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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Brazil on November 30, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the priority Application BR 10 2023 025232 0 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 11 are pending.
Claims 1 – 11 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 - 11 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 should begin “A process…”; and claims 2 – 11 should begin with “The process…” because they are dependent claims. 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.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 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.
The addition of the term “type” in claim 2 to the expression “bentonite” extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Based on the addition of “type” to the catalyst phrase it is not clear what “type” is intended to convey.
The addition of the term “type” in claim 2 to the expression “Beta” extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Based on the addition of “type” to the catalyst phrase it is not clear what “type” is intended to convey.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said lands" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The addition of the term “type” in claim 6 to the expression “Beta” extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Based on the addition of “type” to the catalyst phrase it is not clear what “type” is intended to convey.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “linear materials” in line 2 in unclear because it is not clear exactly what the material that is being removed from isomerized fatty acids and esters produced by the process of claim 1. For this reason the claim is indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the ethyl esters" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the phrase “these materials” in line 2 in unclear because it is not clear exactly what the material that is being removed from isomerized fatty acids and esters produced by the process of claim 1. For this reason the claim is indefinite.
The addition of the term “type” in claim 10 to the expression “pentaisosterates” extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Based on the addition of “type” to the pentaisosterates phrase it is not clear what “type” is intended to convey.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pentaisooleate/pentaisosterates" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5, 6 and 7 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is 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 provides for a process for the production of isomerized fatty acids and esters characterized in that it is from fatty chains obtained from triglycerides from soybean, corn, palm, canola, sunflower, peanut and rapeseed. However, since the claim does not set forth all the steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a process without any active, positive steps delimiting how this process is actually practiced. The elements of a method claim must be steps or acts, expressed as verbal statements or phrases.
Claim 1 is rejected under MPEP 2173.05(q) which states that this type of rejection is more appropriate under 35 U.S.C. 101. ( Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967)). In this case, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claims does not fall into one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it does not define “actions” for all of the listed steps.
As explained by the Supreme Court, a "process" is "a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972) (italics added) (quoting Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788, 24 L. Ed. 139, 141 (1876)). Accord Nuijten, 500 F.3d at 1355, 84 USPQ2d at 1501 ("The Supreme Court and this court have consistently interpreted the statutory term ‘process’ to require action") (MEPE 2106.03.I.).
Claims 2 – 11 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Iwate et al. (US 5,986,116).
The rejected claim covers, inter alia, a process for the production of isomerized fatty acids and esters characterized in that it is from fatty chains obtained from triglycerides from soybean, corn, palm, canola, sunflower, peanut and rapeseed.
However, Iwate discloses the method wherein a fat or oil containing linoleic acid is subjected to alkali isomerization reaction carried out in an alkali-propylene glycol solution, whereby the linoleic acid contained in the fat or oil is converted or transformed into conjugated linoleic acid. As the fat or oil containing linoleic acid, any fat or oil such as safflower oil, sunflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil, cottonseed oil, linseed oil or wheat germ oil can be used as long as it contains linoleic acid. Of these, safflower oil and sunflower oil, both having high linoleic acid contents, are preferred.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Struelens et al. (WO 2019/215054).
The rejected claim covers, inter alia, a process for the production of isomerized fatty acids and esters characterized in that it is from fatty chains obtained from triglycerides from soybean, corn, palm, canola, sunflower, peanut and rapeseed.
Dependent claim 2 further limits the process to using a catalyst. Dependent claim 3 further limits the process to containing montmorillonites or bentonites. Dependent claim 4 further limits the product. Dependent claim 8 further limits the process. Dependent claims 10 and 11 discloses end uses for the product.
However, Struelens discloses a composition of branched fatty acids or esters thereof, the processes for preparing such compositions and their use in various industrial fields, such as in a lubricant, in a personal care and in a home care composition. (pp. 1, ln 5 – 7). The process for preparing a composition of branched C10- C24 fatty acids from a starting material comprising at least 70% by weight of linear monoethylenically unsaturated C10-C24 fatty acid(s) based on the total weight of the starting material, comprising the following steps: i) isomerizing the linear monoethylenically unsaturated C10-C24 fatty acid(s) from the starting material, by heating in the presence of a clay catalyst, ii) separating the monomeric fraction from the oligomeric fraction formed during step i) ; and iii) purifying the monomeric fraction to obtain the composition of branched C.sub.10-C.sub.24 fatty acids. (pp. 6, ln 22 – 31). The clay catalyst is preferably selected among bentonite, montmorillonite, beidellite, nontronite, saponite, hormite (attapulgite, sepiolite) or mixtures thereof. (pp. 8, ln 32 – 33). The clay catalyst content preferably ranges from 1 to 10%, preferably from 2 to 8% by weight, based on the total weight of the starting material. (pp. 8, ln 36 – 37).
Step i) is performed at a sufficient temperature to achieve an isomerization reaction. The isomerizing step may be conducted at a temperature ranging from 150°C to 300°C, preferably from 180°C to 260°C and at a pressure ranging from 1 barg to 10 barg, preferably from 2 barg to 8 barg. (pp. 6, ln 35 to pp. 7, ln 2). In the process of Struelens, the monomeric fraction, amounting to substantially 56wt%, was separated from the oligomeric fraction by distillation up to 260°C under 2 mbar. (pp. 12, ln 13 – 14). The product was purified by crystallization in order to isolate the branched fatty acids. (pp. 12,ln 19 – 20). The content of isomerized C16 – C18 fatty acids produced by the process of Struelens in Example 1 was 95.5%. (pp. 12, ln 32 to pp. 13, ln 1). The composition produced by the process of Struelens can be used as follows: the preparation of a lubricant composition for the automotive sector and/or for the industrial sector; in cosmetics, in particular in personal care compositions; composition of branched C.sub.16-C.sub.18 fatty acid esters according to the invention is used as an emollient; and personal care composition such as a lipstick, a lip gloss, a hydrating cream, a sun cream or a mascara.
The difference between Struelens. and the claimed invention is that it does not teach the invention with particularity so as to amount to anticipation (See M.P.E.P. §2131: "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ...claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
However, based on the above, Struelens teaches the elements of the claimed invention with sufficient guidance, particularity, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the invention would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill (the prior art reference teaches or suggests all the claim limitations with a reasonable expectation of success. (see M.P.E.P. § 2143).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (WO 2015/144232).
The rejected claim covers, inter alia, a process for the production of isomerized fatty acids and esters characterized in that it is from fatty chains obtained from triglycerides from soybean, corn, palm, canola, sunflower, peanut and rapeseed.
Dependent claim 2 further limits the process to using a catalyst. Dependent claim 6 further limits the process to contain modified zeolites of Beta type. Dependent claim 7 further limits the product to not containing dimers or trimers. Dependent claims 9, 10 and 11 discloses end uses for the product.
However, Petersen discloses a process for the skeletal isomerization of unsaturated linear fatty acids and/or alkyl esters thereof to their branched counterparts. (abstract). Preferably said unsaturated fatty acid / unsaturated fatty acid ester used in the method of the invention is a linear C16-C26 carboxylic acid or ester thereof. If more than one unsaturated fatty acid or more than one fatty acid ester is used then it is preferred that a mixture of different carboxylic acids selected from C16-C26 carboxylic acids or respective esters thereof is used in the method of the invention. If a mixture is used as educt then this mixture comprises preferably at least 60%, at least 70%, at least 80% or at least 90% by volume of one particular unsaturated fatty acid and/or unsaturated fatty acid ester such as oleic acid or an oleic acid ester. (pp. 14, ln 31 to pp. 15, ln 3 & ln 10 – 12). The catalyst of Petersen is a zeolite catalyst, and discloses the process for preparing the zeolite catalyst.. (pp. 6, ln 19 – 24 & pp. 8, ln 10 - 23).
Specifically, the catalytic skeletal isomerization was carried out in a 1 inch continuous fixed-bed reactor equipped with a heating jacket, an internal temperature sensor, inlets for dosing of liquids and gases, and a sampling device. The respective mass of catalyst (grain size 0.5-1.0 mm) outlined in Table 3 was placed in the reactor. The catalyst bed was fixed by a bed of inert granular material. The reactor filled with the catalyst was purged carefully with an inert gas. Oleic acid (technical grade, 90% purity) or fatty acid mixtures were fed with the desired flow rate under exclusion of oxygen. Ongoing sampling at the reactor outlet was done and the samples were analyzed by GC/MS. Additionally, skeletally isomerized products were isolated by distillation. Results of conversion and yield of skeletally isomerized products testing variations with respect to catalysts and reaction conditions are shown in Table 3. (pp. 20, ln 15 to pp. 21).
When preparing the catalyst of Petersen zeolite Beta is the starting zeolite. (pp. 8, ln 10 – 33). According to Petersen zeolites of suitable geometry and with acid sites, and under appropriate conditions, the formation of dimer- or trimer-fatty acids should be obstructed or reduced due to the channels of the catalyst. (pp. 1, ln 22 – 24). In preparing the zeolite catalyst the designated zeolites prepared are calcined in a tube furnace at a temperature ramp form room temp to 400°C. (pp. 18. Method A & C).
Alkyl-branched fatty acids prepared by the process of Petersen are useful for various applications in the field of cosmetics, lubricants, hydraulic fluids or bio-based fuels, such as in s in the production of soaps, paints and coatings, fabric softeners and fuel additives.
The difference between Petersen. and the claimed invention is that it does not teach the invention with particularity so as to amount to anticipation (See M.P.E.P. §2131: "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ...claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
However, based on the above, Petersen teaches the elements of the claimed invention with sufficient guidance, particularity, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the invention would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill (the prior art reference teaches or suggests all the claim limitations with a reasonable expectation of success. (see M.P.E.P. § 2143).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergen-Brenkman (US 2015/0291912) (Brenkman).
The rejected claim covers, inter alia, a process for the production of isomerized fatty acids and esters characterized in that it is from fatty chains obtained from triglycerides from soybean, corn, palm, canola, sunflower, peanut and rapeseed.
Dependent claim 2 further limits the process to using a catalyst. Dependent claim 6 further limits the process to contain modified zeolites of Beta type. Dependent claim 7 further limits the product to not containing dimers or trimers. Dependent claims 10 and 11 discloses end uses for the product.
However, Brenkman discloses a process for producing a composition having a ratio by weight of C10-C26 monobranched fatty acids or alkyl esters thereof to C10-C26 polybranched fatty acids or alkyl esters thereof of greater than 6 using a zeolite, preferably ferrierite, isomerization catalyst. (abstract). The raw materials for the unsaturated fatty acids or alkyl esters thereof used in the present invention are preferably naturally occurring materials such as triglyceride oils and can be of animal (e.g. tallow), or preferably of vegetable origin. Suitable fatty acids include sunflower fatty acids, soybean fatty acids, olive fatty acids, rapeseed fatty acids, linseed fatty acids, cottonseed fatty acids, safflower fatty acids, tall oil fatty acids and tallow olein. Relatively pure unsaturated fatty acids such as oleic acid, linoleic acid, linolenic acid, palmitoleic acid, erucic acid, and elaidic acid may be isolated and used, or relatively crude unsaturated fatty acid mixtures employed. The unsaturated fatty acid component may comprise high oleic sunflower fatty acid. The unsaturated fatty acid component may be partially hydrogenated. For example, the unsaturated fatty acid component may comprise partially hydrogenated olive oil or olive fatty acid. ([0026]).
In Examples 1, 2 and 4 the zeolite catalyst are calcined at 500°C in air before using in the isomerization reaction. In Example 2: 000 g high oleic sunflower fatty acid, 25 g H-Ferrierite (CP914C (ex Zeolyst), calcined at 500° C. in air) and 6.8 g water were charged to a 1.8 liter autoclave. The reaction mixture was flushed 3 times with nitrogen and pressurized with nitrogen to 1 bar. The reaction mixture was heated to 260° C. After 6 hours, the reaction mixture was cooled to 80° C. and filtered using filter paper. The resultant filtrate was analysed and had the following composition. According to the results in the table, the yield of the isomerized material is 83.7% by weight. ([1008]). The zeolite catalyst is suitably used at a concentration of less than 10%, preferably less than 5%, more preferably in the range from 0.1 to 2%, particularly 0.3 to 1.5%, and especially 0.5 to 1% by weight based on the weight of fatty acids starting material. ([0033]). The isomerization reaction is suitably carried out at 150 to 350° C., preferably 200 to 300° C., more preferably 225 to 280° C., particularly 250 to 270° C., and especially 255 to 265° C. ([0041]). In one embodiment, the zeolite catalyst has a “linear pore structure”, wherein pores are formed by at least linear continuous pathways, and pore mouths at the transition between the pores and the catalyst surface. In addition, the zeolite preferably has pores which are small enough to retard dimerisation and coke formation within the pore structure or in the pore mouth, and large enough to allow diffusion of branched chain fatty acids or esters thereof out of the pores and pore mouths. ([0043]).
The branched fatty acids of Brenkman are versatile building blocks used in many parts of the chemical industry, in applications ranging from lubricants, polymers, and solvents to cosmetics and health care. ([0003] & [0004] 3rd sentence).
The difference between Brenkman. and the claimed invention is that it does not teach the invention with particularity so as to amount to anticipation (See M.P.E.P. §2131: "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ...claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
However, based on the above, Brenkman teaches the elements of the claimed invention with sufficient guidance, particularity, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the invention would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill (the prior art reference teaches or suggests all the claim limitations with a reasonable expectation of success. (see M.P.E.P. § 2143).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 6,831,184).
The rejected claim covers, inter alia, a process for the production of isomerized fatty acids and esters characterized in that it is from fatty chains obtained from triglycerides from soybean, corn, palm, canola, sunflower, peanut and rapeseed.
Dependent claim 2 further limits the process to using a catalyst. Dependent claim 6 further limits the process to contain modified zeolites of Beta type. Dependent claims 10 and 11 discloses end uses for the product.
However, Zhang discloses a process for the skeletal isomerization of unsaturated linear fatty acids to branched fatty acids which comprises contacting said unsaturated linear fatty acids with at least one large pore zeolite catalyst. (abstract). Any unsaturated and/or polyunsaturated fatty acid, or mixtures thereof is suitable as a feedstock in accordance with the present invention. In one embodiment, the feedstock comprises oleic acid as the unsaturated fatty acid in an amount of at least 40% by weight. In an alternative embodiment, the feedstock comprises at least 70% by weight oleic acid. (col. 4, ln 15 – 21). Zhang discloses that although any zeolite meeting the parameters of this embodiment of the present invention can be employed, faujasite (e.g. Y zeolite), Beta zeolite, Offeretite and the like are particularly well suited for the present process. (col. 3, ln 12 – 16).
In Example 4, two grams of H-Beta catalyst (Si/Al=50, powder, calcined in air at 550.degree. C.) and 20 grams of oleic acid were loaded into the reactor under nitrogen. Under agitation, the reactor was heated to 250.degree. C. within 30 minutes and maintained at this temperature for 7 h. The reaction was terminated by cooling to room temperature within 20 minutes. The mixture was taken out of the reactor and the liquid product was separated from the solid catalyst by filtration. Reaction results were shown in Table 1 The conversion of C.sub.18.sup.1 fatty acid is 74.1 wt. % and the isomerization selectivity is 79 wt. %. (col. 5, ln 52 – 63).
In general, the amount of catalyst employed in the process according to Zhang is between 0.5 and 20% by weight, based on the total reaction mixture. In another embodiment the amount of catalyst used is between 2.5 and 10% by weight. In still another embodiment the catalyst amounts are between 3 and 7% by weight. (col.3 ln 59 – 64). Isomerization is performed at a temperature of between about 100.degree. C. and 350.degree. C. In another embodiment, the process of the invention is performed at a temperature of between about 230.degree. C. and 285.degree. C. Since the conversion is also a function of the reaction/contact time, it is preferred that the fatty acid feedstock is contacted with the catalyst for a period of at least 30 minutes and reaction times of 1-16 hours are typical. An even longer period could be used if the process is operated at a lower temperature. (col. 3, ln 50- 58).
The branched fatty acids of Zhang are building blocks for various compositions ranging from lubricants, polymers, and solvents to cosmetics and the like. (col. 1, ln 14 - 16 & ln 29 - 32).
The difference between Zhang and the claimed invention is that it does not teach the invention with particularity so as to amount to anticipation (See M.P.E.P. §2131: "[t]he identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ...claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).).
However, based on the above, Zhang teaches the elements of the claimed invention with sufficient guidance, particularity, and with a reasonable expectation of success, that the invention would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill (the prior art reference teaches or suggests all the claim limitations with a reasonable expectation of success. (see M.P.E.P. § 2143).
Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0186716 (Sarker et al.) Disclosed herein are processes for converting an unsaturated fatty acid into a saturated branched-chain fatty acid through a zeolite-catalyzed process. US 6,281373 (Sato et al.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30 - 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, Scarlett Y. 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.
/YATE' K CUTLIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights