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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/22/26 has been entered.
Claims 1,3,5,7 are amended and claims 4,8-9 are cancelled. Claims 1-3,5-7 and 10-13 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1,3, 5,7 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 is vague and indefinite. It is not clear if the “ wherein after 2g of … clause” is described a process of making a fat mixture or what; it is also unclear how this fat mixture is connected to the processed edible powder. Claim 1 does not recite any canola oil or any oil or fat. ( for art application, the viscosity is not considered as part of the claimed limitation because the viscosity is only present when the fat solidifier is mixed with canola oil, heated and cooled). The claimed powder does not recite any canola oil or any heating or cooling step.
Claims 3, 5,7 have the same problem as claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3,5-7,10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoji ( jp 2005185122).
For claim 1, Shoji discloses processed edible powder comprising starch and glycerol organic acid fatty acid ester. The glycerin organic acid fatty acid ester is the same as on the claimed oil and fat solidifier. ( see abstract, page 2 paragraph under the tech solution heading)
For claim 2, Shoji discloses adding .003-10% by mass of starch. ( see page 3 under best mode)
For claim 5, Shoji discloses a method for forming the edible powder by mixing the glycerin organic fatty acid ester with the starch. ( see page 3 under best mode)
For claim 6, Shoji discloses adding .003-10% by mass by mass of starch. ( see page 3 under best mode)
For claim 10, Shoji discloses fry coating material comprising the processed powder containing starch and glycerin organic fatty acid ester. ( see abstract)
For claims 11-13, Shoji discloses a method for forming fried food in which the processed powder is added. ( see abstract, page 5). The method comprises the step of adding the processed powder. Thus, whatever property resulting from the addition is present in the prior art. Furthermore, the improving of texture is in the preamble which does not limit the body of the claim.
Shoji does not disclose the feature of the oil and fat solidifier as in claims 1,5, 3,7. However, the limitation on the viscosity and the measuring of the fat solidifier is not deemed to be limiting because the claims are directed only to the powder. The property of the solidifier is measurement during an intended use which does not determine the patentability of the product. The product does not contain canola oi. The property on the viscosity is only obtained when the solidifier is mixed with oil, heated and cooled. None of these features are in claimed powder.
With respect to method claims 5-7, the claims recite processing steps to make the edible powder. Shoji discloses heating. The testing of the solidifier is not part of the processing steps to make the powder. Thus, it’s not considered part of the claims. It’s an intended use of the solidifier which does not determine the patentability of the method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues the viscosity is not obviously inherent. Applicant points to the affidavit. The argument is not persuasive. The limitation on the viscosity and the measuring of the fat solidifier is not deemed to be limiting because the claims are directed only to the powder. The property of the solidifier is a measurement during an intended use of the solidifier which does not determine the patentability of the product. The product does not contain canola oi. The property on the viscosity is only obtained when the solidifier is mixed with oil, heated and cooled. None of these features are in claimed powder. With respect to method claims 5-7, the claims recite processing steps to make the edible powder. Shoji discloses heating. The testing of the solidifier is not part of the processing steps to make the powder. Thus, it’s not considered part of the claims. It’s an intended use of the solidifier which does not determine the patentability of the method.
The affidavit is not persuasive. The affidavit states on page 3 that the examples 1-3 in Shoji do not have the viscosity as claimed. As explained above, the viscosity is not considered to be part of the claimed limitation. Furthermore, the affidavit only shows the examples which are only exemplified embodiments. Shoji discloses other polyglycerin organic fatty acid esters such as glycerin acetic acid fatty ester, glycerin lactate fatty acid ester. It’s also unclear how the viscosity or gelation is significant to the edible powder in claim 1 or the method of making the edible powder because the powder is a solid which would not exhibit any viscosity. The limitation is the same as an intended use which does not determine the patentability of the product or the method which only requires the step of mixing solidifier with an edible powder. The showing in the affidavit also does not commensurate in scope with the claims. Material A is identifies as mono and diglycerides of fatty acid ester. There are not recited in the claims. It’s unclear if material A is the same as glycerin fatty acid because glycerin fatty acid is not necessarily mono or diglycerides of fatty acid ester. The test sample shown on page 4 in which 38 g of canola oil is mixed with 2 g of material A does not reflect the claims because the powder is not claimed to have 38 g of canola oil. The basis of the affidavit is not understood. The photographs shown in the affidavits are very unclear. The showing of test product 1 in which a mixture of canola oil with material A is added to cornstarch dry mass does not commensurate in scope with the claims. The claims do not recite adding a mixture of canola oil and solidifier to corn starch. Thus, the testing on the product on table I does not reflect the claimed product or method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
September 4, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights