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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that an IDS was not filed for the NPL filed 1/8/2026. Please file and IDS.
Claims
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-15 and 17 are pending with claims 15 and 17 withdrawn.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The rejections of claim 12 in the Office Action mailed 10/7/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 1/7/2026.
REPEATED 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, 11, 13-14 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.
The phrase “from 75% to 99% by weight of lauric fat … from 35% to 65% by weight of lauric acid (C12:0) … interesterified fat … less than 2% by weight of lauric acid (C12:0)” in Claim 1, lines 4-10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one can determine how much lauric acid (C12:0) originated from lauric fat and how much originated from interesterified fat as lauric acid (C12:0) is identical no matter the source. Patentability of the emulsion is based on the composition of the emulsion and not the composition of ingredients prior to mixing. A precise signature of the ingredients prior to mixing is no longer present after mixing.
PNG
media_image1.png
124
377
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Identical Lauric Acid (C12:0)
Lauric acid (C12:0) is identical no matter the source.
PNG
media_image2.png
122
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The below Table illustrates 3 identical compositions wherein Composition A would infringe because the lauric acid (C12:0) concentration in the lauric fat and the interesterified fat are the same as combined, however, identical Compositions B and C would not infringe because the lauric acid (C12:0) concentrations in the lauric fat and the interesterified fat are outside of the claimed ranges. It is untenable for this situation to exist.
PNG
media_image3.png
138
390
media_image3.png
Greyscale
On page 5, of Applicant’s arguments filed 1/7/2026 Applicant argues since the interesterified oil comes from interesterified sal butter and interesterified shea stearin it would not significantly contribute to the overall lauric acid.
There are several problems with Applicant’s arguments.
Claims are Directed to a Product and Not a Method
The claims are directed to a product, an emulsion, and not a method of making a product.
If the claims were directed to a method of making an emulsion and sal butter was combined with other fat then Applicant may have a point, however, the claims are not directed to a method.
Interesterified Sal Butter and Interesterified Shea Stearin Are Man-Made
Applicant argues about the properties of interesterified sal butter and interesterified shea stearin as disclosed in Table 1, page 13 of the Specification and how they have low amounts of C12:0.
Natural Sal butter does not have C12:0 while Applicant’s interesterified sal butter does has 0.3% C12:0
PNG
media_image4.png
282
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
If a person wanted, they could make interesterified sal butter with 30% C12:0.
Interesterified sal butter and interesterified shea stearin are not natural products but rather man-made. Interesterification involves cleavage of fatty acids chains from a glycerol head and then combining fatty acid chains with glycerol heads to make new triglycerides. Fatty acid chains can come from any desired source in any combination.
Trilaurin – is identical in coconut oil and interesterified sal butter
A person can take C12:0 chains from coconut oil or palm kernel oil and C18:0 chains from sal butter or other oils like soybean oil, interesterify to form a new triglyeride with one, two or three chains of C12:0 or C18:0 or any combination thereof.
A new triglyceride with 3 C12:0 chains is called trilaurin. A trilaurin triglyceride found in interesterified sal butter is identical to trilaurin in coconut oil.
PNG
media_image5.png
270
580
media_image5.png
Greyscale
A person could make virtually any triglyceride they would like, including C12:0, C16:0, C16:1, C18:0, C18:1, C18:2, C18:3 and many other chains and in any combination desired for an infinite number of different formulas.
It is impossible tell the source of identical triglycerides or fatty acids chains, like C12:0, in a composition.
Sal Butter and Shea Stearin are NOT Claimed Ingredients
On page 5, of Applicant’s arguments filed 1/7/2026 Applicant refers to NPL references and argues that that sal butter and shea stearin have different chemical and physical characteristics and thus one could tell the source.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive as the claimed composition does not claim sal butter and shea stearin as ingredients. The claims refer to interesterified sal butter and interesterified shea stearin. Interesterified sal butter and interesterified shea stearin are not the same as sal butter and shea stearin as interesterified sal butter and interesterified shea stearin are man-made. Furthermore, there is no mention of whether the fats have been solvent extracted, expelled, chemical refined, bleached or deodorized. These process steps can significantly change if not eliminate some minor ingredients.
The claims do not mention any minor ingredients that may or may not be present.
The phrase “combined amounts of StStSt and AStSt” is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether any of AStSt must be present or can the value be 0%. Since the claim does not state AStSt is present it appears that its amount can be 0%. However, the “combined” language appears to require a minimal amount of AStSt. Please clarify whether at least a minimal amount of AStSt is required.
On page 6, of Applicant’s paper filed 1/7/2026 Applicant argues that StStSt and AStSt may or may not be 0%. Applicant is advised to state this in the claims or refer to StStSt and AStSt as possibly being and/or alternatives.
The phrase “wherein the interesterified fat is selected from interesterified sal butter, interesterified shea stearin and mixtures thereof” in Claim 1, lines 15-16 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one can determine whether the interesterified fat is interesterified sal butter, interesterified shea stearin or some other fat like cacao fat or synthetic fat as the specific signature is no longer present after mixing as the triglycerides and fatty acids can be the same from various sources. The fatty acids like St and O are very common in many oils like soy, sunflower, canola oils and can be used to create various fats including StOSt and StOO with enzymes, fractionation and distillation.
As discussed above, the claims refer to interesterified sal butter and interesterified shea stearin. Interesterified sal butter and interesterified shea stearin are not the same as sal butter and shea stearin as interesterified sal butter and interesterified shea stearin are man-made. Furthermore, there is no mention of whether the fats have solvent extracted, expelled, chemical refined, bleached or deodorized. These process steps can significantly change if not eliminate some minor ingredients.
Clarification and/or correction required.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
The limitations of the claims and Applicant’s arguments are discussed above.
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.
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 January 18, 2026