DETAILED ACTION
Claims
Claims 1, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 39 and 78-87 are pending with claims 39, 85 and 86 withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/30/2025 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
When making amendments to the claims Applicant is advised to be careful and not add new matter. If Applicant believes that support is present in the Figures then Applicant is advised to consider amending the text of the Specification to capture the new limitations while being careful not to add new matter. Applicant is advised to precisely point out where in the disclosure as filed, not the PGPUB, support is present for any amendments.
WITHDRAWN OBJECTIONS
All objections of record in the Office Action mailed 6/30/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 10/30/2025.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
All rejections of record in the Office Action mailed 6/30/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 10/30/2025.
NEW REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Official Correspondence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 39 and 78-87 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 1 recites the limitation "the at least one liquid edible oil" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one liquid edible oil".
The term “improved” in claim 1, line 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “improved” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret an oral bioavailability as being improved while another could interpret the same oral bioavailability as not be improved. No basis of comparison is set forth in the claims.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the micrometric particles" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the plurality of micrometric particles".
The phrase “at least one additional edible oil which is solid or semi-solid at room temperature” in claim 14 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how much can determine whether there is an additional edible oil when no amount of oil or fatty acid profile is set forth. The same esterified fatty acid chains can be present in both liquid, solid and semi-solid oils as oil are not a single homogenous triglyceride with identical esterified fatty acid chains.
The phrase “edible oil is … olive oil” in Claim 16, lines 1-3 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how can determine which oil is present when no amount of oil or fatty acid profile is set forth The same esterified fatty acid chains can be present in the different oils.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the at least one edible polysaccharide" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one polysaccharide".
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the at least one edible surfactant" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one surfactant".
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the at least one edible edible liquid oil" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one edible liquid oil".
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the within comprised or dissolved lipophilic substance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what is trying to being said. It appears to be a typo.
The term “beneficial” in claim 24, line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “beneficial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret the various ingredients as being beneficial while another could interpret the same ingredients as not be beneficial. No basis of comparison is set forth in the claims.
Claim 78 recites the limitation "the at least one edible sugar" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one sugar".
Claim 79 recites the limitation "the at least one edible sugar" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one sugar".
Claim 80 recites the limitation "the at least one edible surfactant" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one surfactant".
Claim 82 recites the limitation "the at least one edible sugar" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one sugar".
The phrase “the size … maintained … fixation” in Claim 84 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how this language limits the powder as it appears to refer to a different invention including method of use steps.
The phrase “powder … adapted … administration” in claim 87 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how this language limits the powder as it appears to refer to a different invention including method of use steps.
Clarification and/or correction required.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
The limitations of the amended/new claims are discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 November 26, 2025