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 .
Claim status
The examiner acknowledged the amendment made to the claims on 02/25/2026.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-12 and 14-18 and 20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended. Claims 4-5, 7, 13 and 19 remain cancelled. Claims 21-23 are newly cancelled. Rest of the claims are previously presented. Claims 1-3, 6, 8-12 and 14-18 and 20 are hereby examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2-3, “rapeseed, soybean, sunflower, high-oleic sunflower, brown linseed and yellow linseed” should read “rapeseed, soybean and sunflower”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 14-15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debon WO 2017/066569 A1 (cited in the IDS filed 06/14/2022, hereinafter referred to as Debon) in view of Nunes US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0021878 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Nunes), Kong US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0095852 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kong) and De Chirico, “Enhancing the recovery of oilseed rape seed oil bodies (oleosomes) using bicarbonate-based soaking and grinding media”, Food Chemistry, 2018, 241, pages 419-426 (hereinafter referred to as De Chirico).
Regarding claims 1-3, 15 and 17, Debon teaches a process of preparing a composition comprising first oleosomes having a first D50 (e.g., D50(1)) and second oleosomes having a second D50 (e.g., D50(2), wherein the D50(1) is between 150 nm and 850 nm, and the D50(2) is between 500 nm and 8000 nm (00014; 00017-00018); wherein the first oleosomes originate from soybean, rapeseed, corn, etc. (00025), and wherein the second oleosomes originate from linseed, sunflower, hazelnut, rapeseed, etc. (00025-0026), the process comprising obtaining isolated oleosomes by extracting oleosomes from different plant sources (00022-00023), adjusting the average size of the oleosomes to the desired range, for example, enlarging the size of the oleosomes through coalescence by a mechanical force such as shearing, mixing or the like (0024; 0021); and mixing the first oleosomes and the second oleosomes to form the composition (00044). Debon additionally teaches dehydrating (e.g., drying) the first and second oleosomes (00044), thus reading on claim 3 limitation. Debon further teaches that the composition is pasteurized (00057), thus reading claim 2 limitation about heating.
Further, Debon teaches that rapeseed oleosome typically has a diameter of 0.7 micron or 700 nm (0004), and that the size of the rapeseed oleosome in the oleosome composition is as much as 8 micron or 8000 nm (0018; 0026). Therefore, the limitation that the second average globule diameter is at least 80% greater than the first average globule diameter is met.
Debon teaches enlarging the size of the isolated oleosomes through coalescence by a mechanical force such as shearing, mixing or the like but is silent regarding high-shear mixing the isolated oleosomes using a rotor-stator mixer with a tip velocity of 4.8-12.8 m/s or 4.8-7.5 m/s as recited in claims 1 and 15. Debon is further silent regarding the duration of high shear mixing as recited in claim 1, or the dry matter content of the isolated oleosomes to which the high shear mixer is applied as recited in claim 1.
Nunes teaches that a rotor/stator high shear mixer is suitable for subjecting components to the mixing energy in a food application (Abstract; 0162).
Kong teaches that in a process of shear mixing an emulsion mixture, the shear rate affects the droplet collision and coalescence (0249), recognizing that shear rate in a process of forming coalescence is a result effective variable.
Both Debon and Nunes are directed to shearing or mixing a food composition. Both Debon and Kong are directed to the coalescence of an emulsion droplet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Debon by using a rotor/stator high shear mixer to shear or mix the isolated oleosomes to obtain the coalescence of the isolated oleosomes with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that that a rotor/stator high shear mixer is suitable for subjecting components to the mixing energy in a food application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have manipulated the shear rate so as to obtain desired D50 for the oleosomes with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason prior art has established that shear rate is a result effective variable in the process of enlarging the size of the emulsion droplets (e.g., coalescence). As such, the tip velocity as recited in claim 1 and 15 are merely obvious variants of the prior art.
Similarly, where coalescence occurs through the collision of droplets, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the concentration of the droplets so as to ensure the sufficient collision of the droplets to induce a coalescence and obtain desired D50. As such, the dry matter content as recited in claim 1 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Further, the duration of mixing or shearing is the general condition known by one of ordinary skill in the art to affect the collision of the droplet and the finally the coalescence of the oleosome (e.g., coalescence is a parameter of time in the mixing/shearing process), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have varied the duration of mixing /shearing so as to obtain oleosomes having a desired range of D50. As such, the time as recited in claim 1 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Debon teaches isolated rapeseed oleosomes, but is silent regarding adjusting or controlling the pH of the isolated oleosomes in the range of 5.5-10 as recited in claim 1.
De Chirico teaches that the unique structure of proteins on the surface of oleosomes (e.g., oleosins) serves to prevent the oleosomes (e.g., oil bodies) from coalescence (page 419, left hand column, under “Introduction”). De Chirico further teaches that for rapeseed oleosomes, at a pH value close to the isoelectric point (5.5-6.6) of oleosins, the overall charge is zero, and in absence of repulsion forces, aggregation or coalescence occurs which results in a larger droplet (page 421, right hand column, section 3.2).
Both Debon and De Chirico are directed to rapeseed oleosomes, and where Debon teaches enlarging the isolated oleosomes through coalescence, De Chirico discloses that a pH of 5.5-6.6 would induce the aggregation or coalescence of the oleosome particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Debon by adjusting or controlling the pH of isolated oleosomes to 5.5-6.6 with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that such a pH range would favor the coalescence and result in large oil droplets.
Regarding claim 14, Debon teaches heating the oleosomes to induce coalescence thus creating bigger oleosomes (0021).Therefor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Debon by heating the oleosomes to induce coalescence thus creating oleosomes having desired D50. Prior art teaches both shearing and heating the isolated oleosomes but is silent regarding of the order of performing the two. However, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (See MPEP 2144.04 IV).
Regarding claim 18, Debon teaches that the oleosome composition may further comprises emulsifiers (e.g., surfactants) (00055), which is interpreted to mean that an emulsifier is optional. To this end, reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component. See MPEP 2123 I.
Regarding claim 20, Debon teaches that the oleosome composition comprising first oleosomes that has an average globule diameter (e.g., D50) of 0.15-0.85 micron (e.g.,150-850 nm, 00017) and second oleosomes that has an average globule diameter (e.g., D50) of 0.5-8 micron (e.g., 500-8000 nm, 00018), wherein the first oleosomes originate from soybean, rapeseed, corn etc. (00025), and wherein the second oleosomes originate from linseed, sunflower, hazelnut, rapeseed, etc. (00025-0026). The average globule diameters as disclosed by Debon overlap with the ranges as recited in claim 20. 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).
Claims 1, 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debon WO 2017/066569 A1 (cited in the IDS filed 06/14/2022, hereinafter referred to as Debon) in view of Patel US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0010176 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Patel), Roesch US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0164302 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Roesch) and De Chirico, “Enhancing the recovery of oilseed rape seed oil bodies (oleosomes) using bicarbonate-based soaking and grinding media”, Food Chemistry, 2018, 241, pages 419-426 (hereinafter referred to as De Chirico).
Regarding claims 1, 6 and 16, Debon teaches a process of preparing a composition comprising first oleosomes having a first D50 (e.g., D50(1)) and second oleosomes having a second D50 (e.g., D50(2), wherein the D50(1) is between 150 nm and 850 nm, and the D50(2) is between 500 nm and 8000 nm (00014; 00017-00018); wherein the first oleosomes originate from soybean, rapeseed, corn etc. (00025), and wherein the second oleosomes originate from linseed, sunflower, rapeseed, hazelnut, etc. (00025-0026), the process comprising obtaining isolated oleosomes by extracting oleosomes from different sources such as plant seeds (00022-00023), adjusting the average size of the oleosomes to the desired range, for example enlarging the size of the oleosomes through coalescence by a mechanical force such as shearing, mixing or the like (0024; 0021); and mixing the first oleosomes and the second oleosomes to form the composition (00044). Debon further teaches that the isolated oleosome contains 2-6% protein (0044), which overlaps with the protein range as recited in claim 6. 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).
Further, Debon teaches that rapeseed oleosome typically has a diameter of 0.7 micron or 700 nm (0004), and that the size of the rapeseed oleosome in the oleosome composition is as much as 8 micron or 8000 nm (0018; 0026). Therefore, the limitation that the second average globule diameter is at least 80% greater than the first average globule diameter is met.
Debon teaches enlarging the size of the isolated oleosomes through coalescence by a mechanical force such as shearing, mixing or the like but is silent regarding using high-shear centrifugal force such as a disk-stack centrifuge at a rotational speed of 15,000 g to 20,000 g (or narrowly 16,000 g to 18,000 g). Debon is further silent regarding the duration of high shear centrifuge as recited in claims 1 and 16.
Patel teaches that high shear (e.g., high speed) centrifuge can be used to coalesce an oil droplet (0178).
Roesch teaches that a disk stack centrifuge that operates at high shear (e.g., as high as 21,000 g) can be used in a food application (0243).
Both Debon and Patel are directed to the coalescence of an oil droplet. Both Debon and Roesch are directed to shearing a food composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Debon by using a disk-stack centrifuge to high-shear the isolated oleosomes to obtain a coalescence of the isolated oleosomes with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that high shear centrifuge can be used to coalesce an oil droplet, and that a disk stack centrifuge that operates at a high shear can be used in a food application.
Further, where coalescence occurs through the collision of droplets, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the speed of shearing so as to ensure the sufficient collision of the droplets to induce a coalescence and obtain oleosomes having desired D50. As such, the rotation speed as recited in claim 1 or claim 16 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Further, the duration of shearing is the general condition known by one of ordinary skill in the art to affect the collision of the droplet and the finally the coalescence of the oleosome (e.g., coalescence is parameter of time in the shearing process), therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have varied the duration of high shear centrifuge so as to obtain oleosomes having a desired range of D50. As such, the time as recited in claim 1 or claim 16 is merely are obvious variants of the prior art.
Further regarding the temperature at which the isolated oleosome is sheared, Roesch teaches performing high shear centrifuge by a disk stack centrifuge at room temperature for about 10 min in a food application (0243). Although prior art does not teach the temperature range of 30-45 °C as recited in claim 16, it does not appear a higher temperature could have any effect on the coalescence given that the shearing is not performed long. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have performed the shearing at any convenient temperature during coalescence. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II. A.
Debon teaches isolated rapeseed oleosomes, but is silent regarding adjusting or controlling the pH of the isolated oleosomes in the range of 5.5-10 as recited in claim 1.
De Chirico teaches that the unique structure of proteins on the surface of oleosomes (e.g., oleosins) serves to prevent the oleosomes (e.g., oil bodies) from coalescence (page 419, left hand column, under “Introduction”). De Chirico further teaches that for rapeseed oleosomes, at a pH value close to the isoelectric point (5.5-6.6) of oleosins, the overall charge is zero, and in absence of repulsion forces, aggregation or coalescence occurs which results in a larger droplet (page 421, right hand column, section 3.2).
Both Debon and De Chirico are directed to rapeseed oleosomes, and where Debon teaches enlarging the isolated oleosomes through coalescence, De Chirico discloses that a pH of 5.5-6.6 would induce the aggregation or coalescence of the oleosome particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Debon by adjusting or controlling the pH of isolated oleosomes to 5.5-6.6 with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that such a pH range would favor the coalescence and result in large oil droplets.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Debon WO 2017/066569 A1 (cited in IDS filed 06/14/2022, hereinafter referred to as Debon).
Regarding claims 8-12, Debon teaches an oleosome composition comprising first oleosomes that has an average globule diameter (e.g., D50) of 0.15-0.85 micron (e.g.,150-850 nm, 00017) and second oleosomes that has an average globule diameter (e.g., D50) of 0.5-8 micron (e.g., 500-8000 nm, 00018), wherein the first oleosomes originate from soybean, rapeseed, corn etc. (00025), and wherein the second oleosomes originate from linseed, sunflower, hazelnut, etc. (00025). Debon teaches that the oleosomes are obtained through adjusting the average size of the oleosomes to the desired range, for example enlarging the size of the oleosomes through coalescence by a mechanical force such as shearing, mixing or the like (0024; 0021).
The average globule diameters of the second oleosomes as disclosed by Debon overlap with the ranges as recited in claim 8. 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).
Further, Debon teaches mixing the first oleosomes and the second at a ratio of 10:90 to 60:40 oleosomes to form the oleosome composition (00044; 00099), and such a composition is used to prepare Food and feed products, pharmaceutical products, personal care products, nutritional compositions (e.g., juice, milk, jam, cookie, etc. see 00060) and industrial products (00059). In particular, para. 00078-00079 of Debon teaches a fruit juice comprising the oleosome composition and other nutrients, and the amount of the oleosome composition is 0.1- 1% (v/v). Reasonably, prior art renders obvious the dry matter content as recited in claim 10, given that a juice is known to contain ~1% dry matter, and the density of the juice is close to that of water, e.g., 1 gram/ml. Note that claim 10 recites a very broad dry matter content of 1-70% for the oleosome composition. Further, where Debon teaches adding a small amount of the oleosome composition to the juice, the claim 11 limitation that the process does not comprise a further step of emulsification is met.
Further, Debon teaches mixing the first oleosomes in dry form and the second oleosomes in dry from to form the mixture, which is interpreted to read on the claim 12 limitation about dehydration before blending.
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 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-6, 10-16, 18, and 20-25 of copending Application No. 17/785,151 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘151 teaches a plant-derived enlarged oleosome having an average globule of 2-12 microns, and a nutritional composition comprising the enlarged oleosome.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/113,580 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘580 teaches a plant-derived enlarged oleosome having an average globule of 2.5-15 microns.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 8 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 19/113,576 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘576 teaches a plant-derived enlarged oleosome having an average globule of 2.5-15 microns.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 19/113,570 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘570 teaches a plant-derived enlarged oleosome having an average globule of 2.5-15 microns, and a nutritional composition comprising the enlarged oleosome.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 8-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 19/113,566 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘566 teaches a plant-derived enlarged oleosome having an average globule of 2.5-15 microns, and a nutritional composition comprising the enlarged oleosome.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 7 of the Remarks that the examiner’s reasoning relies on generalized oil droplet collision theory but oleosomes are structurally distinct from conventional emulsion droplets.
The arguments are considered. However, such arguments have focused too much on the difference between oleosomes and emulsion droplets but inadvertently overlook the fact that in shear induced coalescence, particles are sheared such that they collide with each other and coalesce, regardless of whether the particles are oleosomes or conventional oil droplet.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the Remarks that Nunes concerns food emulsion no isolated oleosomes and Kong concerns oil droplet coalescence as opposed to protein-stabilized oleosome. Applicant goes on to argues that neither reference discloses rotor-stator tip velocities of claimed ranges on oleosomes, and neither references teaching the duration or providing any guidance for how to achieve at least 80% enlargement.
The arguments are presented earlier to which the examiner has responded. See para. 46 and 50 of office action issued 12/17/2025.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that the examiner has not identified a single reference teaching rotor-mixing of oleosomes for 6-90 min or disc-stack centrifugation of oleosome for 20-120 sec.
The argument is considered. The duration is obvious, as reasoned in the office action issued 12/17/2025 (see para. 14 and 29).
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the Remarks that the examiner’s reasoning about collision depends on time is unsupported generalization equivalent to improper official notice.
It is a reasoning, not an official notice. To a skilled artisan working in the field of coalescence induced by shear, he or she would have known that shearing a longer time will trigger more collision between the particles thus more coalescence occurs hence larger particles. Applicant has underestimated the level of that skilled artisan.
Applicant is further invited to refer to Whitby which is cited as a pertinent art in the office action issued 12/17/2025 for the positive relationship between the drop size and time in a shear-induced coalescence (section 3.3.2 and Fig. 5).
Unfortunately, applicant has not shown any new result regarding the shear rate or duration.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the Remarks that De Chirico does not teach combining pH with the shearing conditions.
The argument is piecemeal. The reference is cited to teach pH and when combined with Debon, Nunes and Kong arrives that the invention as claimed.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the Remarks that the examiner is disregarding the statement and technical explanation in the specification about that high shear mixing is commonly used to reduce size when evaluating obviousness.
The argument is considered. The statement is not disregarded. Rather, every part of the specification is considered. However, the examiner submits that such a statement does not outweigh the teaching from a preponderance of references that shear mixing is used to coalesce thus enlarging size.
Applicant submits on page 10 of the Remarks that the range of 4.8-11.2 m/s for tip velocity or the range of 6-90 min for the duration of shearing is not broad.
The argument is considered. Although a range of 4.8-11.2 m/s for tip velocity might not be interpreted as broad, a range of 6-90 min is, given that 6 min is a merely a few mins but 90 min is 1.5 hours. Regardless, given that cited arts in combination render the shear rate or the duration of shear obvious but applicant has not sufficiently shown any criticality associated with either, the argument is determined to be insufficient in rebutting the prima facie case of obviousness.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that the specification provides support for the “significance” of the speed and duration, as shown in Examples 1.2 and 1.3.
Applicant appears to be asserting unexpected result or criticality associated with the speed and duration. Such an assertion is presented before to which the examiner has responded. See para. 55 of the office action issued 12/17/2025.
Applicant’s argument on page 11 the Remarks regarding the deficiency of Patel or Roesch is presented earlier to which the examiner has responded. See para. 61 and 63 of the office action issued 12/17/2025.
Regarding claim 8 as amended, applicant argues on page 12 of the Remarks that Debon fails to teach the oleosomes of the present claim 8. In particular, applicant argues on pages 14-15 of the Remarks that Debon does not teach specific type of oil with specific average size.
The examiner disagrees. Debon teaches second oleosomes that has an average globule diameter (e.g., D50) of 0.5-8 micron (e.g., 500-8000 nm, 00018), wherein the second oleosomes originate from linseed, sunflower, hazelnut, etc. (00025). Debon further teaches that the oleosomes are obtained through adjusting the average size of the oleosomes to the desired range, for example enlarging the size of the oleosomes through coalescence by a mechanical force such as shearing, mixing or the like (0024; 0021). Those teachings from Debon are specific enough to render obvious claim 8 limitation.
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 CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, NIKKI H DEES can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights