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 .
Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-23 are pending with claims 8-16 withdrawn.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
All rejections of record in the Office Action mailed 4/8/2026 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 7/8/2026.
NEW OBJECTIONS
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The phrase “55% to 70% based on total percentage of … total palmitic acid including acyl groups and free fatty acids” in claim 1, lines 8-9 is not described in the text of the Specification. Applicant is advised to consider amending the text of the Specification to incorporate this language while being careful not to add new matter.
The phrase “60% to 70% based on total percentage of … total palmitic acid including acyl groups and free fatty acids” in claim 19, lines 3-4 is not described in the text of the Specification. Applicant is advised to consider amending the text of the Specification to incorporate this language while being careful not to add new matter.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant appears to have misplaced the language “(SN-2 of C16:0)” in multiple locations in the Specification.
PNG
media_image1.png
24
475
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It appears this phrase should state:
“the second position of triglyceride (SN-2 of C16:0) out of total palmitic acid”
The “SN-2” language is the abbreviation of “second position” and not an abbreviation of “total palmitic acid”.
Applicant correctly uses this language at claim 19.
PNG
media_image2.png
106
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The errors are in the following locations in the Specification:
See p. 3, paragraph 1
See p. 5, paragraph 5
See p. 5, paragraph 6
See p. 6, paragraph 1
See p. 6, paragraph 2
See p. 9, paragraph 4
See p. 9, paragraph 5
See p. 10, paragraph 2
See p. 10, paragraph 3
See p. 11, paragraph 5
See p. 13, paragraph 3
See p. 13, paragraph 5
See p. 14, paragraph 2
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 8 refers to “percentage” instead of “percentages” line used in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
PNG
media_image3.png
60
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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
Claims 1-3 and 5-23 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 “55% to 70% based on total percentage of … total palmitic acid including acyl groups and free fatty acids” in claim 1, lines 8-9 is new matter.
PNG
media_image4.png
54
602
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The disclosure as filed does not set forth this basis.
Page 6, first paragraph of the Specification sets for a basis of “total palmitic acid” and not as Applicant sets forth in the claims.
PNG
media_image5.png
191
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant does not state where support is for the amendment made 7/8/2026.
The phrase “60% to 70% based on total percentage of … total palmitic acid including acyl groups and free fatty acids” in claim 19, lines 3-4 is new matter.
PNG
media_image2.png
106
592
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The disclosure as filed does not set forth this basis.
Page 6, first paragraph of the Specification sets for a basis of “total palmitic acid” and not as Applicant sets forth in the claims.
PNG
media_image5.png
191
598
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Applicant does not state where support is for the amendment made 7/8/2026.
Claims 1-3 and 5-23 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 “wherein the fat composition comprises at most 5.0% by weight of PPP triglycerides and has a weight ratio of OPL triglycerides to OPO triglycerides of from 0.95 to 1.3 based on the total glycerides present in the fat composition” in claim 1, lines 10-12 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how the ratio can be based on anything other than the total amount of OPL and OPO triglycerides. The phrase “total glycerides” includes monoglycerides, diglycerides and triglycerides. The other triglycerides may also include PPP which do not play any part in the ratio.
PNG
media_image6.png
248
656
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Some of the dependent claims positively set forth OPL and OPO triglycerides, but claim 1 does not. Claim 1 has a ratio of OPL and OPO which is impossible because of the impossible basis.
The phrase “fat composition … linoleic acid” in claim 1, lines 1-13 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear if the composition includes any triglycerides at but rather a composition largely of fatty acids.
Nowhere in the claim does it state any triglycerides are present.
Lines 7-8 refers to the SN-2 which seems to indicate there may be triglycerides, however, Applicant deleted the “triglycerides” language in line 9 and replaced with “acyl groups”. Acyl groups does not require triglycerides but may just include monoglycerides and/or diglycerides.
PNG
media_image6.png
248
656
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Line 10 states “at most 5.0% by weight of PPP triglycerides”. This phrase includes 0% PPP.
Line 11 refers to a ratio of OPL and OPO however the ratio is “based on the total glycerides” which appears to an impossible basis. It appears the ratio can only be based on OPL and OPO.
The phrase “triglyceride … 60% to 70% based on total percentage of … total palmitic acid including acyl groups and free fatty acids” in claim 19, lines 2-4 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how these percentages are possible as the claims do not positively set forth that the composition includes any triglycerides. Claim 19 does not have an antecedent basis back to claim 1 with respect to any triglycerides.
The phrase “ratio of the OPL triglycerides to the OPO triglycerides of from 1.0 to 1.2 based on the total glycerides present in the fat composition” in claim 23, lines 2-3 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how the ratio can be based on anything other than the total amount of OPL and OPO triglycerides and not other triglycerides.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
The limitations of the amended/new claims 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 July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights