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 Claims The preliminary amendment of 12/18/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 2-17 are amended. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and are examined on the merits herein. Priority The instant application filed 12/18/2023 , is a 371 filing of PCT/EP2022/066536 , filed 06/17/2022 , which claims foreign priority to EP21180306.9 , filed 06/18/2021 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on 12/18/2023 and 01/12/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement s are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-17 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 s 1 and 2 recite percentages by weight of the plant derived wax without reciting a basis for such amounts. For example, is the weight percent based on the weight of the total composition or the weight of the oil component? As such, the claim scope is unclear. Claim s 3 and 4 recite corn oil (wax) and maize oil (wax). Given that corn and maize are synonymous, it is unclear how these two oils /waxes are different from one another. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the solid or semi-solid part", however, parent claim 1 does not recite a “solid” or “semi-solid”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1. 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- 1 4 and 1 6-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe , H., et al. (US 4280962 A, 07/28/1981, PTO-892), hereinafter Watanabe , in view of Loh , W., et al. (AU 2005244561 A1, 02/02/2006, PTO-892), hereinafter Loh , as evidenced by Nutting, P.G. (1943). Adsorbent clays: Their Distribution, Properties, Production, and Uses . US Geological Survey. (PTO-892), hereinafter Nutting . Watanabe discloses a method of refining animal and vegetable oils and fats, and more particularly to a method of refining crude oils and fats of animal and vegetable origin or oils and fats which have been subjected to a conventional pre-treatment (col. 2, lines 50-54). Regarding claim 1: Watanabe teaches that the refined oil or fat is specially a crude oil or fat (claim 2; col. 2, lines 50-53) which may be selected from sunflower oil and rice oil (col. 6, lines 30-36). S tep (1) in the refining method comprises the pre-treatment of crude oils and fats . Pre-treatment includes the physical removal of impurities from the oil by filtration or sedimentation and degumming by acids ( col. 3, lines 29-32) . S pecifically , step (1) (a) comprises a conventional degumming step (col. 3, lines 40-44 ; claim 3 ). Step (1) (b) further comprises the step of treating the oil with an aqueous solution of acids to insolubilize any remaining gummy substance in the oil (col. 3, lines 57-62 ; claims 4 and 8 ). Therefore, step (1) as a whole reads on degumming the composition as recited in instant step (b) . Step (6) of refinement comprises a steam distillation step (deacidification and deodorization), which entails a conventional steam distillation method (col. 3, lines 36-51 ; claims 7-8 ). Example 2 teaches that conventional steam distillation of a degummed oil is performed at 260 o C (col. 7 lines 21-25), thus reading on the deodorizing step of (c) . Regarding claim 5 : Degumming of the crude oil is performed with a conventional degumming step. Water and known degumming agents can be used (col. 3, lines 40-45). The crude oil or degummed oil can further be treated with an aqueous solution of acids to insolubilize the remaining gummy substances, (col. 3, lines 57-62 ; claims 4 and 8 ), further reading on a degumming step. The use of water or an aqueous solution reads on a water degumming as instantly recited. Regarding claim 7 : Step (5) of the refinement process includes treatment with an adsorbent (decolorization) (col. 5, lines 26-35 ; claims 6-8 ), which reads on an adsorption step after water degumming. Regarding claim 8 : The oil is treated directly with an adsorbent such as activated clay or active carbon (col. 5, lines 26-35). Examples 2, 4-6, and 8 specifically teach using activated clay for decolorizing the oil (col 7-col. 9). Activated clay is a hydrophilic absorbent as evidenced by USGS . Regarding claim 9 : Examples 2, 4-6, and 8 use 1.5% or 2% by weight of activated clay as the adsorbent (col 7-col. 9), which falls within the instantly claimed range of the absorbent (i.e., 0.5-5%). Regarding claim 10 : The decoloriz ation step of Examples 2, 4-6, and 8 is performed by contacting the oil and clay at temperatures of 100 o C , 105 o C , or 110 o C (col. 7-9), all of which fall within the instantly claimed temperature range (i.e., 50-120 o C ). Regarding claim 12 : Example 2 teaches a conventional deodorization step comprising steam distillation for 60 minutes (col. 7, lines 19-25), which falls within the instantly claimed range of at most 4 hours. Regarding claim 13 : Example 2 teaches a conventional deodorization step comprising steam distillation under a reduced pressure of 2 mmHg (i.e., ~2.6 mbar) (col. 7, lines 19-25), which falls within the instantly claimed range of at most 5 mbar. The teachings of Watanabe differ from that of the instant invention in that Watanabe does not explicitly teach providing a composition comprising an oil and plant-derived wax as defined in step (a) of claim s 1-4 , nor the specific selection of the gumming agent of claim 6 , the temperature of claim 11 , or the dry fractionation step of claim 14 . Lastly, Watanabe does not explicitly teach a food or cosmetic application as recited in claim 17 . Loh disclose compositions which comprise a vegetable oil and plant-derived wax component , specifically for their utility in food products (abstract). The plant-derived wax component is selected from the group consisting of sunflower oil wax, rice bran wax, hydrogenated jojoba oil, and corn oil wax. The plant-derived wax component can be about 0.1 to 30% by weight, preferably about 2% to 4% by weight, of the composition (p. 1-2, bridging paragraph). Crude sunflower oil typically contains up to about 1% of wax, depending on the variety and on growing and processing conditions (p. 4 , para. 2). Rice bran oil (also called rice oil) contains approximately 2% to 5% wax, depending on process conditions (p. 4, para. 4). Thus, the crude sunflower oil and rice bran oil of Loh read on the compositions comprising an o il and plant-derived wax as characterized by claims 1-4 . Loh teaches that t ypically, the vegetable oil has been refined, bleached, and deodorized prior to blending with the wax component (p. 3, para. 1; p. 6, para. 6). Loh further teaches that w ax can be obtained from vegetable oils by heating vegetable oils to a temperature above the melting point of the higher melting glycerides in the oil, then rapidly cooled and allowed to mature at a temperature of about 16 o C or less for at least about 6 hours to permit the wax in the oil to crystallize, and filtering the vegetable oil/particulate wax blend through a porous nonmetallic inorganic filter to obtain a plant-derived wax. When sunflower oil is dewaxed according to this method, sunflower oil is obtained with typically less than 10 ppm wax. The by-product of this processing, sunflower oil containing approximately 1% wax, can be used directly to formulate products or can be further enriched for wax content by repeating the crystallizing and filtering steps described above (p. 5, para. 3). Such a process reads on a dry fractionation step as recited in claim 14 . Fat compositions of Loh can be used to formulate various food products (p. 10-11, claim 39) and non-food products including cosmetics (p. 12, para. 2, claim 41), which read on the applications recited in claim 17 . Regarding step (a) of claim 1 , Watanabe teaches the refine ment of crude oil s and fat s selected from sunflower oil and rice oil . Loh teaches some crude sunflower oils to comprise about 1% of wax while rice bran oil (i.e., rice oil) comprise s about 2 to 5% wax. I t would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select crude sunflower or rice oil as the starting material for the refinement method of Watanabe since such oils are known and routine in the art as taught by both Watanabe and Loh . O ne of ordinary skill in the art could have used the known refinement technique of Watanabe to refine the crude sunflower or rice oil having the wax contents of Loh (i.e., 1% and 2-5%) to predictably yield an oily product with improved purity and stability . Furthermore, Watanabe teaches that the crude oil may be selected from sunflower or rice oil , making the selection of either one “obvious to try”. See MPEP 2143. T he selection of crude sunflower or rice oil reads on step (a) , wherein 1% or 2-5% of wax , respectively, reading on the ranges of claims 1 and 2 . Crude sunflower oil reads on a composition comprising sunflower oil , as recited in claim 3 , and sunflower oil wax , as recited in claim 4 . Crude rice bran oil reads on a composition rice bran oil, as recited in claim 3 , and rice bran wax, as recited in claim 4 . Additionally, because the entire method of claim 1 is made obvious, the resulting composition of claim 16 is necessarily obvious as well. Similarly, since every structural element of the method steps are taught by the prior art, the method necessarily results in a “gel composition”. It is noted that In re Best (195 USPQ 430) and In re Fitzgerald (205 USPQ 594) discuss the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter, which there is reason to believe inherently includes functions that are newly cited, or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to “prove that subject matter to be shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on” (205 USPQ 594). There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Regarding the degumming agent of claim 6 , Watanabe teaches that citric acid and/or phosphoric acid are suitable acids for insolubilizing the gummy substance in the crude oil or that which remains in the degummed oil (col. 4, lines 57-62). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to select citric acid or phosphoric acid as the degumming agent in the method of Watanabe since such acids are known and routine for degumming an oil. The use of citric acid or phosphoric acid as the degumming agent would have been obvious to try given the entire teachings of Watanabe. Such a selection entails no more than choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success . See MPEP 2143. Regarding claim 11 , as discussed above, Example 2 teaches a conventional deodorization step comprising steam distillation at 260 o C (col. 7, lines 19-25). While a temperature of 260 o C does not fall within the instantly claimed range (i.e., 200-250 o C ), a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art by are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, it is well within the abilities of an ordinary artisan to optimize the temperature of the deodorization step depending on the desired amount of deodorization. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the instantly claimed temperature through no more than routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . Regarding claim 14 , as discussed above, Loh teaches a crystallization method which involves filtering a crystalized vegetable oil/particulate wax blend through a porous nonmetallic inorganic filter to obtain a plant-derived wax . The by-product of such processing with sunflower oil for example, is sunflower oil containing approximately 1% wa x . I t would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the crystallization and filtration step of Loh prior to the refining process of Watanabe since such a step is known and routine in the art as taught by Loh . One of ordinary skill in the art could have used the known crystallization and filtration method of Loh to generate an oil-wax mixture, such as sunflower oil containing 1% wax, which could further undergo the refinement process of Watanabe to predictably result in a purified and stabilized oily product. The crystallization and filtration step of Loh reads on dry fractionation as recited in claim 14 , since no additional solvent is used. The oil / wax by-product of such a step reads on the s emi-solid part of claim 14 . While the temperature of about 16 o C , taught in the crystallization step of Loh , does not fall within the instantly claimed range of 20 to 40 o C , it is well within the abilities of an ordinary artisan to optimize the temperature depending on the desired level of crystallization. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the instantly claimed temperature through no more than routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . Regarding claim 17, it would have been prima facie obvious to use th e composition resulting from the combined method of Watanabe and Loh in a food or cosmetic application since such applications are known and routine for such composition s in the art. Loh teaches using fat ty compositions to formulate various food and cosmetic products. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the fatty composition resulting from the combined method of Watanabe and Loh in a known food or cosmetic application to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the above modifications since Watanabe and Loh both teach processing methods for fatty compositions. Additionally, Loh generally teaches the refin ement , bleach ing , and deodoriz ing of vegetable oils prior to use. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the processing methods of Watanabe and Loh with a reasonable expectation that such processes are compatible and will successfully produce a fatty product ready for use. Claim s 1-1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe and Loh as applied to claim s 1-1 4 and 16- 1 7 above, and further in view of Harris, J. (2019, July 23). Solvent fractionation . AOCS - Lipid Library. (PTO-892), hereinafter Harris. The combined teaching of Watanabe and Loh are discussed above. The teachings of Watanabe and Loh differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that neither explicitly teach the solvent fractionation step of claim 15 . Harris teaches that i f there is an oil or fat with triglycerides with a range of melting points present, it is possible to separate them by fractional crystallization . This can then enable products with more specific solid/liquid characteristics to be produced with better functionality in the product and therefore of a higher value. The process “trick” is to crystallize and separate these various triglycerides. The quality of separation of crystals from any remaining liquid oil is called the separation efficiency (SE), where 100% SE means perfect removal of all liquid oil from the crystals (p. 1, final paragraph). Specifically, solvent fractionation makes it possible to achieve SEs of >90% relatively easily compared to typically 60 to 70% for dry (or nonsolvent) fractionation. A higher SE means a purer crystal product which then gives a much sharper melting point. For example, the sharp melting point at about 30°C is what is loved in chocolate (p. 2, para. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform a solvent fractionation step following the combined method of Watanabe and Loh , since solvent fractionation is known and routine in the art as taught by Harris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform solvent fractionation on the resulting fatty composition of Watanabe and Loh since solvent fractionation enables products with more specific solid/liquid characteristics having better functionality and higher value. One of ordinary skill in the art could have added the solvent fractionation step of Harris to the oil refinement method of Watanabe and Loh to predictably yield an oily composition with the improved properties taught by Harris. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification since Watanabe, Loh , and Harris all teach methods for processing fats and oils. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SUSANNAH S ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0112 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 7:30-5 (Flex) . 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 Sue X Liu can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5539 . 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. /SUSANNAH S ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1616 /Mina Haghighatian/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616