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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IV in the reply filed on May 11, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 11, 2026.
Claims
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims do not appear to be completely written in black ink, making the claims difficult to read. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness
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 8-10 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.
The claims are dependent on a withdrawn claim. Therefore it is not clear what limitations are included in the claims making the claims indefinite.
Claims 8-10 recites the limitation "the purified product of a citrus oil" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In order to advance prosecution, it will be assumed the citrus oil is derived form a citrus peel/or citrus oil in general.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Obviousness
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.
1) Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 20070237844).
Carlson et al. disclose method for removing a contaminant form an essential oil comprising contacting the essential oil including the contaminant with an aqueous alkaline solution (Abstract). The essential oils are volatile oils derived from fruit peels, leaves, stems, flowers, bark, roots, or twigs of plants, and usually carry the odor or flavor of the plant or its fruit. Essential oils include peel oils such as citrus oil. Citrus oils are derived from squeezing or pressing citrus fruit peel. Citrus oils can be derived from lemons, oranges, limes, grapefruits, tangerines, mandarins, bitter oranges, and bergamots. The alkaline solution is made with 5% sodium hydroxide, meeting strong base. An essential oil comprising 105.81 grams of cold-pressed orange oil included carbaryl at 15.51 PPM. The orange oil was contacted with 5.57 grams of an aqueous alkaline solution comprising a 5% w/w sodium hydroxide solution in an Erlenmeyer flask containing a magnetic stirring bar. The ratio of oil to NaOH solution is 19:1. The range of oil to solution may range from 1:1 to 50:1 (paragraph 0015).
The oil would meet raw material because a contaminant was removed by using the sodium hydroxide solution.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have treated a raw citrus oil with sodium hydroxide to remove unwanted contaminants.
It is well-settled, however, that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. The ratio of oil to NaOH solution is 19:1. The range of oil to alkaline solution may range from 1:1 to 50:1. The amount of sodium hydroxide that would be used with 1000 g of oil based on the example would be about 0.06 mol. This is close to 0.05. Therefore, when the ratio is more than 19 in regards to the oil, the amount of alkaline substance would meet the limitation of 0.05 mol or less. Accordingly, since an overlap plainly exists here, it would have been obvious to have selected values within the overlap, consistent with the reasoning of the of MPEP 2144.05.
2) Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olansky et al. (US 20060286134).
Olansky et al. disclose a method for removing a contaminant from an essential oil comprising contacting the essential oil including the contaminant with a strong base anion exchange resin (Abstract). Essential oils include citrus oil (paragraph 0010).
Olansky et al. differ from the instant claims insofar as it does not disclose the amount of anion exchange resin.
However, the resin is a result effective variable and would determine how much oil may be treated and how much contaminant can be removed. Therefore, it would have taken no more than the routine optimization to adjust the amount of resin to obtain the desired purity. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 8-10 are rejected.
Claims 1-7 are withdrawn.
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEZAH ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-1071. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:30.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/LEZAH ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights