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 Status
Claims 1-22 were filed on 3/1/2024. In a preliminary amendment filed on the same day, claims 1-22 were canceled and claims 23-43 were newly filed. Claims 23-43 are pending.
Priority
The application was filed on 3/1/2024 and claims the benefit of priority to:
PNG
media_image1.png
156
1004
media_image1.png
Greyscale
See filing receipt dated 8/20/2024. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 30-34, 39, and 41 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 30 recites the limitation "the dynamic mixer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 31 recites the broad recitation “0 to 5 bar overpressure”, and the claim also recites “preferably 0.5 to 2 bar” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 31 is also rejected because it is unclear how the limitation “overpressure” limits the preceding range of 0 to 5 bar. Standard atmospheric pressure is 1 bar, therefore it is not clear how a pressure below 1 bar can be considered an “overpressure” as it requires a vacuum.
Claim 39 recites that the concentration of organic acid in the mixture after the addition of the organic acid is in the range of from 0.0% to 0.50% by weight in relation to the fat/oil “mass flow”. It is unclear how the “mass flow” is measured or what its units are. Is it a synonym for the total mass/weight of the fat/oil? Or is it actually based on a rate (flow) of mass/time? The same issue occurs in claim 41.
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.
Claim(s) 23-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segers (US 5696278, published on 12/9/1997, of record in the IDS filed on 3/1/2024) in view of Gutierrez (US 2020/0190407, published on 6/18/2020) as evidenced by Szyczewski (“A comparative study of the content of heavy metal in oils: linseed oil, rapeseed oil, and soybean oil in technological processes” Archives of Environmental Protection, 2016, p. 37).
Applicant claims a process for degumming fats or oils containing 3.0mg/kg (ppm) of phosphorus or a total metal content of more than 5.0 mg/kg (ppm) and hydrogenating the degummed fat/oil.
Segers teaches a process for the preparation of degummed glyceride oils, which comprises applying an acid degumming treatment to a crude glyceride oil which has not substantially been exposed to enzymatic activity. See abstract. The acid degumming step comprises:
Adding an aqueous solution of an edible acid or acid anhydride to the oil;
Exposing the oil to the acid;
Optionally, adding an aqueous alkali solution;
Contacting the oil during 0.5 to 180 minutes with water or the alkali solution; and
Removing separated sludge from the oil. See claims 8-13.
Segers teaches that the degummed oil is obtained with a phosphorus content of 0.1 to 7 ppm, a magnesium content of 0.01 to 0.07 ppm, and an iron content of 0.001 to 0.04 ppm. See claims 12-13. The acid degumming step is described in detail in col. 4, line 34 to col. 5, line 45. Seger teaches that the aqueous alkali solution of step c above can act as a demulsifier “for better sludge separation”. See col. 5, lines 59-65. Therefore, Segers teaches the inclusion of a demulsifier (aqueous alkaline solution) at the end of instant step B and before instant step C. Segers teaches that “the present invention provides a simple single-separation degumming treatment, suited for obtaining glyceride oils with ultra-low phosphorus contents of preferably 0.1 to 7 ppm, more preferably 0.1 to 5 ppm, and still more preferably 0.1 to 2 ppm phosphorus levels”. See col. 6, lines 15-20. Therefore, the process of Segers appears to meet all of the limitations of instant claims 35 and 36. Also see MPEP 2144.05.
In example 1, Segers teaches providing a dry crude rapeseed oil having 359 ppm of phosphorus (which falls within the range of more than 3.0 ppm of step A in claim 23); heating the oil to 70°C in a stainless steel reactor with a turbine and adding 0.1 wt% of citric acid (an organic acid, dosed as a 50 wt% aqueous solution-claim 40), followed by homogenization at elevated temperature for 100 min; the oil was then cooled to 20°C and 2.0 wt% of demineralized water was adding, followed by homogenization for 5 min; after 115 minutes of staying, the hydration of the phospholipids was completed and the gums were separated by centrifugation to produce a water-rich (aqueous) and low-oil or low-fat heavy phase and a low-water oil-rich or fat-rich light phase having a phosphorus content of 2 ppm and an iron content of 0.03 ppm (which falls within the range of step C of less than 3.0 ppm in claim 23). Thus, Segers explicitly teaches instant steps A, B, and C.
The same process was repeated multiple times in example 2, wherein the phospholipids in the crude oil are shown in Table II and the phospholipids in the degummed oil are shown in Table III:
PNG
media_image2.png
338
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
346
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
All of the samples used in example 2 appear to meet the phosphorus concentration limitations of instant steps A and C.
Regarding instant step E, Segers teaches that one of the intended uses of the degummed oils is hydrogenation. See col. 5, lines 25-33 and col. 6, lines 21-25.
Regarding the water content of less than 5% by weight based on the weight of the fat/oil fraction and the drying step of instant step D, Segers teaches that the staring crude fat/oil is obtained from vegetable material in a conditioning process. See Fig. 1 and col. 3, line 43-col. 4, line 49. The starting moisture of the vegetable material is preferably between 1 and 16 wt% when it enters the conditioning/pressing step (see col. 3, lines 50-65). After the conditioning step, the oil is expelled and “is preferably dried very soon after its separation in the press”. The aimed moisture level for the oil fed to the de-gumming step is 0.03 to 0.1 wt% and any drying method may be used including heating the oil under reduced pressure (vacuum). See col. 4, lines 29-40. When the organic acid, citric acid, is used in the degumming step, Segers teaches that the citric acid is provided in 0.01 to 0.4 wt% of the oil as a 50 wt% aqueous solution (which overlaps with the range of claim 39). See col. 5, lines 52-56. The amount of water added for the hydration step is within the range of 0.2 to 5 wt%. See col. 5, line 65-col. 6, line 12. Therefore, the total amount of water that can be present during the degumming process ranges from (0.03 + [0.01 x 2] + 0.2) = 0.25 wt% to (0.1 + [0.4 x 2] +5) = 5.9 wt%. This range overlaps with that claimed. Also see MPEP 2144.05. This range should also correspond to the range of claim 38.
Segers does not explicitly teach that a drying step occurs after the centrifuging step (instant step D) or the use of a catalyst in instant step E.
Gutierrez teaches a process for purifying a plant oil feedstock comprising triglycerides wherein the process comprises treating the oil with an aqueous medium to obtain a mixture, and a first stream comprising water and a second stream comprising triglycerides. See abstract. Gutierrez teaches an embodiment in Figure 2 wherein an aqueous medium (20) and an acid (30) are combined to produce an aqueous acidic medium (40), which is fed to the purification step (120) with the plant oil (10). See [0033]. Gutierrez teaches that the purification produces a first aqueous (water-rich, oil poor) stream (51) comprising impurities and a second stream comprising triglycerides (oil-rich, water-poor) (50). The triglyceride stream can be fed to a drying unit (110) to produce a dried triglyceride stream (60) which can be directed to storage and/or hydroprocessing. See [0033 and 0095]. Gutierrez teaches that hydroprocessing is a catalytic step which includes hydrogenation. See [0005]. Gutierrez also teaches that metals and phosphorus derived from the plant oil are poisons for the hydroprocessing catalysts and should be removed prior to said processing step using the disclosed purification. See [0047-0048 and 0096-0113].
Therefore, Guttierez teaches an analogous purification process to that disclosed in Segers, wherein the purified (degummed) oil, low in phosphorus and metal contaminants, can be dried and fed to a catalytic hydroprocessing step.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill to combine the teachings of Segers and Guttierez to arrive at the claimed process with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the instant invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to employ a drying step followed by a catalytic hydrogenation step in the process of Segers, because such are taught to be known steps in the analogous process of Guttierez. Therefore, combining the drying step and catalytic hydroprocessing step of Guttierez with the process of Segers will predictably arrive at a process for obtained hydrogenated vegetable oils with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claims 24-25, Segers (see col. 1, lines 10-17) and Guttierez (abstract) teach that the oil is of vegetable origin. Guttierez further teaches that additional oil feedstock from the reaction can be obtained from sewage sludge and/or pyrolysis oil and/or animals. See [0052-0057].
Regarding claim 26, Segers teaches ranges in the examples which overlap with the phosphorus content and the water content of the crude oil and the degummed oil. Also see discussion of said concentrations in claim 23. Regarding the total metal content, Seger only appears to provide the final content of iron and magnesium in the degummed oil while teaching that the disclosed conditions are also suitable to remove metals from the oil. See Table III. The total content of both of the metals in the degummed product ranges from 0.06 to 0.12 ppm, which meets the limitations of claim 36. Segers does not explicitly teach the content of metal in the crude oil before degumming. Guttierez teaches that the concentration of metals in the crude carinata oil used is 223 ppm, which falls within the claimed range. See Table 2 in [0120]. Therefore, though not explicitly taught by the references, it would be reasonable to assume that the metal content of the crude vegetable oil falls within the very broad range of 5 to 2000 ppm and that the combined conditions of Segers and Guttierez are sufficient to reduce the concentrations of the metals to within the levels of claim 36. This is further supported by the evidentiary teachings of Szyczewski. Szyczewski teaches the distribution of heavy metals in production fractions of rapeseed oil (the oil used in Segers). See Table 1 on p. 39. The highest level of metals is in fraction 0, and is approximately (0.76 +24.84+22.04+64.82+1.43+0.31) mg/kg = 114 mg/kg (ppm), which falls within the claimed range. Also see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 27, Segers teaches that the acid treatment step occurs within the range of 60-95°C, followed by addition of the demulsifier (alkali solution). After the acid treatment step, the reaction is preferably cooled for the hydration of the phospholipids, preferably to a temperature within the range of 10-40°C (referred to as “superdegumming”). See col. 5, line 59-col. 6, line 15. Both of these ranges overlap with the claimed range. Also see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 28, Segers teaches that the acid treatment step occurs within the range of 60-95°C. Segers does not appear to teach a hot mixing step which occurs in a range from 130 to 190°C. However, Guttierez teaches that the analogous process can be carried out at a temperature in the range of 140-195°C, which overlaps with the claimed range, to produce purified oils having less than 0.1 ppm of metals and from 37 to less than 1 ppm of phosphorus. See claim 1 and Table 2 in [0120]. Guttierez also teaches that the acid in the aqueous medium can comprise 0.01 to 3 wt% of citric acid (the same acid used in Segers in overlapping wt percentages). See claims 7-8. Therefore, there is motivation to carry out the combined process within the claimed temperature range. Also see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 29, Segers teaches that the reaction, including any mixing and washing steps, is carried out in a stainless-steel reactor equipped with a dynamic mixer (Rushton turbine) which homogenizes the mixture and can be used at variable speeds (at least 300 rpm and 500 rpm). See example 1.
Regarding claim 30, Segers only appears to teach one apparatus with a dynamic mixer wherein the mixing and washing occurs. See example 1. Gutierrez teaches that the purification apparatus (see 120 in fig. 2) is not particularly limited and can be carried out in any suitable reactor or reactor configuration. See [0081-0084]. The examples of Gutierrez indicate that the oil is mixed with the aqueous medium prior to introduction in a batch reactor. See [0115-0116]. Neither reference explicitly teaches that the dynamic mixer is separate from the reactor. However, this minor difference in the design of the reaction apparatus does not appear to impart any criticality to the claim. Any configuration which allows for sufficient mixing and heating according to the teachings of Segers and Gutierrez will predictably facilitate the claimed purification. Also see MPEP 2144.04(V).
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Segers appears to be silent regarding pressure. However, Guttierez teaches that the acid degumming step can be carried out at temperature from 140-195°C at a pressure from 0.1 to 70 bars, which overlaps with the claimed range. See claim 1. Also see MPEP 2144.05. Gutierrez is silent regarding measuring and regulating pressure, however, as Guttierez teaches a specific pressure range then it would be obvious that there is a way to measure and adjust the pressure, otherwise the reaction pressure could not be controlled or adjusted.
Regarding claims 33-34, the examples of Segers and Guttierez both appear to teach constant stirring during the mixing and degumming steps. Segers teaches a first mixing step with the citric acid for 10 min (homogenization step 2 of example 1) and further homogenization after the addition of water for 5 min (homogenization step 4), followed by mixing for 115 minutes to ensure hydration of the phospholipids. Guttierez teaches that the residence time during the purification is from 10 min to 12 hours, preferably 30 minutes to 2 hours. See [0083]. Therefore, the residence times of Segers and Guttierez appear to overlap with those claimed. The examples of Segers further teach the use of a turbine (dynamic mixer/agitator) that is run at 300 rpm or 600 rpm. Though Segers does not explicitly teach a speed of 25 to 120 rpm, the skilled artisan could arrive at this number through routine optimization. The speed at which the agitator is run does not appear to impart criticality to the claims. As long as the mixture is “homogenized” in the combined process of Segers and Guttierez, the degumming process will predictably proceed. Also see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 37, Segers teaches that only one stage is required to meet the purification limitations of the oil. See col. 6, lines 15-20. Guttierez also appears to be silent regarding explicitly teaching that second separation stage is required. However, it would be prima facie obvious for the skilled artisan to repeat the separation/purification steps if the desired product did not possess the desired purity levels. Repeated purifications will predictably increase the purity of the product.
Regarding claims 41 and 42, Segers teaches that the concentration of the alkali should not exceed that of the acid. Segers teaches that the acid concentration is 0.01 to 0.4 wt% (100 to 4000 ppm) based on the weight of the oil, therefore this is the same concentration range for the alkali. See col. 5, line 40-col. 6, line 12. This range overlaps with that claimed. See MPEP 2144.05. Segers does not explicitly teach an alkali solution, but there is no evidence that any of the aqueous base solutions would be unstable at a temperature of less than 200°C.
Regarding claim 43, Segers teaches that the previous drying step can be carried out under vacuum. See col. 4, lines 29-40. Gutierrez also indicates that the drying can be carried out using any suitable drying apparatus, including evaporation apparatus. See [0095]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to carry out the instantly claimed drying step under vacuum because such is well-known in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY C BONAPARTE whose telephone number is (571)272-7307. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7.
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 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.
/AMY C BONAPARTE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights