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
2. Applicants’ arguments and amendments filed on 2/04/2026, overcomes the rejections of record. It is to be noted that examiner has found one new secondary prior art by Wheeler et al. USPN 5407695 which is used to strengthen the rejection in this office action. Prior secondary prior art by T Zand et al. is not used in this office action. However, the new grounds of rejection as set forth below are necessitated by applicants’ amendment and therefore, the following action is made non-final.
Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Status of the application
3. Claims 1-14 are pending in this office action.
Claims 1-14 have been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhaggan et al. US 2017/0071224 A1 in view of Wheeler et al. USPN 5407695 in view of Montefiori et al. EP 3245876 A1.
8. Regarding claims 1, 3, 8-13, if we interpret claim limitation of independent claim 1, it is known and is also evidenced by applicant’s specification that H type is saturated fatty acids belong to H type (in PGPUB, at least paragraphs [0054], [0055]).
Bhaggan et al. discloses a method for the preparation of a structuring fat -based on non-hydrogenated fats (low level of trans fat) ([0071], [0073]), the process includes various vegetable oils ([0063], [0064]) to meet claim 1. Bhaggan et al. also discloses that greater than 75% by weight palmitic and stearic acid is in the fat composition (at least in claim 1 of Bhaggan et al.). Bhaggan et al. also discloses that the palm oil mid fraction (50%) is an edible oil, non-hydrogenated, and the stearic acid (50%) by eight can be combined for the interesterification process (at least in Example 3, [0123], Table 1, Product 3) which meets claim 1.
It is to be noted that and as mentioned above that Bhaggan et al. discloses that a fat composition comprising greater than 75% by weight of palmitic and stearic acids (at least in [0011], [0045], [0046], claim 1, Table 3 of Bhaggan et al.).
Bhaggan et al. also discloses the triglyceride composition having SSS (e.g. StStSt 6.1 in Table 1, Ex 3) which meets less than 40% SSS as claimed in claim 1.
Therefore, Bhaggan et al. discloses (i) non-hydrogenated vegetable oil and (ii) a fatty acid mixture of H-type (i.e. Palmitic, Stearic) as claimed in claim 1.
Bhaggan et al. also discloses that non-hydrogenated vegetable oil can be any vegetable oil or mixtures other than palm oil or palm oil derived fraction (i.e. not palm oil) (at least in [0063], [0064]).
However, Bhaggan et al. is silent about the individual amounts of palmitic acid (C16:0) and stearic acid (C18:0) of the H-type i.e. saturated long chain fatty acid e.g. C16:0 and C18:0) in the transesterified fatty acid mixture, to be used to mix with non-hydrogenated vegetable oil to make claimed fat product as claimed in claim 1 and also “more than 90% by weight stearic acid” as claimed in claim 3.
Wheeler et al. discloses a fat blend for stick margarines is prepared by blending 25-80% by weight hardstock component with 75-20% by weight of the liquid edible oil component (col 8 lines 50-54) using preferred transesterification and interesterification method ( at least in col 7 lines 20-25).
Wheeler et al. also discloses that the method for the preparation of hardstock component is preferred are high in stearic acid ( col 8 lines 36-38 and 90% of the L moieties (col 10 lines 12-16) are derived from stearic acid while hardstock component comprise at least one of the LLS , SLS etc. (L=long chain C16-24 and S= short chain e.g. butyric, propionic acid etc.) (col 4 lines 43-67 and col 10 lines 12-16). Therefore, it meets claim 1 and “more than 90% by weight of stearin” as claimed in claim 3.
Wheeler et al. also discloses that the method for the preparation of hardstock component is low palmitic , trans-free fat and preferred at least about 40-65 mole% of the C16 palmitic (i.e. Long , ‘L’) is substituted by short (S) chain residues ( col 4 lines 20-23) and palmitic acid can be about 2.3% also ( col 13 lines 60-62) while in another example , stearic acid can be 96% and palmitic acid 4% (Example 4, col 5 lines 52-56).
It is to be noted that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have more stearic and less palmitic using any method including transesterification transesterification to prepare the product with a reasonable expectation of success to have the final hardstock composition having high stearic and low palmitic which will provide quality product having reduced risk of cardiovascular disease associated with an increase in LDL cholesterol by reducing palmitic acid (C 16:0) and increasing the weight ratio between stearic in total amount of saturated fatty acid mixture as disclosed by Montefiore et al. (at least in page 11, paragraphs 5 e.g. “Thanks to the high content…..and paragraph 7 e.g. “ Furthermore, according to the most well-known scientific theories…” ).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Bhaggan et al. (at least in Example 3, Table 1) with the teaching of Wheeler et al. to include transesterification method to make desired hardstock ( at least in col 7 lines 20-25) having higher amount of stearic acid and lower amount of palmitic acid in the fatty acid mixture ( col 4 lines 43-67 and col 8 lines 36-38 and col 10 lines 12-16) in order to have the final hardstock composition having quality of reduced risk of cardiovascular disease associated with an increase in LDL cholesterol by reducing palmitic acid (C 16:0) as disclosed by Montefiore et al. ((at least in page 11, paragraphs 5 e.g. “Thanks to the high content…..and paragraph 7 e.g. “ Furthermore, according to the most well-known scientific theories…” ) with desired melting point of the final product ( at least in [0130]) for specific application.
As discussed above,, if we consider at least this fraction to be used to modify Bhaggan et al. (Example 3, [0123], Table 1) with the disclosures by Wheeler et al. (at least in col 4 lines 45-67 e.g. col 4 line 45-47 teaches at least one of the SSL, SLS, LLS, and LSL where e.g. L=Long chain C16-24) having high stearic and low palmitic, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize to achieve the claimed invention of claim 1 including more than 50% by weight saturated fatty acid of C18:0 type at 2-position in the specific hardstock composition. It is considered as result effective variable.
As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of palmitic in Bhaggan et al. in view of Wheeler et al., to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. desired melting point and taste, texture etc. of the final product (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
9. Regarding claims 1 [claim 1(c)], claims 8-12, 13 (SFC), it is to be noted that the disclosed ingredients, transesterification reaction etc. as disclosed by Bhaggan et al. (at least Example 1, [0163] of Bhaggan et al.), it is identical to the claimed transesterification reaction etc. and therefore, it would have identical property of the claimed product of claim 1 of the presently claimed invention. It is also to be noted that the disclosed 1,3 specific lipase enzyme (e.g. in Bhaggan et al. 1,3, specific lipase in [0163], Ex 1), is identical to applicants 1, 3 specific lipases (in PGPUB, at least in 0062], Applicants specification).
10. Regarding claims 1 [claim 1 (c )], claims 6- 13, it is to be noted that if we consider the disclosures of claim 1 from which claims 6-13 depends, Bhaggan et al. (at least in Example 3, [0123], e.g. 1, 3 specific lipase , Table 1, Product 3 and claim 1 of Bhaggan et al.) in view of Wheeler et al. (at least in col 4 lines 45-67 e.g. col 4 line 45-47 teaches at least one of the SSL, SLS, LLS, and LSL where e.g. L=Long chain C16-24, col 7 lines 21-23, e.g. transesterification) having high stearic and low palmitic
11. Regarding claim 9, the discussion made for claims 1, 6-8 above is applicable here. In addition, Bhaggan et al. discloses that PStSt 27.7 and StStSt 6.1 (Table 1). However, they do not meet claim limitation of more than 50wt.% saturated fatty acids of the C18:0 type at the 2-position as claimed in claim 1 and also more than 60% by weight saturated fatty acid as claimed in claim 9.
It is also to be noted that the combinations of prior arts of record meet the claimed invention of claim 1 having high amount of stearic acid. Therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the transesterification reaction condition using non-hydrogenated vegetable oil and fatty acid mixture having high amount of stearic acid by which C18:0 type at the 2-position can be more than 50% by weight saturated fatty acid as claimed in claim 1 and also more than 60% by weight saturated fatty acid as claimed in claim 9. It is optimizable by optimizing the reaction condition of the transesterification reaction is applicable also.
12. Regarding claim 10, it is also to be noted that the parameters as claimed in claims 1 (c), 6,9,11, 12 is optimizable by optimizing the reaction condition of the transesterification reaction as claimed in claim 10.
As discussed above, if we consider the disclosures by Bhaggan et al. (at least in Table 1) and disclosures by Wheeler et al. (at least in col 4 lines 45-67 e.g. col 4 line 45-47 teaches at least one of the SSL, SLS, LLS, and LSL where e.g. L=Long chain C16-24) having high stearic and low palmitic as discussed above, It is considered one of ordinary skill I the art can optimize the transesterification and interesterification method and time to optimize to achieve desired proportion and amount of species in the specific hardstock composition. It is considered as result effective variable.
13. Regarding claim 13, Bhaggan et al. discloses the SFC content of the product (Table 1, ) . Bhaggan et al. is modified by Wheeler et al. as discussed above. Wheeler et al. discloses that the SFC of such a product can be at 50 degree F (i.e. 10 degree C) is 78.2% (Wheeler et al., at least in col 13 lines 18-19 ). This is considered as close to upper claim limit of 77 %. However, it is also optimizable.
The only deficiency of (reference name) is that Wheeler et al. disclose the 78.2% , while the present claims require 77%.
It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed amount of SFC content at 10 degree C is 77% and that taught by Wheeler et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the amount of 78.2% disclosed by Wheeler et al. and the amount disclosed in the present claims, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the amount of SFC content at 10 degree C is 77% disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the amounts disclosed in Wheeler et al. and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
15. Claims 1, 6-13 are optimizable.
Absent showing of unexpected results, the specific amount of enzyme and reaction condition (i.e. time and temperature) of claim 10 which determines the type and amount of triglycerides as claimed in claims 1 (c), 8-9, 11-12, 13 (SFC) is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the type and amount of triglycerides are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the type and amount of enzymes to perform transesterification and/or interesterification reactions (col 7 lines 20-22 of Wheeler et al., 1,3, specific lipase (Bhaggan et al. [0123]) and optimizing the time of reaction, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of enzyme, time of reaction in Bhaggan et al., to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. desired combinations of triglycerides in the final product. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
16. Regarding claim 2, Bhaggan et al. also discloses that non-hydrogenated vegetable oil can be any vegetable oil or mixtures thereof other than palm oil or palm oil derived fraction (at least in [0063], [0064]).
17. Regarding claim 4, regarding the ratio, it is to be noted that Bhaggan et al. discloses that the ratio between oil and stearic acid is 1:1 (at least in Example 3, [0123]). Bhaggan et al. also discloses that greater than 75% by weight palmitic and stearic acid (at least in claim 1 of Bhaggan et al.) is present. Wheeler et al. discloses a fat blend for stick margarines is prepared by blending 25-80% by weight hardstock component with 75-20% by weight of the liquid edible oil component (col 8 lines 50-54 , at least in col 7 lines 20-25). Therefore, the ratio meets claim 4.
It is also optimizable.
As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of fatty acid mixture in Bhaggan et al, to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. desired 1:1 ratio of palm oil mid fraction : stearic acid in the reaction mixture of Bhaggan et al. ([0163], Ex 1) (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
18. Regarding claim 5, if we consider at least the disclosures by Bhaggan et al. (at least in Example 3, Table 1, having 1,3 specific lipase) in view of Wheeler et al. (e.g. ‘transesterification and interesterification method’ in at least in col 7 lines 20-25), it can be one-stop transesterification step. It is evidenced by applicant’s own specification that 1,3 specific lipase also participates in transesterification reaction (at least in PGPUB [0211], [0216]).
19. Regarding claims 8, 12, if we consider the amounts of different triglyceride obtained as disclosed by Bhaggan et al. (at least in Table 1, examples 3,4 claims 5-11, 15) it meets the subject-matter of claim 12.
20. Regarding claim 14, Bhaggan et al. (Example 3, [0123] and in claims 1,5 of Bhaggan et al.) in view of Wheeler et al. ( transesterification and interesterification method ( at least in col 7 lines 20-25) meet the claim limitation of “ blending and/or interesterifying the triglyceride of claim 11” as claimed in claim 14.
Response to arguments
21. Applicants’ arguments and amendment of claim 14 overcome the 112 (b) and 101 rejections made for the prior “Use claim 14”.
22. It is to be noted that examiner has found one new secondary prior art by Wheeler et al. USPN 5407695 which is used to strengthen the rejection in this office action. Prior secondary prior art by T Zand et al. is not used in this office action. Therefore, the arguments made by T Zand et al. is considered as moot. As because the new ground of rejection is not due to amendment, therefore the rejection is made as non-final.
23. (i) Applicants argued on second page, second paragraph, last few lines and third page first few lines that “ As conceded by the Office, Bhaggan centers on palm mid-fraction systems and SOS-/POS-type outcomes with low SSS, not Applicant's non-palm, high-sn-2-stearic pathway. Montefiori concerns finished spreads and asymmetrical triglyceride distributions and health-oriented S/P balances, not about Applicant's specific sn-2 C18:0 enrichment and TAG-ratio/SSS constraints through 2017esterification with free H-type acids. See, e.g., Montefiori, at page 5 ("Preferably, the food composition has a weight ratio between the content of stearic acid and the content of palmitic acid comprised between 60:40 and 20:80, more preferably comprised between 50:50 and 30:70, even more preferably comprised between 45:55 and 35:65.").
(ii) Applicants also argued that Montefiore does not teach the transesterification of non- palm oil (in Remarks, page 5, third paragraph).
In response to (i) and (ii), it is to be noted that the applicants are arguing against the references individually. Independent claim 1 broadly claims 1 and 50 wt.% of palmitic acid. However, Bhaggan et al. also discloses that non-hydrogenated vegetable oil can be any vegetable oil or mixtures thereof other than palm oil or palm oil derived fraction (at least in [0063], [0064]). It is also to be noted that Bhaggan et al. (at least Example 1, [0163] of Bhaggan et al.). Montefiore et al. is not used to teach ‘the transesterification of non- palm oil (in Remarks, page 5, third paragraph)’. Montefiore et al. is further addressed below (item # 27 below).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this instance. independent claim 1 broadly claims 1 and 50 wt.% of palmitic acid. Bhaggan et al. discloses that non-hydrogenated vegetable oil can be any vegetable oil or mixtures thereof other than palm oil or palm oil derived fraction (at least in [0063], [0064]). Montefiore et al. is not used to teach ‘the transesterification of non- palm oil (in Remarks, page 5, third paragraph)’. Montefiore et al. is further addressed below.
24. Applicants argued on third page, last few lines that “ Applicant's claimed processes and compositions are by no means a simple range-tuning exercise of any one or more variables. The claimed invention features deliberately pushing sn-2 C18:0 above 50-60% in a non-palm system while still limiting SSS to <40% and achieving a specific TAG ratio and SFC profile-and doing so via enzymatic transesterification with a highly stearic free-fatty-acid mixture at defined mixture-to-oil ratios and defined temperature/time/enzyme windows”.
In response, it is to be noted that it is already addressed by the combined teaching that combined teachings disclose the above claimed invention. However, claim 1 does not claim “non-palm system” as discussed above. However, as discussed above, Bhaggan et al. discloses that non-hydrogenated vegetable oil can be any vegetable oil or mixtures thereof other than palm oil or palm oil derived fraction (at least in [0063], [0064]).
Unexpected Result:
25. Applicants argued on third page, last paragraph and fourth page first paragraph that,
(i) Applicants achieved an increased sn-2 C 18:0 to >50-60% by weight by driving deeper randomization into the sn-2 position over extended times at about 70 -degree C.
This leads to predominantly 1,3-substitution and fats high in SUS, whereas the present processes "additionally provide for randomization to the 2-position which leads to an elevated sn-2 saturation reduces POP/SOS formation (associated with sandiness), while constraining SSS avoids waxiness . The specification (page 8, 11.32-33 and (page 11, 11.1-3).
(ii) “Applicants made purposeful sn-2 enrichment with H-type (especially C18:0) by prolonged enzymatic transesterification, the specification (page 9, II.29-36) teaches that "prolonged reaction time (more than 6, more than 12, more than 24 hours) led to an increase of the % of saturated fatty acids …at the 2-position.)
(iii) Applicants also argued that the examples (e.g., example 10 on page 19) show that with the claimed process and composition window, spreads/hard stocks exhibit good stability and no graininess or sandiness under cycling tests.
In response, it is to be noted that independent claim 1 is broad. Independent claim 1 does not claim any specific reaction condition including specifications of the type of transesterification reaction and type of one or more than one lipase specific enzyme used in the transesterification reaction etc. as alleged by the applicants above.
Therefore, at this time, as in the case, the combinations of prior arts of record teach the identical composition, the properties applicant claims (i.e. the ability to simultaneously reduce both sourness and bitterness) are necessarily present (id.). Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable.
Also, the reaction condition is optimizable and addressed in the office action to reject respective dependent claims including claim 10 .
It is to be noted that the above arguments as argued (in remarks , pages 4, 6 ) is considered to establish unexpected result. However, the above arguments with respect to establishment of criticality of the claimed invention cannot establish criticality of the claimed invention of independent broad claim 1 to show unexpected result.
Applicants contends that the increased sn-2 C 18:0 to >50-60% by weight by driving deeper randomization into the sn-2 position over extended times at about 70 degree C is achieved by the applicant’s and it is not disclosed by the combined teachings of prior arts of record which is to be considered as an unexpected result. However, Applicant’s has the burden of showing unexpected results. In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324 (CCPA 1973); In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080 (CCPA 1972). Such burden requires applicants to establish factual evidence that actually shows unexpected results relative to the closest prior art (see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 392 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In this instance, Bhaggan et al. is the closest prior art . Also, the unexpected results should reasonably commensurate in scope with the protection sought for independent claim 1 ( In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 743 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035 (CCPA 1980); In re Hyson, 453 F.2d 764, 786 (CCPA 1972). The extent of the showing relied upon by the applicant must reasonably support the entire scope of the independent claim 1 at issue [ (See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2005)].
The arguments made by Applicants fail, inter alia, because they are not commensurate in scope with independent broad claim 1. In particular, the claim covers compositions containing a very large range amount of stearic and palmitic acid containing H type (saturated) fatty acid undergoing broadly claimed transesterification reaction. Moreover, the arguments with the examples as made by the applicant provides specific reaction conditions including specific enzyme containing specific transesterification reaction which includes 1,3 lipase and also alleged deeper randomization using random lipase (([In PGPUB 0211]-0217]) in order to achieve increased sn-2 C 18:0 to >50-60% by weight by driving deeper randomization into the sn-2 position over extended times at about 70 degree C is achieved by the applicant’s and it is not disclosed by the combined teachings of prior arts of record (in Remarks, pages 3-4) . Thus, regardless of the specific data provided by the applicant, it is not commensurate in scope with the claim 1. Evidence of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the subject matter claimed. In re Linder 173 USPQ 356. More importantly, the evidence of unexpected results must be clear and convincing. In re Lohr 137 USPQ 548. Also, to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside (i.e. as well as the upper and lower limits) the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 716.02.
26. Applicants also argued on fifth page that Montefiore does not teach the transesterification of non- palm oil (in Remarks, page 5, third paragraph).
In response, at least Example 1, [0163] of primary prior art by Bhaggan et al., discloses (at least Example 1, [0163] ) transesterification step. Bhaggan et al. also discloses that non-hydrogenated vegetable oil can be any vegetable oil or mixtures thereof other than palm oil or palm oil derived fraction (at least in [0063], [0064]). Secondary prior art teaches a certain concept, namely fatty acid composition (H type) having high Stearic acid and low palmitic acid, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention and discussed .
Montefiore et al. is used as secondary prior art to strengthen the teaching suggestive motivation (TSM) to teach that the final hardstock composition with a reduced palmitic acid (C 16:0) and increasing the weight ratio between stearic in total amount of saturated fatty acid mixture provides quality product to reduce risk of cardiovascular disease associated with an increase in LDL cholesterol when consumed as desired type of fat product in food composition (at least in page 11, paragraphs 5 e.g. “Thanks to the high content…..and paragraph 7 e.g. “ Furthermore, according to the most well-known scientific theories…” ).
However, note that while Montefiore et al. does not disclose all the features of the present claimed invention, Montefiore et al. is used as teaching reference, and therefore, it is not necessary for this secondary reference to contain all the features of the presently claimed invention, In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973), In re Keller 624 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Rather this reference teaches a certain concept, namely the beneficial effect of an increased weight ratio between stearic in total amount of saturated fatty acid mixture provides quality product to reduce risk of cardiovascular disease associated with an increase in LDL cholesterol when consumed as desired type of fat product in food composition, and in combination with the primary reference, discloses the presently claimed invention.
The rejection is made non-final.
Conclusion
27. Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay whose telephone number is (571)-270-1139.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, 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.
/BHASKAR MUKHOPADHYAY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights