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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 12 are pending.
Claims 3 – 5 and 7 -9 are objected.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 10 – 12 are rejected.
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.
Claims 6, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the glycerol content" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2 and 10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12/497572 (‘572). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each.
Regarding instant claim 1 and claim 1 of ‘572 teaches a method for the A method for the purification of low-quality glyceridic material to yield a purified glyceridic material, said low-quality glyceridic material containing triglycerides, partial glycerides, free fatty acids [FFA] and P, Na, K, Mg, Ca and Fe.
Claim 1 of ‘572 teaches the purification process comprising: (a) a thermal treatment of the low-quality glyceridic material at a temperature of at least 160° C., to yield a thermally treated low-quality glyceridic material, (b) allowing to cool the thermally treated low-quality glyceridic material of step a) at a temperature of 120° C. or lower to yield a cooled thermally treated low-quality glyceridic material, and (c) applying one or more standard refining technique(s) to said cooled thermally treated low-quality glyceridic material of step b), wherein said low-quality glyceridic material contain at least 500 ppm of alkalinity, wherein prior to the thermal treatment, the method further comprises a pre-treatment that does not decrease the natural alkalinity of the low-quality glyceridic feedstock below an alkalinity of 500 ppm, wherein said method is devoid of an FFA stripping step, wherein said one or more standard refining technique(s) include water washing, acidulated water washing, water degumming, acid degumming, bleaching realized with bleaching agent(s), wherein said thermal treatment of the low-quality glyceridic material is realized in a hermitical vessel under pressure ranging from 100 mbar to 10 bar.
Claim 1 of ‘572 differs in that it teaches wherein prior to the thermal treatment; the method further comprises a pre-treatment that does not decrease the natural alkalinity of the low-quality glyceridic feedstock below an alkalinity of 500 ppm. However, the level of alkalinity not being decreased below 500 ppm, overlaps with the level in claim 1 of the instantly claimed invention. Instant claim 1 recites; “wherein said low-quality glyceridic material to be treated in step (a) contains at least 500 ppm (w/w) of alkalinity”.
Regarding instant claim 2, claim 1 of ‘572 teaches wherein said one or more standard refining technique(s) include water washing, acidulated water washing, water degumming, acid degumming, bleaching realized with bleaching agent(s). Thus, claim 1 of ‘572 teaches every limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding instant claim 10, claims 8, 9 and 10 teach the following: claim 8, teaches wherein the low-quality glyceridic material is at least partially water washed prior said thermal treatment; claim 9 teaches wherein the low-quality glyceridic material is at least partially washed with an aqueous acidic solution prior said thermal treatment; and claim 10 teaches wherein the low-quality glyceridic material is at least partially degummed prior to said thermal treatment. Thus, claim, 8, 9 and 10 of ‘572 teaches every limitation of the instant claim.
Thus, claims 1, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of ‘572 teach every limitation of instant claims 1, 2 and 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 5 and 7 – 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: none of the prior art of record teaches or suggest a motivation for the method for the A method for the purification of low-quality glyceridic material to yield a purified glyceridic material, said low-quality glyceridic material containing triglycerides, partial glycerides, free fatty acids [FFA] and P, Na, K, Mg, Ca and Fe, according to steps (a) – (c), and wherein any alkalinity containing compound is added to the low quality glyceridic material prior to the subsequent thermal treatment of step (a), which ensures that the alkalinity of the low-quality glyceridic material in step (a) will have at least 500 ppm (w/w) alkalinity at the time of thermal treatment. The examples in Applicant’s specification demonstrate that standard purification methods give better removal of the impurities with higher levels of alkalinity in the starting low-quality glyceridic material.
Malm et al. (US 2020/0040278) is a close prior art. Malm discloses the process for purification of oil by heat treatment in order to remove phosphorous and metal compounds present in the non-purified oil and a subsequent process comprising e.g. water or acid treatment, degumming, bleaching or a combination thereof, thereby removing impurities from oil before feeding the purified oil into a catalytic process. ([0001]). Example 5 discloses the following: Heat treatment of used cooking oil was performed in a stirred pressure reactor as a batch experiment. The oil was heated to 240° C., kept there for 30 min and cooled. The heated UCO was treated such that a sample was centrifuged to remove solids, the rest of the oil was water treated (5% water, 2 min ultraturrax high shear mixing, 5 min 500 rpm mixing) and centrifuged. The water treated oil was additionally bleached (700 ppm citric acid, 0.2 wt % water, 0.5 wt % bleaching earth, mixing for 20 min at 80 C, drying and filtration). Results for UCO are presented in Table 8. The result for bleaching of untreated UCO (700 ppm citric acid+0.2 wt-% water, 0.7 wt-% bleaching earth) is given as a reference. Heat treatment (240° C./30 min) followed by a water treatment with 5% water and bleaching treatment resulted in pure product. ([0137], [138] & [139]). The process of Malm in Example 5, based on the data in Table 8, does not lower the concentration of the FFA contained in the used cooking oil from feed through thermal treatment.
Additionally, Example 4 and Table 7 discloses a method wherein animal fat is purified by heat treatment at 240°C for 30 minutes, then cooled to <120° (see heating curve in fig.4) and then further refined by a 5% added water treatment at 80°C, i.e. further refined by a standard water washing refining technique. In view of table 7 (FFA in last column, compare t=0 and t=30 min), said heat treatment leaves the concentration of FFA unchanged to 17 %.
Also, Example 5 (table 8), wherein when comparing the used cooking oil feed material with the purified material which has been heat-, water- and bleach treated, the amount of P reduces from 42.7 ppm to 0.9 ppm (98% P removal), while the sum of Na, K, Mg, Ca and Fe reduces from 77.7 ppm to <1.4 ppm (>98% reduction).
Malm states that heating the lipid material is without adding water or other solvent. ([0009]] Examples 4 and 5 discloses this teaching. The heat treating temperature can range from about 210°C to about 300°C. ([0047]). The heat treating residence time ranges from 1 minutes to about 400 minutes. ([0049]). In Example 4 heat treating is conducted in a stirred pressure reactor at 500 rpm mixing. (corresponding to 8.33 hertz). ([0131]).
In the method of Malm, prior to the lipid feed/oil being heated, it can be subjected to pre-treatment. ([0017]). The pre- treatment may comprise water degumming, acid degumming, filtration and bleaching or any combinations thereof and in any order. ([0082]). Tables 7 and 8 wherein the concentration of the impurities of the feed/oil is disclosed and given in area %. ([0124]). In Table 7 the percentage of FFA in the animal fat is 17%; and in Table 8 the percentage of FFA in the used cooking oil is 17%. In Example 2 (table 3), the RSO that has not been water treated initially comprises at least 222.1 ppm of alkalinity (1 ppm Fe+ <1.0 ppm Na+ 179 ppm Ca+ 42.1 ppm Mg= 222.1 to 223.1 ppm alkalinity).
In Example 5 after heat treatment the oil was water treated, the water treated oil was additionally bleached (700 ppm citric acid, 0.2 wt% water, 0.5 wt% bleaching earth, mixing for 20 min at 80°C, drying and filtration). ([0137]). Example 5 teaches that after water treatment solids can be removed by filtration or bleaching. ([0136]).
However, Malm does not disclose the thermal treatment of at least 160° in a hermitical vessel under pressure ranging from 100 mbar to 10 bar; and wherein said low-quality glyceridic material to be treated in step (a) contains at least 500 ppm (w/w) of alkalinity, said alkalinity being defined as the sum of Na, K, Mg, Ca and Fe; and wherein any alkalinity containing compound is added to the low quality glyceridic material prior to the subsequent thermal treatment of step (a).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is (571)272-9067. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30).
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, Scarlett Y. 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.
/YATE' K CUTLIFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights