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 the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 10 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment of the claims: (1) the amendments to the claims are sufficient to grant priority to the filing date (3 April 2020) of Provisional Application No. 63/004,787; (2) the objections to claim 11 have been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome all of the 112(b) rejections. Those not overcome are again presented hereinbelow.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-4, 7, 9-12, 14-15, 17-19, and 26
Withdrawn claims: 26
Previously canceled claims: 5-6, 8, 13, 16, 20-25, and 27-43
Newly canceled claims: 7, 14-15, and 18-19
Amended claims: 1, 2, 11, 17, and 26
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-4, 9-12, and 17
Currently rejected claims: 1-4, 9-12, and 17
Allowed claims: None
Claim Objections
Claim 2 objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitations in lines 3-5 of claim 2 are recited in independent claim 1. For conciseness, it is suggested that these lines and line 6 are removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 9-12, and 17 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 1 recites the limitations, “a free fatty acid content of less than or equal to about 1%” in line 6, “less than or equal to about 0.01% of insoluble impurities” in line 7, “a moisture content of less than or equal to about 1%” in line 10, “less than or equal to about 1% glycerol” in line 11, “less than or equal to about 2% monoglycerides” in line 12, less than or equal to about 5% diglycerides” in line 13, and “at least about 90% triglycerides” in line 14. It is unclear how the percent is determined, for example, percent by weight, percent by volume, etc. Applicant can overcome this rejection by specifying the percentage form. For purposes of examination, any types of percentages in the prior art are deemed to be acceptable.
Claim 12 recites the limitation, “at least about 40% oleic acid” in line 2. It is unclear how the percent is determined, for example, percent by weight, percent by volume, etc. Applicant can overcome this rejection by specifying the percentage form. For purposes of examination, any types of percentages in the prior art are deemed to be acceptable.
Claims 2-4, 9-12, and 17 are also rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 10-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De et al. (De, B.K., Bhattacharyya, S., & Bhattacharyya, D.K. (1999). Modification of karanja oil (Pongamia glabra) by fractionation, blending, and transesterification. Fett/Lipid, 101(9), 332-335. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1521-4133(199909)101:9<332::AID-LIPI332>3.0.CO;2-5) (hereinafter “De 1999”) as evidenced by De et al. (De, B. K., Rakshit, S., Sen, M., & Bhattacharyya, D. K. (1998). Nutritional quality of detoxified karanja (Pongamia glabra) oil. Fett/Lipid, 100(2), 48-51., cited on the IDS filed on 28 November 2022) (hereinafter “De 1998”) and Fresh Fry (Fresh Fry. (2025). The Perfect Frying Oil Temp for Common Cooking Oils. Accessed on 11 April 2025 from https://freshfry.me/blogs/news/the-perfect-frying-oil-temp-for-common-cooking-oils).
Claim Interpretation:
The claims are directed to a food or beverage composition comprising a pongamia oil with the claimed properties. Once the oil is added in any amount to the food or beverage base, one is unable to ascertain from where the claimed elements in the final food or beverage product originated (i.e., from the pongamia oil or from some other ingredient of the food or beverage composition). Upon addition of the pongamia oil to a food or beverage, the oil is subsumed into the overall composition such that ranges of components in the raw material product (i.e., the starting pongamia oil) are not directly at issue, particularly where no specific amount of added pongamia oil is required. The ranges in the starting material can still limit the claimed product, but patentability is based on the produced product per se, which does not require any component concentrations. Therefore, without setting forth the amounts of the claimed oil or claimed properties of the oil with respect to the final food or beverage composition, the ranges as claimed do not lend patentable weight to the invention as claimed.
It is recognized that karanjin and pongamol are identifying features specific to the pongamia plant, and that these furanoflavonoids are toxic when ingested in more than a small amount. Therefore, prior art food or beverage compositions relied on should comprise pongamia oil and no more than 150 ppm of karanjin and no more than 150 ppm of pongamol. It is also understood that the smoke point of an oil composition is dependent upon the fatty acid composition of the oil. Therefore, also for this reason, prior art compositions relied on should comprise pongamia oil. All other optional components of the pongamia oil (i.e., “less than x amount of y feature”) do not limit the final product for the reasons described above. The amount of triglycerides in the pongamia oil is also not limiting. The claims only require that triglycerides are present in the final product, which is inherent in an oil composition.
Claim Rejections:
Regarding claim 1, De 1999 teaches a food or beverage product comprising a pongamia oil – De 1999 teaches that detoxified karanja (i.e., pongamia) oil can be applied like other traditional edible liquid oils in manufacturing edible plastic fats like shortenings, margarine fat bases, and vanaspati substitutes (p. 332, “Introduction”, col. 2, ¶ 1). De 1999 also teaches that karanja oil has a fatty acid composition resembling groundnut (i.e., peanut) oil and is expected therefore to be used like groundnut oil (Id.). De 1999 concludes that “karanja oil…can be suitably modified by fractionation, blending or transesterification, after purification by liquid-liquid extraction with isopropanol to remove its toxic components to yield products, that may be suitable for margarine, shortening, and vanaspati products.” (p. 335, col 1, ¶ 4). Hence, using the refined karanja oil or modified oil compositions in margarine, shortening, and vanaspati products would have been obvious based on suitability for intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
the pongamia oil comprising between about 10 ppm and 150 ppm of karanjin and between about 10 ppm and 150 ppm pongamol – “Crude karanja (i.e., pongamia) oil was extracted by batch liquid-liquid extraction process…After extraction for seven times the oil was found to be free from toxins, and the oil was bleached and deodorized.” (p. 333, col. 1, § 2.2, ¶ 2). Therefore, De 1999 teaches that the final refined karanja oil does not contain toxins, including karanjin and pongamol. As evidenced by De 1998, crude karanja oil contains 1.25% karanjin and 0.85% pongamol, which are furanoflavonoids in structure, toxic in nature (p. 49, col. 1, ¶ 1) and are considered as toxic phenolic compounds (p. 48, Abstract). Therefore, De 1999 teaches, between the seven times extracted karanja oil and the crude karanja oil, a range of 0 to 1.25% (i.e., 0 to 12500 ppm) karanjin and 0 to 0.85% (i.e., 0 to 8500 ppm) pongamol. The claimed ranges of about 10 ppm to about 150 ppm of each karanjin and pongamol lie inside the disclosed ranges. In a 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).
Furthermore, where the karanja oil was purified seven times, bleached, and deodorized, resulting in the elimination of pongamol and karanjin, it is reasonable to expect that the other optional components of the pongamia oil (i.e., “less than x amount of y feature”), although not regarded as limiting in the final food or beverage product, would be reduced through such purification processes to amounts within the claimed amounts.
wherein the pongamia oil has a smoke point of at least about 195 °C – It is commonly known in the art that the smoke point of an oil is heavily dependent on fatty acid composition. De 1999 teaches that karanja oil has a fatty acid composition resembling groundnut (i.e., peanut) oil and is expected therefore to be used like groundnut oil (p. 332, “Introduction”, col. 2, ¶ 1). The comparative fatty acid profiles of the refined karanja oil and groundnut oil are evidenced by De 1998 (p. 50, Table 2). As evidenced by Fresh Fry, peanut oil has a smoke point of 227-230 °C (p. 4, ¶ 1). It can be reasonably understood that since De 1998 evidences that the karanja and groundnut (i.e., peanut) oil comprise essentially the same fatty acid profile (p. 50, Table 2), that they would have similar smoke points, and therefore the refined karanja oils of De 1998 and De 1999 meet the claimed limitation.
wherein the food or beverage product is salad oil, frying oil, sauteeing oil, vinaigrette, sauce, dressing, fat in meat mimetics, a beverage, or a blended margarine or other solid fat applications – De 1999 teaches that detoxified karanja (i.e., pongamia) oil can be applied like other traditional edible liquid oils in manufacturing edible plastic fats like shortenings, margarine fat bases, and vanaspati substitutes (p. 332, “Introduction”, col. 2, ¶ 1). De 1999 also teaches that karanja oil has a fatty acid composition resembling groundnut (i.e., peanut) oil and is expected therefore to be used like groundnut oil (Id.). Therefore, any food or beverage application comprising peanut oil is an obvious choice for the inclusion of the detoxified karanja oil.
Claim 1 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, De 1999 teaches the food or beverage product of claim 1.
As describe regarding claim 1 above, De 1999 renders obvious that the pongamia oil comprises between about 10 ppm and 150 ppm of karanjin and between about 10 ppm and 150 ppm of pongamol. As described in the “Claim Interpretation” above, the features of amounts of unsaponifiable matter and residual solvents in the pongamia oil are non-limiting with respect to the final food or beverage product. Furthermore, the claims use the open language “comprising”, thus allowing for other materials to be present; therefore, the beverage as a whole is not seen to be limited to having less than or equal to about 1% by weight of unsaponifiable matter and less than or equal to about 25 ppm of residual solvents. It is noted, though, that regarding residual solvents De 1999 teaches that bulk volume of the solvent was distilled off and the traces of solvent along with the moisture were removed under vacuum (p. 333, col. 1, § 2.1). Therefore, the limitation of less than or equal to about 25 ppm of residual solvents has been met.
Claim 2 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 3-4, De 1999 teaches the food or beverage product of claim 2.
As described in the “Claim Interpretation” above, the feature of the amount of residual solvents in the pongamia oil are non-limiting with respect to the final food or beverage product. Additionally, the chemical identity of any residual solvent in the final product would not be able to be specifically associated with the pongamia oil. Furthermore, the claims use the open language “comprising”, thus allowing for other materials to be present; therefore, the beverage as a whole is not seen to be limited to having less than or equal to about 25 ppm of residual solvents (re: claim 2) where the solvents are non-polar solvents (re: claim 3) or alkanes (re: claim 4). It is noted, though, that regarding residual solvents De 1999 teaches that bulk volume of the solvent was distilled off and the traces of solvent along with the moisture were removed under vacuum (p. 333, col. 1, § 2.1). De 1999 further teaches that the solvent is n-hexane (Id.), and therefore teaches that the solvent is a non-polar solvent (re: claim 3) and an alkane (re: claim 4).
Claims 3 and 4 are therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 10, De 1999 teaches the food or beverage product of claim 1.
De 1999 does not discuss that the pongamia oil has less than 2500 ppm of sterols.
However, as described in the “Claim Interpretation” above, the features of amounts of sterols in the pongamia oil are non-limiting with respect to the final food or beverage product. Additionally, where the karanja oil was purified seven times, bleached, and deodorized, resulting in the elimination of pongamol and karanjin, it is reasonable to expect that the amount of sterols in the refined oil, although not regarded as limiting in the final food or beverage product, would be reduced through such purification processes to an amount less than 2500 ppm.
Therefore, where claim 1 is rendered obvious, so too is claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, De 1999 teaches the food or beverage product of claim 1.
De 1999 also teaches that the refined karanja oil comprises myristic acid, palmitic acid, oleic acid, linoleic acid, and arachidic acid (p. 333, Table 1). Furthermore, as evidenced by De 1998, the refined karanja oil (prepared by the same process) comprises palmitic acid, stearic acid, behenic acid, lignoceric acid, arachidic acid, oleic acid, linoleic acid, and myristic acid (p. 50, Table 2).
Claim 11 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 12, De 1999 teaches the food or beverage product of claim 1.
As described in the “Claim Interpretation” above, the features of amounts of constituents such as oleic acid in the pongamia oil are non-limiting with respect to the final food or beverage product. Claim 12 only requires that there is oleic acid in the food or beverage composition. Nonetheless, De 1999 also teaches that the oil comprises at least 40% oleic acid – De 1999 discloses that the refined karanja oil comprises 53.3% oleic acid (p. 333, Table 1).
Claim 12 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 17, De 1999 teaches the food or beverage product of claim 1.
As described in the “Claim Interpretation” above, the features of amounts of constituents such karanjin and pongamol in the pongamia oil are non-limiting with respect to the final food or beverage product, and prior art compositions should comprise pongamia oil and no more than 150 ppm of karanjin and no more than 150 ppm of pongamol. Similarly, the color of the pongamia oil as an ingredient that is subsumed into the final composition does not limit the final product.
Nonetheless, De 1999 also teaches that the color of the oil is light yellow as determined by the Lovibond Color - AOCS Scale, and wherein the oil comprises less than or equal to about 200 ppm karanjin and pongamol combined – As described regarding claim 1 above, De 1999 (as evidenced by De 1998) teaches, between the seven times extracted karanja oil and the crude karanja oil, a range of 0 to 1.25% (i.e., 0 to 12500 ppm) karanjin and 0 to 0.85% (i.e., 0 to 8500 ppm) pongamol, which renders the claimed range obvious per MPEP § 2144.05(I). De 1999 further discloses a karanja oil that is light yellow (Lovibond Color Y-value = 10) (p. 333, Table 1).
Therefore, claim 17 is rendered obvious.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De 1999 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shahidi et al. (Shahidi, F. & Costa de Camargo, A. (2016). Tocopherols and Tocotrienols in Common and Emerging Dietary Sources: Occurrence, Applications, and Health Benefits. Int J Mol Sci, 17(1745), pp. 1-29. doi:10.3390/ijms17101745).
Regarding claim 9, De 1999 teaches the food or beverage product of claim 1.
De 1999 does not discuss that the oil has at least 400 ppm of tocopherols.
As described in the “Claim Interpretation” above, the features of amounts of constituents such as tocopherols in the pongamia oil are non-limiting with respect to the final food or beverage product. Claim 9 only requires that there are tocopherols in the food or beverage composition.
In that regard, Shahidi teaches tocopherols are important in oils as antioxidants that play a major role in protecting mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids from oxidation, which may explain their high concentration in highly unsaturated edible oils (p. 2, ¶ 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add tocopherols to the food composition of De 1999. Since, De 1999 teaches the use of refined karanja oil in a food product (p. 332, “Introduction”, col. 2, ¶ 1), and Shahidi teaches that tocopherols are important antioxidants that protect oils from oxidation, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add tocopherols to the food or beverage product to protect it from oxidation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success for doing so because Shahidi teaches that tocopherols protect oils from oxidation.
Claim 9 is therefore rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Applicant has overcome the objections to the claims by amendment. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112:
Applicant’s amendments are insufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of the claims with regard to how percentages are claimed. The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as presented hereinabove.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s arguments (p. 8, ¶ 4 – p. 10) 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.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments concerning the features of the refined pongamia oil (p. 10), the claims are directed toward a food or beverage composition comprising a pongamia oil. Once the oil is added in any amount to the food or beverage base, one is unable to ascertain from where the claimed elements in the final food or beverage product originated (i.e., from the pongamia oil or from some other ingredient of the food or beverage composition). Upon addition of the pongamia oil to a food or beverage, the oil is subsumed into the overall composition such that ranges of components in the raw material product (i.e., the starting pongamia oil) are not directly at issue, particularly where no specific amount of added pongamia oil is required. The ranges in the starting material can still limit the claimed product, but patentability is based on the produced product per se, which does not require any component concentrations. Therefore, without setting forth the amounts of the claimed oil or claimed properties of the oil with respect to the final food or beverage composition, the ranges as claimed do not lend patentable weight to the invention as claimed (see above, “Claim Interpretation”).
Claims 1-4, 9-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as presented hereinabove.
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 James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793