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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 is a single run-on paragraph with a series of limitations, however “Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation.” See MPEP 608.01(i). 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.
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claims 1-15, there are multiple issues with antecedent basis language, that leads to inconsistencies and confusion when read. Non-limiting examples include:
Claim 1: “high pressure steam heater (4)”, first recitation must be preceded by “a”, next recitation must be preceded by “the”.
Claim 1: “the post-stripping deodorization tower (5)” first recitation has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 1: “the fatty acid collection unit (7)” first recitation has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 2: “the suction port” and “the ejector (6)” each recitation has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 3: “the ejector (6) exhaust port” recitation has insufficient antecedent basis, reciting “an exhaust port of the ejector…” would overcome this rejection.
Claims 4, 10: “the upper shell side” recitation has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 5, 11: “the bottom shell side outlet” and “the deodorizer transfer pump (3)” each recitation has insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 9, 15: “the fatty acid collection unit (7) top outlet” recitation has insufficient antecedent basis, reciting “a top outlet of the fatty acid collection unit (7)” would overcome this rejection.
Regarding further claims 4 and 10, the limitations “the aforementioned” and “described” are non-standard antecedent basis language, and must recite “the” or “said” for clear antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al (CN 211972260, with page/para ref to Espacenet Machine Translation of CN 211972260 Obtained 4 December 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a vegetable oil deodorizing, deacidifying and refining device (title, abstract) that is suitable for VE recovery, the device comprising a falling film heat exchanger (2) and a connected deodorization tower (3), which is characterized in that: the falling film heat exchanger (2) is connected with high-pressure steam heater (17); high-pressure steam heater (18) is connected to the post-stripping deodorization tower (14); the bottom of the post-stripping deodorization tower (14) is connected (bottom stream of column 14 feeds heat exchanger 2) with aforementioned falling film heat exchanger (2); the top of the post-stripping deodorization tower (14) is connected with the fatty acid collection unit (6) (Fig 1, [0029, 0033-0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches wherein: the upper shell side of the falling film heat exchanger (2) is connected with the aforementioned high-pressure steam heater (18) by pipeline, and forms loop connection with described post-stripping deodorization tower (14) (Fig).
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches wherein: the bottom shell side outlet of the falling film heat exchanger (2) is connected with the deodorization tower (3) through a pipeline, the bottom of the deodorization tower (3) is connected to a deodorizer transfer pump (15) through a pipeline, the deodorizer transfer pump (15) is then connected to the upper shell side of the falling film heat exchanger (2) through a pipeline, form a loop connection (Fig).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches wherein: the fatty acid collection unit (6) is connected with a circulating pump, forming loop connection with the circulating pump through a pipeline (see Fig, bottom circulation loop of 6, through 12).
Regarding claim 8, Li teaches wherein: the falling film heat exchanger (2) is a vertical falling film heat exchanger (see vertical orientation Fig).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN 211972260, with page/para ref to Espacenet Machine Translation of CN 211972260 Obtained 4 December 2025) as applied above and further in combination with Aoki et al (US 4,072,482).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 9, Li teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Li does not teach wherein the post-stripping deodorization tower top is connected with a suction port of an ejector, the ejector is connected with the fatty acid collection unit via the outlet, and vacuum source present.
Aoki teaches a deodorizing system for fats and oils (title, abstract), Aoki teaches feed degassing tank 2 with feed pipe 1 connected with deodorizing tower 9 that is kept at a vacuum of 2-6 mmHg via a steam ejector system 37,39,45,51 to keep the vacuum in tower 9 at predetermined range, with condensate recovery 43 (see Fig, C2:L31-35, C3:L51-C4:L47), the advantage of the system using steam at lower pressure to improve recovery (C1:L39-68).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Li in view of Aoki to include a vacuum source that is an ejector to improve recovery of oils with use of superheated steam in the system of Li as taught by Aoki and thereby have improved purity oils recovered.
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches wherein: the upper shell side of the falling film heat exchanger (2) is connected with the aforementioned high-pressure steam heater (18) by pipeline, and forms loop connection with described post-stripping deodorization tower (14) (Fig).
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches wherein: the bottom shell side outlet of the falling film heat exchanger (2) is connected with the deodorization tower (3) through a pipeline, the bottom of the deodorization tower (3) is connected to a deodorizer transfer pump (15) through a pipeline, the deodorizer transfer pump (15) is then connected to the upper shell side of the falling film heat exchanger (2) through a pipeline, form a loop connection (Fig).
Regarding claim 12, Li teaches wherein: the fatty acid collection unit (6) is connected with a circulating pump, forming loop connection with the circulating pump through a pipeline (see Fig, bottom circulation loop of 6, through 12).
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches the falling film heat exchanger (2) however does not teach the exchanger is comprised of upper and lower segmented falling film heat exchanger shell, and equipped with a temperature control device, however these were routine implementations and duplications of part without unexpected results as it was notoriously well known to include control systems in heaters to ensure safe operation ranges, as well as preventing degradation of oils being purified without unexpected results.
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches wherein: the falling film heat exchanger (2) is a vertical falling film heat exchanger (see vertical orientation Fig).
Regarding claims 15, Li teaches all limitations as set forth above, however Li does not teach wherein the post-stripping deodorization tower top is connected with a suction port of an ejector, the ejector is connected with the fatty acid collection unit via the outlet, and vacuum source present.
Aoki teaches a deodorizing system for fats and oils (title, abstract), Aoki teaches feed degassing tank 2 with feed pipe 1 connected with deodorizing tower 9 that is kept at a vacuum of 2-6 mmHg via a steam ejector system 37,39,45,51 to keep the vacuum in tower 9 at predetermined range, with condensate recovery 43 (see Fig, C2:L31-35, C3:L51-C4:L47), the advantage of the system using steam at lower pressure to improve recovery (C1:L39-68).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Li in view of Aoki to include a vacuum source that is an ejector to improve recovery of oils with use of superheated steam in the system of Li as taught by Aoki and thereby have improved purity oils recovered.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (CN 211972260, with page/para ref to Espacenet Machine Translation of CN 211972260 Obtained 4 December 2025).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches all limitations as set forth above, including the falling film heat exchanger (2) however Li does not teach the exchanger is comprised of upper and lower segmented falling film heat exchanger shell, and equipped with a temperature control device, however these were routine implementations and duplications of part without unexpected results as it was notoriously well known to include control systems in heaters to ensure safe operation ranges, as well as preventing degradation of oils being purified without unexpected results.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Further citations herein are directed to fat and oil deodorization and purification systems including Marschner et al (US 4,804,555, etc), Massie et al (US 5,436,018), Copeland et al (US 2004/0253353), Kellens et al (US 6,953,499, etc), Schols et al (US 2013/0287925).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772