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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/2026 has been entered.
Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-20 are pending with claims 13-19 withdrawn.
WITHDRAWN OBJECTIONS
All objections of record in the Office Action mailed 10/7/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 1/5/2026.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
All rejections of record in the Office Action mailed 10/7/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 1/5/2026.
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
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The phrase “providing a fat source” in claim 1, line 2 is new matter.
PNG
media_image1.png
86
254
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Original claim 1, filed 12/13/2022, states “providing a fat”.
PNG
media_image2.png
57
412
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The “providing a fat” language in original 1 infers a composition is provided.
The “fat source” language in the claims filed 1/5/2026 infers the “type oil seed” or “type of oil” that may be used to produce the fat.
Claims 1-3, 5-12 and 20 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 “fractionating the fat source” in Claim 1, line 6 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how a “source” can be fractionated as opposed to “fractionating a fat” or “fractionating an oil” or “fractionating the shea butter”.
PNG
media_image3.png
34
288
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Page 4, lines 6-7 of the Specification refers to “providing a fat consisting of shea butter” and “fractionating the shea butter”. The shea butter is not a source but rather a fat.
PNG
media_image4.png
72
578
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The phrase “blending the fat source in the step a) and the stearin fraction in the step b)” in Claim 1, line 10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how the “fat source in the step a)” can be blended because it does not exist after the fractionation in step b). Only fractions exist.
The fractionation in step b) has converted “one” “fat source” in step a) into “at least two” fractions in step b) with the stearin fraction produced being at least one of the fractions.
The phrase “wherein the fat composition comprises … based on the total triglycerides present in the fat source” in claim 1, lines 12-15 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how the claimed ranges are possible when step c) blends the fat source from step a) (100%) with a “stearin fraction” from step b) (more than 0%). The Stearin fraction in step b) may be 10% or 20% or 30% or 40% or 50% or some other value bringing the total % to in excess of 100%. It is impossible to blend the stearin fraction from step c) with the fat source in step a) as the fat source no longer exists after fractionation.
The phrase “26 oC stabilized fat” in claim 1, line 24 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear which fat is “26 oC stabilized fat”.
The phrase “wherein the fat composition comprises … based on the total triglycerides present in the fat source” in claim 8, lines 1-5 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how the claimed ranges are possible when step c) blends the fat source from step a) (100%) with a “stearin fraction” from step b) (more than 0%). The Stearin fraction in step b) may be 10% or 20% or 30% or 40% or 50% or some other value bringing the total % to in excess of 100%. It is impossible to blend the stearin fraction from step c) with the fat source in step a) as the fat source no longer exists after fractionation.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "shea butter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the shea butter".
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 January 23, 2026