?
Claim 13 (line 1) – is drawn to “A method of producing oil raw material…”. The claim is unclear about what is meant by ‘oil raw material’.
Claims 22-26 are include in the rejection because these claims depend on claim 13, wherein the phosphorous content is unknown. Hence varying % claimed in the dependent claims are indefinite.
Claims 14-21 & 27-32 are included in the rejection for failing to correct the defect present in the base claim(s).
7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 13 & 22-27 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CN 104629909 A1 and Yang et al. (2008), J Am Oil Chem Soc. 85: 421-425.
CN 104629909 A1 (English translation provided in this application) teaches A vegetable oil degumming method,
comprising the following steps:
[0007] (1) simultaneously carrying out a degumming reaction on the vegetable oil with a phospholipase and a partial glyceride lipase, wherein the phospholipase at least contains one of phospholipase A1, phospholipase A2 and phospholipase B;[0008] (2) heating the degummed vegetable oil to 80°C- 90°C and carrying out heat preservation for 30-45 minutes; [0009] (3) separating a reaction product and recovering an oil phase to obtain the degummed vegetable oil. [0010] The vegetable oil of step (1) is previously subjected to the following acid treatment: adding at least 0.054% by mass fraction of citric acid to the vegetable oil, heating same to 80°C-90°C and carrying out heat preservation for 30-45 minutes. [0011] The pH is adjusted to 4-5 by adding an alkali solution to the acid-treated vegetable oil. [0012] The phospholipase and the partial glyceride
lipase have an enzyme activity ratio of 1 : 1 to 1 : 10. [0013] The content of water in the reaction system of step (1) is 3% to 5% by mass fraction. [0014] The temperature of the reaction in step (1) is 50°C to 55°C, and the reaction time is 1 h to 2 h.
[0015] The partial glyceride lipase is Lipase SMG1 or Lipase G50.
[0016] The separation in step (3) is carried out by continuous centrifugal separation. Claims 8 & 9 – further teach the method according to
claim 1 or 2 or 3 or 4,characterized in that the separation in step (3) is carried out by continuous centrifugal separation. Claim 9. The method according to claim 1 or 2 or 3 or 4,characterized in that the vegetable oil of step (1) is one or a mixture of two or more of rapeseed oil, soybean oil, peanut oil, corn oil, sunflower oil, and rice bran.
The reference provides a co-degumming
method using a partial glyceride lipase and a phospholipase,
which contributes to the separation of gelatine and oil once applied to the industrial enzymatic degumming process. In the present invention, after the enzyme reaction product is subjected to a centrifugal separation, the phosphorus content in the oil can reach 10 ppm or less; after another water washing and centrifugal separation, the phosphorus content in the oil can reach 5 ppm or less. Claims 22-26 are include in the rejection because these claims depend on claim 13, wherein the phosphorous content is unknown.
The reference does not teach step (d) subjecting the light phase to bleaching or distillation. The teaching is filled by the reference of Yang et al. as follows.
Yang et al. teach disclose (abstract; page 422, left-hand column, last paragraph - right hand column, paragraph 3; page 423,
left-hand column, last paragraph - righthand column, paragraph 2;
page 424, right-hand column, paragraph 2 - right-hand column, last paragraph; table 1), respectively, the enzymatic
degumming of rice bran oil and soybean oil using a phospholipase. The gum and oil was easily separated after centrifugation.
The degummed oil was then bleached and the phosphorus content of the oils after bleaching was tested.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art of enzymology/biochemistry to combine the teachings of CN 104629909 A1 and Yang et al. as the teaching of the cited art are alternatives and mere embodiments and fall in the range of conventional skilled person and as none of the said features appear to be associated with a technical effect to go beyond the effect the skilled person would reasonably associate with, and such a coupling of the cited references can be done with a reasonable expectation of success. One skilled in the art would have been motivated in view of the importance - the degumming effect has
on the subsequent refining process of vegetable oil as noted in Yang et al – for example.
Thus, the claimed invention was within the ordinary skill in the art to make and use at the time was made and was as a whole, prima facie obvious.
8. No claim is allowed.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEKCHAND SAIDHA whose telephone number is (571)272-0940. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8.00-5.30. 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, Robert B Mondesi can be reached on 408 918 7584. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TEKCHAND SAIDHA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Recombinant Enzymes, Hoteling
Telephone: (571) 272-0940
Fax: (571) 273-0940