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 April 20th 2026 has been considered.
Claims 1 has been amended.
Claims 2 and 6 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-5, 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Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn.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In view of the amendment filed on April 20th 2026, the rejection of claims 1-5, 7 and 8 under 35 USC §103 has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Morano et al., (USPatPub. 2015/0173388 A1) (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 Morano et al., (USPatPub. 2015/0173388 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7 and 8: Morano discloses cooking oil for frying vegetables/meat that is prepared by a degumming step, a deoxidation step, a decolorizing step, a dewaxing step and a deodorization step (see Morano abstract; paragraphs [0006] and [0030]). While Morano fails to disclose the sulfur species present in the oil and foods, the sulfur content of the oil and foods, or the reduction of sulfur contents, given the fact Morano discloses using cooking oil that is the similar to the oil recited in the claims, and since impurities are removed from crude oil by degumming and deodorization steps, 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 the cooking oil from Morano to cook food, 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In view of the amendment filed on April 20th 2026, the rejection of claims 1-5, 7 and 8 under 35 USC §103 has been withdrawn. However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Morano et al., (USPatPub. 2015/0173388 A1) (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 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 at (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 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.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights