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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-5 in the reply filed on 7/7/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8, 11-13, 15-21, 25-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected groups, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 of the claim recites “a furan fatty acids content is” and should be “a furan fatty acids content of”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (CN 111363622), made of record by Applicant.
A machine translation of the CN document is used in the following rejection and has been supplied by the Examiner.
Regarding Claims 1-3, Luo teaches a method of making a carbon-treated soybean oil, comprising: a. providing a soybean oil, b. treating the soybean oil under conditions in the presence of an amount of activated carbon to produce carbon-treated soybean oil (Paragraphs 10-18 and example 2 of machine translation), as Luo teaches preparing a deodorizing composition which includes activated carbon (example 2, Paragraphs 63-66) and teaches treating the combination of soybean oil and deodorizing composition at a temperature of 50̊C with stirring to form a deodorized soybean oil/carbon treated soybean oil, where the treating temperature disclosed by Luo is within the temperature range recited, and the stirring meets the limitation of oil movement. Regarding the limitation of the maintaining at the claimed temperature range in the presence of oxygen, Luo does not teach an oxygen-reduced or eliminated atmosphere, therefore teaching some amount of oxygen is present. Luo teaches c. collecting the carbon-treated soybean oil as Luo teaches the oil is passed through a sieve to obtain the deodorized soybean oil (Paragraph 65).
Regarding step b. treating the soybean oil under conditions that promote conversion of furan fatty acids to 3 MND, and wherein the carbon-treated soybean oil has a reduced furan fatty acids content relative to the soybean oil and where the claimed temperature conditions promotes conversion, while Luo does not specifically teach such a conversion occurs, several points are noted. Firstly, Luo teaches the claimed method wherein soybean oil and activated carbon are mixed together at a temperature within the claimed range, with oil movement in light of the stirring during heat treating. Luo also teaches that vegetable oils can develop fishy aromas and the main components of the fishy smell include compounds including furans (Paragraph 5), and that the disclosed method reduces the content of fishy-smelling substances significantly and that fishy-smelling removal rate was over 90% (Paragraph 37). Therefore, in light of the teachings of Luo it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the method of Luo to have resulted in a carbon-treated soybean oil with reduced furan fatty acid content compared to the starting soybean oil, as Luo teaches that furans are one of the components responsible for the fish smell in vegetable oils like soybean oil, and the disclosed method significantly reduces the fish smell of the treated soybean oil. In addition, since Luo teaches the soybean oil is treated under the same conditions claimed, namely a temperature within the claimed range, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the treatment of the soybean with activated carbon at a temperature within the claimed range would result in some amount of conversion of furan fatty acids to 3 MND, resulting in the reduced fishy smells achieved.
Regarding amended Claim 5, while Luo does not specifically teach the carbon-treated soybean oil has a furan fatty acids content of less than 100mg/kg, since Luo teaches the desirability of minimizing those compounds, including furans, that are responsible for the fishy smell in vegetable oils, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to carry on the disclosed method until a desirably low furan content was achieved in the carbon-treated soybean oil. Given the method conditions taught by Luo, it is submitted that it would have been the result of routine experimentation to determine an optimal content of furan fatty acids in order to produce a stable soybean oil with minimal or no fishy smell. In addition, where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in the specific content of furan fatty acids in the carbon-treated soybean oil involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (CN 111363622) and further in view of Craven (USPN 6,469,187), both made of record by Applicant.
Regarding amended Claim 4, Luo is taken as cited above in the rejection of Claim 1 and teaches the soybean oil is mixing with the deodorizing compound which includes activated carbon at 37% of the compound. Luo teaches preferred ratios of 1:15 or 2:20 of deodorizing compound to soybean oil for the treatment (Paragraph 31 and example 2, Paragraph 63), where the amount of activated carbon is calculated to be between 2.4-3.7% by weight of the soybean oil, which is lower than the claimed limitation of at least 6% by weight activated carbon.
Craven teaches treating oils with activated carbon to form treated oils that have reduced content of compounds including furans, where 5% of activated carbon is mixed with the oil to form the treated oils (Column 1, lines 5-10, Column 3, lines 30-50). While Craven does not specifically teach 6% of activated carbon by weight of the oil, it is submitted that where using 5% or 6% of activated carbon would have resulted in the same objective of providing a treated oil having reduced levels of compounds that contribute to fishy smells in the resulting oil. Furthermore, it has been found that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have increased the amount of activated carbon in the deodorizing compound of Luo in order to provide further deodorizing functionality in the treated oil.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA A WATTS whose telephone number is (571)270-7368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 9am-4:30pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
JENNA A. WATTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1791
/JENNA A WATTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791 9/10/2026
Prosecution Insights