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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 24 November 2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 7, 13-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokuchi WO 2014077105 and Loganathan “Health-promoting effects of red palm oil: evidence from animal and human studies” Nutrition Reviews, Vol. 75, Issue 2, Feb. 2017, Pages 98–113.
Regarding claims 7 and 18-20, Tokuchi teaches an oxidation treatment product of a palm based oil. (Pg. 3) Tokuchi teaches the oxidized palm oil disclosed can be added to a fry flavor enhancing composition in an amount of 0.003 to 10 wt% (30-100000 ppm). (Pg.4) This content of oxidized palm oil encompasses the range recited in claim 7. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Tokuchi is silent regarding the carotenoid content of the palm oil disclosed.
Loganathan teaches “Red palm oil has been known for its versatility as both a food and a health remedy for centuries. It was valued as a sacred food by the pharaohs of ancient Egypt.” (Pg. 99) Loganathan details a variety of health benefits attributed to red palm oil. (see all) “Its nutritional properties are conferred mainly via its constituent phytonutrients.” (Pg. 99) Red palm oil comprises 600-750 ppm carotenoids of which 41.0% are β-carotene (246-307.5 ppm) and 41.3% are α-carotene (247.8-309.75).(Table 1) As such, red palm oil has a total content of β-carotene and α-carotene of 493.8-617.25 ppm)
Tokuchi and Loganathan are both directed to compositions comprising palm oil. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have used red palm oil as the palm oil in Tokuchi in order to impart the health benefits of the phytonutrients contained in red palm oil to the composition disclosed. The modification of Tokuchi with Loganathan would have produced a method as recited in claims 7 and 20 wherein the red palm oil has a total β-carotene and α-carotene content as recited in claims 7, 18 and 19.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Tokuchi teaches adding the fry flavor enhancer to processed food in an amount of 0.005-0.5 wt% (50-5000 ppm) which reads on the method recited in claim 13. (Pg. 4) This content of oxidized palm oil encompasses the range recited in claim 14. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 15, the peroxide value of the oxidized palm oil of Tokuchi is 25-300. (Pg. 2)
Regarding claim 17, the oxidation treatment product of Tokuchi is an oxidized palm oil which is clearly an edible oil and fat composition. (Pg. 3)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele L Jacobson whose telephone number is (571)272-8905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10-6.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/Michele L Jacobson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793