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 ACTION
Status of Claims
Note: The amendment of September 18th 2025 has been considered.
Claims 1, 7 and 8 have been amended.
Claim 6 was cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 8 are pending and examined in the current application.
Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In view of the amendment filed on September 18th 2025, the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC §103 has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kawasaki et al., (CN101801204B) (see discussion, below).
The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki et al., (CN101801204B).
Regarding claims 1-5, 7 and 8: Kawasaki discloses cooking food in roasted/burned oil (e.g., roasted rapeseed oil, roasted sesame oil) (see Kawasaki abstract; page 2, bottom paragraph to page 3 paragraph 7; page 4, 3rd paragraph from the bottom to page 5, paragraph 4). While Kawasaki fails to disclose the sulfur content of the oils and foods, given the fact Kawasaki discloses using roasted oil that is the similar to the oil recited in the claims, it is examiner’s position the reduction in sulfur-containing-compound of volatile compounds from fried foods would flow naturally from implementing the method of using roasted/burned cooking oil, as suggested in the prior art. As set forth in MPEP §2145, the fact that applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment filed on September 18th 2025, the rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 USC §103 has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kawasaki et al., (CN101801204B) (see discussion, above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792