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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/16/2024 and 06/19/2026 have been considered by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicants’ election with traverse of Group I, claims 21-36, in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that that the election requirement is in error as no lack of unity was made during the international phase for purposes of international, national stage examination, that the Examiner will search the same classes of art as is required to search the invention of the elected claims, resulting in the same references being cited against all of the aforementioned groups of claims. This is not found persuasive because there is no pre-request need for lack of unity during international phase, and because the two groups do not encompass overlapping scope (e.g. considering the addition of acid and adsorbent to fats and oils versus N, P and metal content of fats and oils) and would require search and consideration in different classes/subclasses of prior art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
New claims 21-38, filed on 02/16/2024, are pending. Claims 21-36 are under consideration and claims 37-38 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: 1) hydrochloric acid is misspelled on line 6, and 2) there are two “or” in lines 7-8.
Claim 22 is objected to because it recites the feedstock “is” (line 1) and “selected from” (line 2) which is not proper formatting to include transitional phrases. This claim also repeats the limitation “animal fats” on lines 2 and 5.
Claim 23 recites “mineral based” twice (lines 2 and 3) which seems to be a formatting error.
Also, all the molecular formulas should include subscripted numbers (e.g. H2SO4 instead of H2SO4).
Appropriate corrections are 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 31 and 34 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 31 is indefinite because it recites “removing the adsorbent” which lacks antecedent basis and should recite “separating the adsorbent”; claim 34 is indefinite because it recites “the amount of phosphorous” which lacks antecedent basis since phosphorus is not included in claim 21.
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.
Claims 21-27 and 29-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dasari et al. (US 2017/0107452).
For claim 21, Dasari discloses a method to recover free fatty acids from distillers corn oil, as shown in Fig. 1, including the steps of: providing a feedstock containing lipids of plant or animal origin (see paragraph 0027), adding acid to the feedstock in (see paragraph 0036) or to the feedstock to form a mixture, optionally stirring the mixture at elevated temperature for a period of time (heating); adding a silica based adsorbent to the mixture, wherein the silica based compound is a silicone dioxide based compound to form a silica mixture (see paragraph 0046). Dasari further teaches optionally subjecting the silica mixture to a drying step, separating the silica-based compound from the silica mixture obtained (see paragraphs 0046-0051) and removing and/or neutralizing acid remaining after above steps to obtain a treated feedstock.
Regarding the acid, Dasari discloses wherein the acid is sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, nitric acid, phosphoric acid, boric acid, hydrofluoric acid, hydrobromic acid, perchloric acid, hydroiodic acid), and/or methyl sulfonic acid (see paragraph 0055).
Regarding amides, Dasari suggests that amides are part of the feedstock [0028]. Here, in the absence of showing to the contrary, these impurity compounds are assumed present in the feedstock that includes animal fats and oil (see claim 22 below). A review of the instant disclosure does not point to the source of these amides, and no discussion is provided about their significance to the instantly claimed steps: "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious."—see MPEP 2145 II.
For claim 22, Dasari discloses wherein the feedstock is plant oils, plant fats, animal fats and animal oils, and mould oils, selected from rapeseed oil, canola oil, colza oil, tall oil, sunflower oil, soybean oil, hemp oil, olive oil, linseed oil, cottonseed oil, mustard oil, palm oil, palm effluent sludge (PES), technical corn oil (TCO) containing any fractions thereof, arachis oil, castor oil, coconut oil, animal fats, suet, tallow, blubber, recycled alimentary fats, starting materials produced by genetic engineering, and biological starting materials produced by microbes, algae and bacteria, or any combinations or mixtures thereof (see paragraph 0027).
For claim 23, the prior art suggests silica based adsorbent as discussed above.
For claims 24-27, Dasari discloses conducting a heating at the elevated temperature in step c) for a period of time of about between about 30 seconds to about 1 h, including, but not limited to, heating for about 30 minutes, about 20 minutes, about 15 minutes, about 10 minutes, about 5 minutes, about 3 minutes, and/or about 1 minute, and wherein the heating is at any temperature at which the mixture is processed during conditions of the method, to such temperature that a resulting mixture is essentially in a liquid form, or temperature between about 30° C. to about 200° C., including, but not limited to about 40° C., about 50° C., about 60° C., about 70° C., about 80° C., about 90° C., about 100° C., about 110° C., about 130° C., about 150° C., about 170° C., and/or about 200° C (see paragraph 0047).
Dasari also discloses conducting the heating at a reduced pressure of about 100 mbar to about 900 mbar, including, but not limited to, about 200 mbar to about 900 mbar, about 300 mbar to about 900 mbar, about 400 mbar to about 900 mbar, about 500 mbar to about 900 mbar, about 600 mbar to about 900 mbar, about 700 mbar to about 900 mbar, and/or about 800 mbar (see paragraph 0047).
Furthermore, Dasari discloses wherein step c) is optionally followed by a drying step, as shown in Fig. 1, in step e), comprising one or more of the reaction conditions; i) temperatures in a range of about 30° C. to about 200° C., including, but not limited to, in a range of about 35° C. to about 150° C., in a range of in about 40° C. to about 130° C., in a range of about 50° C. to about 120° C., in a range of about 60° C. to about 100° C., in a range of about 70° C. to about 90° C., and/or about 40° C., about 50° C., about 60° C., about 70° C., about 80° C., about 90° C., about 100° C., about 110° C., about 120° C., about 130° C., about 140° C., about 150° C., about 160° C., about 170° C., about 180° C., about 190° C., and/or about 200° C., (see paragraph 0047); ii) and/or reduced pressure, at a pressure of about 100 mbar to about 900 mbar, including, but not limited to, about 200 mbar to about 900 mbar, about 300 mbar to about 900 mbar, about 400 mbar to about 900 mbar, about 500 mbar to about 900 mbar, about 600 mbar to about 900 mbar, about 700 mbar to about 900 mbar, and/or about 800 mbar, or alternatively at least at 90 mbar, at least 80 mbar, at least 70 mbar, at least 60 mbar, at least 50 mbar, at least 40 mbar, at least 30 mbar, at least 20 mbar, at least 10 mbar, at least 5 mbar, and/or at least 1 mbar, (see paragraph 0047) iii) and conducting the drying step for a period of time of about 5 min to about 90 minutes, about 20 min or about 60 min, about 15 minutes, or for up to about 6 h, including, but not limited to, up to about 5 h, up to about 4 h, up to about 3 h, up to about 2 h, up to about 90 minutes, up to about 80 minutes, up to about 70 minutes, up to about 60 minutes, up to about 50 minutes, up to about 40 minutes, up to about 30 minutes, up to about 20 minutes, up to about 10 minutes, and/or up to about 5 minutes (see paragraph 0047).
For claim 29, Dasari discloses wherein the silica based compound is added in an amount of 0.5 wt % to about 5 wt %, and/or about 1 wt %, and/or about 2 wt %, based on a content of a weight of the feedstock (see paragraph 0082).
For claim 31, Dasari discloses removing the silica based compound in step f) by filtration, settling, centrifugation, decantation or any combinations thereof, and optionally under vacuum or reduced pressure (see paragraphs 0046-0051).
For claim 32, Dasari discloses removing the acid by water washing and/or neutralization in step g), by addition of a suitable base, NaOH or KOH or any aqueous solutions thereof (see paragraphs 0054-0055).
For claims 33-34, the reduction is impurities (N and P) due to the process is expected to result from practicing the prior art steps, as discussed above.
For claim 35, Dasari teaches products of the process (Abstract).
For claim 36, Dasari teaches further use of the products in industrial applications (Abstract).
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) 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dasari (US 2017/0107452).
For claim 28, Dasari lacks wherein the acid is added in an amount of about 0.5 wt % to about 5 wt %, and/or about 1 wt %, and/or about 2 wt %, based on weight of the feedstock. However, Dasari teaches that an amount of acid, for example sulfuric acid, is added to the mixture until the pH was 2 (see paragraphs 0076-0077). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the claimed amount of acid since one of ordinary skill would recognize to choose a desired amount of acid to the mixture disclosed by Dasari to achieve a desired pH (see paragraphs 0076-0077 of Dasari).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI Z FADHEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0267. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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.
/ALI Z FADHEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights