DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed July 1, 2026 has been entered. Claims 2, 5 and 6 have been cancelled. Claims 9-25 are new. Claims 1, 3, 4, and 9-25 are pending examination.
The objection to claim 1 has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment filed July 1, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9-11, 13-17 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breivik et al. (US 2011/0300228).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Breivik et al. disclose a process for removing impurities (i.e., pollutants) from vegetable oil comprising subjecting the oil to short-path evaporation, wherein the short-path evaporation is conducted at a pressure of below 1 mbar, at temperatures in the interval of 120° to 270°C and at a flow rate in the interval of 10-300 kg/h·m2 ([0054], [0136]-[0139], [0142], [0198]). Breivik et al. disclose examples of vegetable oils are corn oil, palm oil, rapeseed oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil and olive oil ([0198]).
Breivik et al. is silent with respect to lauric vegetable oil and a flow rate greater than 400 kg/h·m2.
Given Breivik et al. disclose vegetable oils generally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used any vegetable oil, including those high in lauric acid, in the process with a reasonable expectation of success.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized, through routine experimentation, the flow rate of the short-path evaporation process in Breivik et al. to obtain the desired removal (i.e., fractionation) of undesired compounds from the oil.
Regarding claim 3, Breivik et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Breivik et al. does not disclose the precisely claim pressure of below 0.01 mbar, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Regarding claims 9-11, modified Breivik et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Breivik et al. disclose a process for removing impurities (i.e., pollutants) from vegetable oil substantially similar to the claimed process, intrinsically the retentate vegetable oil would exhibit the claimed (a) reduction of MOAH and/or MOSH; (b) reduction of free fatty acid, and/or glycidyl esters; and (c) yield.
Regarding claims 13 and 15, Breivik et al. disclose a process for removing impurities (i.e., pollutants) from vegetable oil comprising subjecting the oil to short-path evaporation, wherein the short-path evaporation is conducted at a pressure of below 1 mbar, at temperatures in the interval of 120° to 270°C and at a flow rate (i.e., specific throughput) in the interval of 10-300 kg/h·m2 ([0054], [0136]-[0139], [0142], [0198]). Breivik et al. disclose examples of vegetable oils are corn oil, palm oil, rapeseed oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil and olive oil ([0198]).
While Breivik et al. does not disclose the precisely claimed flow rate of greater than 240 kg/h·m2 for liquid vegetable oil, precisely claimed pressure of below 0.05 bar or the precisely claimed temperature range of 200⁰ to 350⁰C, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 14, Breivik et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Breivik et al. does not disclose the precisely claim pressure of below 0.001 mbar, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Regarding claims 16-18, modified Breivik et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Breivik et al. disclose a process for removing impurities (i.e., pollutants) from vegetable oil substantially similar to the claimed process, intrinsically the retentate vegetable oil would exhibit the claimed (a) reduction of MOAH and/or MOSH; (b) reduction of free fatty acid, and/or glycidyl esters; and (c) yield.
Regarding claims 19 and 21, Breivik et al. disclose a process for removing impurities (i.e., pollutants) from vegetable oil comprising subjecting the oil to short-path evaporation, wherein the short-path evaporation is conducted at a pressure of below 1 mbar, at temperatures in the interval of 120° to 270°C and at a flow rate (i.e., specific throughput) in the interval of 10-300 kg/h·m2 ([0054], [0136]-[0139], [0142], [0198]). Breivik et al. disclose examples of vegetable oils are corn oil, palm oil, rapeseed oil, soybean oil, sunflower oil and olive oil ([0198]).
While Breivik et al. does not disclose the precisely claimed flow rate of greater than 260 kg/h·m2 for liquid vegetable oil, pressure of below 0.05 bar or the precisely claimed temperature range of 200⁰ to 350⁰C, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 20, Breivik et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Breivik et al. does not disclose the precisely claim pressure of below 0.001 mbar, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Regarding claims 22-24, modified Breivik et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Breivik et al. disclose a process for removing impurities (i.e., pollutants) from vegetable oil substantially similar to the claimed process, intrinsically the retentate vegetable oil would exhibit the claimed (a) reduction of MOAH and/or MOSH; (b) reduction of free fatty acid, and/or glycidyl esters; and (c) yield.
Claims 12, 18 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Breivik et al. (US 2011/0300228) as applied to claims 1, 13 and 19 and further in view of Brűse (WO 2018/200777) and Arhancet et al. (WO 2006/052664).
Regarding claims 12, 18 and 25, Breivik et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Breivik et al. disclose the vegetable oil may be pre-processed before constituting the start material in the short-path evaporation process and one of steps can include a deodorization process ([0198]), the reference is silent with respect to steps of degumming and bleaching.
Brűse teaches a process of treating vegetable oil by short-path evaporation (Abstract, []). Brűse teaches the short-path evaporation treatment can be conducted after at least one refining and/or processing step including degumming, bleaching and/or deodorization ([0045]-[0048]).
Breivik et al. and Brűse are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely treating vegetable oils by short-path evaporation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have pretreated the vegetable oil of Breivik et al. by degumming, bleaching and deodorizing, as taught by Brűse et al, because Breivik et al. disclose pre-processing of the vegetable oil and Brűse et al. teach degumming, bleaching and deodorizing are known to be used to pre-process vegetable oil before short-path evaporation.
Brűse is silent with respect to (a) the bleaching temperature; and (b) the deodorizing temperature and period of time.
Arhancet et al. teach the preparation of non-animal oil (e.g., seed oils) comprising degumming, bleaching and deodorizing ([0007]). Arhancet et al. teach bleaching non-animal oil at a temperature ranging from 90⁰-100⁰C ([0052]). Arhancet et al. teach deodorizing at a temperature of about 160⁰ to 270⁰C for a time of less than 160 minutes ([0053]).
Breivik et al, Brűse and Arhancet et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely processing of non-animal oil. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have pretreated the vegetable oil of Breivik et al. by degumming, bleaching and deodorizing, as taught by Brűse et al, because Breivik et al. disclose pre-processing of the vegetable oil and Brűse et al. teach degumming, bleaching and deodorizing are known to be used to pre-process vegetable oil before short-path evaporation. Moreover, given Arhancet et al. teach it was known to bleach non-animal oil at a temperature ranging from 90⁰-100⁰C ([0052]); and deodorize non-animal oil at a temperature of about 160⁰ to 270⁰C for a time of less than 160 minutes ([0053]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have applied the same conditions to degumming, bleaching and deodorizing of the vegetable oils disclosed by Breivik et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant notes “Breivik teaches several vegetable oils that can be used as the starting material but does not teach any specific pressure, temperature, or flow rate ranges for the different starting materials.” In other words, Applicant submits “Breivik does not recognize that different starting materials may benefit from different processing conditions.”
Here, Breivik et al. clearly disclose a range of processing conditions which overlap the claimed ranges for both (a) palm oil or a palm oil component; and (b) vegetable liquid oil. The fact Breivik et al. does not distinguish the starting materials is not significant since the ranges Breivik et al. disclose overlap the claimed ranges. There is no evidence on the record demonstrating the criticality of the distinct range of feed rates disclosed for each of palm oil (or palm oil component) or vegetable liquid oil.
Regarding vegetable lauric oil, while Breivik et al. does not disclose using a feed rate of greater than 300 kg/h·m2 in the short-path evaporation process, the reference does not discourage using higher rates. Absent evidence to the contrary, on of ordinary skill in the art would have optimized the feed rate to achieve a more efficient process while maintaining the purity of the retentate. There is no evidence on the record demonstrating the criticality of using a rate of greater than 400 kg/h·m2 to process vegetable lauric acid versus, for example, palm oil.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights