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 .
The amendment filed September 28, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 are pending in the application. Claims 2 and 4-7 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1 and 3, in the reply filed on September 28, 2025 is acknowledged. Because Applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 2 and 4-7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 119 and 121 in Fig. 2B. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 at line 3, it is suggested to amend “High Omega” to “high omega” (lower case) after “more” and before “(ꞷ3)”.
In claim 1 at line 3, it is suggested to amend “Vegetable Oil” to “vegetable oil” (lower case) after “containing” and before “(HOVO)”.
In claim 1 at lines 16-17, it is recommended to replace “equations (1) through (5) and their variations” with the following:
“(1) (ω6HOVO×V HOVO)+Σi=1 n(ω6i×V_oili)=ω6Blend×V Blend,
(1a) (ω6HOVO1×V HOVO1)+ (ω6HOVO2×V HOVO2)+Σi=1 n(ω6i×V_oili)=ω6Blend×V Blend,
(1b) (ω6HOVO×V HOVO)+(ω61×V_oil1) +(ω62×V_oil2) +(ω63×V_oil3)=ω6Blend×V Blend,
(2) (ω3HOVO×VHOVO)+ Σi=1 n(ω3iλV_oili)=ω3Blend×VBlend,
(2a) (ω3HOVO1×V HOVO1)+ (ω3HOVO2×V HOVO2)+Σi=1 n(ω3i×V_oili)=ω3Blend×V Blend,
(2b) (ω3HOVO×V HOVO)+(ω31×V_oil1) +(ω32×V_oil2) +(ω33×V_oil3)=ω3Blend×V Blend,
(3) VBlend =VHOVO + Σi=1 n(V_oili),
(3a) VBlend =VHOVO1 + VHOVO2Σi=1 n(V_oili),
(3b) VBlend =VHOVO + V_oil1 + V_oil2 + V_oil3,
(4) p×ω6Blend =q×ω3Blend,
(4a) ω6Blend = ω3Blend,
(4b) 2×ω6Blend = ω3Blend,
(4c) ω6Blend =2×ω3Blend,
(5a)
PNG
media_image1.png
57
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, or
(5b)
PNG
media_image2.png
55
343
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
wherein
ω6HOVO is the amount of omega 6 fatty acid in HOVO in mg per mL;
ω3HOVO is the amount of omega 3 fatty acid in HOVO in mg per mL;
ω6i is the amount of omega 6 fatty acid in vegetable oil i to be blended with HOVO in mg per mL;
ω3i is the amount of omega 3 fatty acid in vegetable oil i to be blended with HOVO in mg per mL;
VHOVO is the volume of HOVO in the blend in mL;
V_oili is the volume of each oil i to be blended with HOVO in the blend in mL;
i is a number from 1 to n representing each vegetable oil to be blended with HOVO;
n is a total number of vegetable oils to be blended with HOVO;
VBlend is a total volume of the vegetable oil blend in mL;
ω6Blend is a total omega 6 fatty acid content in a vegetable oil blend in mg per mL;
ω3Blend is a total omega 3 fatty acid content in a vegetable oil blend in mg per mL;
p and q are full integers or fractional numbers;
PUFAHOVO is an amount of polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) in HOVO in mg per mL;
MUFAHOVO is an amount of monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) in HOVO in mg per mL;
PUFAi is an amount of PUFA in vegetable oil i that is to be blended with HOVO in mg per mL;
MUFAi is an amount of MUFA in vegetable oil i that is to be blended with HOVO in mg per mL;
PUFABlend is a total amount of PUFA in a vegetable oil blend in mg per mL;
MUFABlend is a total amount of MUFA in a vegetable oil blend in mg per mL;
ω6HOVO1 and ω6HOVO2 are the amount of omega 6 fatty acid in HOVO1 and HOVO2, respectively, in mg per mL;
ω3HOVO1 and ω3HOVO2 are the amounts of omega 3 fatty acid in HOVO1 and HOVO2, respectively, in mg per mL;
VHOVO1 and VHOVO2 are the volumes of HOVO1 and HOVO2, respectively, in the blend in mL;
ω61, ω62, and ω63 are the amounts of omega 6 fatty acid in vegetable oil 1, vegetable oil 2, and vegetable oil 3, respectively, to be blended with HOVO in mg per mL;
ω31, ω32, and ω33 are the amounts of omega 3 fatty acid in vegetable oil 1, vegetable oil 2, and vegetable oil 3, respectively, to be blended with HOVO in mg per mL; and
V_oil1, V_oil2, and V_oil3 are the volumes of vegetable oil 1, vegetable oil 2, and vegetable oil 3, respectively, to be blended with HOVO in the blend in mL;”
In claim 3 at line 1, it is suggested to amend “methods” to “method” after “The” and before “of” to correct the typographical error.
In claim 8 at line 1, it is suggested to amend “methods” to “method” after “The” and before “of” to correct the typographical error.
In claim 9 at line 1, it is suggested to amend “methods” to “method” after “The” and before “of” to correct the typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 9 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.
Independent claim 1 recites “A method is developed that enables the formulation and the production of one or more or several vegetable oil blend(s) that consist of precise amounts of one or more High Omega 3 (ꞷ3) fatty acid containing Vegetable Oil (HOVO), such as including but not limited to flaxseed oil, with precise amounts of one or more of the low omega 3 (ꞷ3) and/or high omega 6 (ꞷ6) fatty acid containing vegetable oils, and/or vegetable oil(s) containing none or very low omega 3 (ꞷ3) and/or omega 6 (ꞷ6) fatty acids, selected from olive oil, coconut oil, avocado oil, safflower oil, rapeseed (canola) oil, sunflower oil, peanut oil, sesame oil, corn oil, soybean oil, cottonseed oil, grapeseed oil, walnut oil and so on and combinations thereof such that the resulting oil blend provides omega 6:omega 3 (ꞷ6: ꞷ3) fatty acid ratio, not limited to but including, of 1:1, 1:2, 2:1, 1.5:1,1:1.5, and more” at lines 1-11. It is unclear what is intended by this recitation. More specifically, it is unclear what is encompassed by the recitation of “is developed that enables the formulation and the production of one or more or several vegetable oil blends” at lines 1-2 and how this language is figured into the claimed method. Also, the recitation of “the formulation” and “the production” at line 1 and “the low omega 3” at line 4 lack antecedent basis since formulation, production, and low omega 3 have not previously been recited in the claim. Additionally, the phrase "such as" at line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). The phrases "including but not limited to" at lines 3-4, “and so on” at line 9, and “not limited to but including” at line 10 render the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "not limited to" and “and so on”), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). The recitation of "rapeseed (canola) oil" at line 7 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations within the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention. Further, the recitation of “very low omega 3” at line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is encompassed by “very low”, it is uncertain what quantity of omega 3 is needed to achieve to achieve “very low”, and the metes and bounds of the language cannot be readily ascertained. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “A method … of 1:1, 1:2, 2:1, 1.5:1,1:1.5, and more” at lines 1-11 of claim 1 is interpreted as “A method of producing of one or more vegetable oil blend(s) that consist of precise amounts of one or more high omega 3 (ꞷ3) fatty acid containing vegetable oil (HOVO) and precise amounts of one or more of low omega 3 (ꞷ3) and/or high omega 6 (ꞷ6) fatty acid containing vegetable oils, and/or vegetable oil(s) that contain no or low amounts of omega 3 (ꞷ3) and/or omega 6 (ꞷ6) fatty acids, selected from olive oil, coconut oil, avocado oil, safflower oil, rapeseed oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, peanut oil, sesame oil, corn oil, soybean oil, cottonseed oil, grapeseed oil, walnut oil and combinations thereof such that the resulting oil blend provides omega 6:omega 3 (ꞷ6: ꞷ3) fatty acid ratio of 1:1, 1:2, 2:1, 1.5:1,1:1.5, or more”.
Claim 1 also recites “wherein the method offers the ability to control and modify the amounts of ꞷ6 and ꞷ3 fatty acids, each varying from, including but not limited to, 100mg to 3000mg, depending on the amounts of these fatty acids desired in the final blend while maintaining the desired ꞷ6: ꞷ3 fatty acid ratio in the vegetable oil blend” at lines 12-15. It is unclear what is encompassed by this recitation. More specifically, it is unclear what is intended by the recitation of “the method offers the ability to control and modify the amounts of ꞷ6 and ꞷ3” at lines 12-13, and the step(s) involved in the method are unclear. Additionally, the phrase "including but not limited to" at line 13 renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "not limited to"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). Further, the recitation of “depending on the amount of these fatty acids desired in the final blend while maintaining the desired ꞷ6:ꞷ3 fatty acid ratio in the vegetable oil blend” at lines 14-15 renders the claim indefinite since the phrase depends solely on the subjective opinion of the person selecting the vegetable oil blend(s). Further, the specification fails to provide any reasonably clear and exclusive guidance or boundaries for this recitation. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “wherein the method… in the vegetable oil blend” at lines 12-15 in claim 1 is interpreted as “wherein the method comprises controlling and modifying the amounts of ꞷ6 and ꞷ3 fatty acids while maintaining the ꞷ6:ꞷ3 fatty acid ratio in the vegetable oil blend(s)”.
Claim 1 additionally recites “wherein the blend composition is determined using the set of equations, equations (1) through (5) and their variations, the known values of fatty acids and oil nutrients such as ꞷ6 and ꞷ3 fatty acids for the individual oils to be blended, along with the solution and simulation strategy, including but not limited to, the one presented in this invention, along with, including but not limited to, various constraints, as described in this invention” at lines 16-20. It is unclear what is encompassed by this recitation. More specifically, it is unclear what is intended by the recitation of “wherein the blend composition is determined using the set of equations, equations (1) through (5) and their variations” at lines 16-17 and “along with the solution and simulation strategy” at lines 18-19, and the step(s) involved in the method are unclear. Additionally, it is uncertain what the recitation of “the known values of fatty acids and oil nutrients” at line 17 and “various constraints” at line 20 entail and how this language is figured into the claimed method. Also, the phrase "such as" at lines 17-18 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). The phrase "including but not limited to" at line 19 and line 20 renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "not limited to"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable (see MPEP § 2173.05(d)). Further, the recitation of “the blend composition” and “the set of equations” at line 16, “the known values” at line 17, “the individual oils” at line 18, “the solution and simulation strategy” at lines 18-19, and “the one presented” at line 19 lack antecedent basis as there is no previous recitation of a blend composition, a set of equations, known values, individual oils, solution and simulation strategy and one presented in the claim. Therefore, the scope of claim 1 is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “wherein the blend composition…in this invention” at lines 16-20 in claim 1 is interpreted as “wherein the one or more vegetable oil blend(s) is determined using a set of equations, wherein the equations include:
(1) (ω6HOVO×V HOVO)+Σi=1 n(ω6i×V_oili)=ω6Blend×V Blend,
(1a) (ω6HOVO1×V HOVO1)+ (ω6HOVO2×V HOVO2)+Σi=1 n(ω6i×V_oili)=ω6Blend×V Blend,
(1b) (ω6HOVO×V HOVO)+(ω61×V_oil1) +(ω62×V_oil2) +(ω63×V_oil3)=ω6Blend×V Blend,
(2) (ω3HOVO×VHOVO)+ Σi=1 n(ω3iλV_oili)=ω3Blend×VBlend,
(2a) (ω3HOVO1×V HOVO1)+ (ω3HOVO2×V HOVO2)+Σi=1 n(ω3i×V_oili)=ω3Blend×V Blend,
(2b) (ω3HOVO×V HOVO)+(ω31×V_oil1) +(ω32×V_oil2) +(ω33×V_oil3)=ω3Blend×V Blend,
(3) VBlend =VHOVO + Σi=1 n(V_oili),
(3a) VBlend =VHOVO1 + VHOVO2Σi=1 n(V_oili),
(3b) VBlend =VHOVO + V_oil1 + V_oil2 + V_oil3,
(4) p×ω6Blend =q×ω3Blend,
(4a) ω6Blend = ω3Blend,
(4b) 2×ω6Blend = ω3Blend,
(4c) ω6Blend =2×ω3Blend,
(5a)
PNG
media_image1.png
57
336
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, or
(5b)
PNG
media_image2.png
55
343
media_image2.png
Greyscale
,
wherein
ω6HOVO is the amount of omega 6 fatty acid in HOVO in mg per mL;
ω3HOVO is the amount of omega 3 fatty acid in HOVO in mg per mL;
ω6i is the amount of omega 6 fatty acid in vegetable oil i to be blended with HOVO in mg per mL;
ω3i is the amount of omega 3 fatty acid in vegetable oil i to be blended with HOVO in mg per mL;
VHOVO is the volume of HOVO in the blend in mL;
V_oili is the volume of each oil i to be blended with HOVO in the blend in mL;
i is a number from 1 to n representing each vegetable oil to be blended with HOVO;
n is a total number of vegetable oils to be blended with HOVO;
VBlend is a total volume of the vegetable oil blend in mL;
ω6Blend is a total omega 6 fatty acid content in a vegetable oil blend in mg per mL;
ω3Blend is a total omega 3 fatty acid content in a vegetable oil blend in mg per mL;
p and q are full integers or fractional numbers;
PUFAHOVO is an amount of polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) in HOVO in mg per mL;
MUFAHOVO is an amount of monounsaturated fatty acid (MUFA) in HOVO in mg per mL;
PUFAi is an amount of PUFA in vegetable oil i that is to be blended with HOVO in mg per mL;
MUFAi is an amount of MUFA in vegetable oil i that is to be blended with HOVO in mg per mL;
PUFABlend is a total amount of PUFA in a vegetable oil blend in mg per mL;
MUFABlend is a total amount of MUFA in a vegetable oil blend in mg per mL;
ω6HOVO1 and ω6HOVO2 are the amount of omega 6 fatty acid in HOVO1 and HOVO2, respectively, in mg per mL;
ω3HOVO1 and ω3HOVO2 are the amounts of omega 3 fatty acid in HOVO1 and HOVO2, respectively, in mg per mL;
VHOVO1 and VHOVO2 are the volumes of HOVO1 and HOVO2, respectively, in the blend in mL;
ω61, ω62, and ω63 are the amounts of omega 6 fatty acid in vegetable oil 1, vegetable oil 2, and vegetable oil 3, respectively, to be blended with HOVO in mg per mL;
ω31, ω32, and ω33 are the amounts of omega 3 fatty acid in vegetable oil 1, vegetable oil 2, and vegetable oil 3, respectively, to be blended with HOVO in mg per mL; and
V_oil1, V_oil2, and V_oil3 are the volumes of vegetable oil 1, vegetable oil 2, and vegetable oil 3, respectively, to be blended with HOVO in the blend in mL;
Claim 3 recites “The methods of claim 1 can be used to improve or change the fatty acid compositions…” at lines 1-2. It is unclear what is intended by this recitation. More specifically, it is uncertain what step(s) are involved in the process and how the claimed result is achieved. Thus, the metes and bounds of the language cannot be readily ascertained.
For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “The methods of claim 1 can be used to improve or change the fatty acid compositions…” at lines 1-2 of claim 3 (emphasis added) is interpreted as “The method of claim 1, wherein the method improves or changes the fatty acid compositions…” (emphasis added).
Claim 8 recites “The methods of claim 1 can be used to improve or change the nutritional values, health benefits, and flavor profiles…” at lines 1-2. It is unclear what is intended by this recitation. More specifically, it is uncertain what step(s) are involved in the process and how the claimed result is achieved. Also, the recitation of “the nutritional values” at line 1 lacks antecedent basis as there is no prior recitation of nutritional values in claim 1. Thus, the metes and bounds of the language cannot be readily ascertained.
For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “The methods of claim 1 can be used to improve or change the nutritional values, health benefits, and flavor profiles…” at lines 1-2 of claim 8 (emphasis added) is interpreted as “The method of claim 1, wherein the method improves or changes nutritional values, health benefits, and flavor profiles…” (emphasis added).
Claim 9 recites “The methods of claim 1 can be used to lower ꞷ6 fatty acid content and/or increase ꞷ3 fatty acid content…” at lines 1-2. It is unclear what is intended by this recitation. More specifically, it is uncertain what step(s) are involved in the process and how the claimed result is achieved. Thus, the metes and bounds of the language cannot be readily ascertained.
For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “The methods of claim 1 can be used to lower ꞷ6 fatty acid content and/or increase ꞷ3 fatty acid content…” at lines 1-2 of claim 9 (emphasis added) is interpreted as “The method of claim 1, wherein the method lowers ꞷ6 fatty acid content and/or increases ꞷ3 fatty acid content…” (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Didier GB 2392448 (hereinafter “Didier”).
With respect to claim 1, Didier teaches manufacturing vegetable oil blends (P8, L12-13).
Regarding “of producing of one or more vegetable oil blend(s) … such that the resulting oil blend provides omega 6:omega 3 (ꞷ6: ꞷ3) fatty acid ratio of 1:1, 1:2, 2:1, 1.5:1,1:1.5, or more” in the preamble of claim 1, it is noted that this recitation is a statement of intended use or field of use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding “A method of producing of one or more vegetable oil blend(s) that consist of precise amounts of one or more high omega 3 (ꞷ3) fatty acid containing vegetable oil (HOVO) and precise amounts of one or more of low omega 3 (ꞷ3) and/or high omega 6 (ꞷ6) fatty acid containing vegetable oils, and/or vegetable oil(s) that contain no or low amounts of omega 3 (ꞷ3) and/or omega 6 (ꞷ6) fatty acids, selected from olive oil, coconut oil, avocado oil, safflower oil, rapeseed oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, peanut oil, sesame oil, corn oil, soybean oil, cottonseed oil, grapeseed oil, walnut oil and combinations thereof such that the resulting oil blend provides omega 6:omega 3 (ꞷ6: ꞷ3) fatty acid ratio of 1:1, 1:2, 2:1, 1.5:1,1:1.5, or more, wherein the method comprises controlling and modifying the amounts of ꞷ6 and ꞷ3 fatty acids while maintaining the ꞷ6:ꞷ3 fatty acid ratio in the vegetable oil blend(s), wherein the one or more vegetable oil blend(s) is determined using a set of equations, wherein the equations include one of the equations listed in claim 1, and wherein the vegetable oil blends of this invention are essentially formulated using either organic or virgin or extra-virgin or refined versions of the vegetable oils or combinations thereof in claim 1, Didier teaches manufacturing vegetable oil blends comprising 1-10% walnut oil (HOVO), 5-15% rapeseed oil (HOVO), 15-30% olive oil, and 60-75% high oleic sunflower oil. High oleic sunflower oil contains almost no omega 3 fatty acids, and olive oil contains 1% of ꞷ3 fatty acids. The oils are blended to produce an oil blend comprising a ꞷ6: ꞷ3 fatty acid ratio of 2-8:1 (equation (4) p×ω6Blend =q×ω3Blend). Virgin and/or refined oils may be used to produce the blend (Abstract; and P1, L1-6 and 24-28; P4, L23-24; P6, L11-13, 25-26, and 29-30; P7, L21, 22, and 26; P8, L12-13; P12, Table 3).
With respect to claim 3, Didier is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding “wherein the method improves or changes the fatty acid compositions of a given single and/or pure and/or blended vegetable oil” in claim 3, it is noted that this claim language is a resulting effect of practicing the claimed method. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. See MPEP 2103 and 2111.04. Additionally, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) and MPEP 2111.04.
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the method would naturally arrive at this claimed feature since Didier teaches a method that is identical to the presently claimed method as addressed above in claim 1, and Didier teaches the prepared vegetable oil blend possesses an optimal fatty acid profile (P6, L4-5; P6, L30-P7, L2).
With respect to claim 8, Didier is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 1 as addressed above
Regarding “wherein the method improves or changes nutritional values, health benefits, and flavor profiles of a given single and/or pure and/or blended vegetable oil” in claim 8, it is noted that this claim language is a resulting effect of practicing the claimed method. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. See MPEP 2103 and 2111.04. Additionally, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) and MPEP 2111.04.
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the method would naturally arrive at this claimed feature since Didier teaches a method that is identical to the presently claimed method as addressed above in claim 1, and Didier teaches the prepared vegetable oil blend has remarkable palatability, positive health benefits, and advantageous organoleptic and nutritional characteristics (P1, L2-3; P6, L4-8; and P6, L30-P7, L2).
With respect to claim 9, Didier is relied upon for the teaching of the method of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding “wherein the method lowers ꞷ6 fatty acid content and/or increases ꞷ3 fatty acid content of a given single and/or pure and/or blended vegetable oil” in claim 9, it is noted that this claim language is a resulting effect of practicing the claimed method. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. See MPEP 2103 and 2111.04. Additionally, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)) and MPEP 2111.04.
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the method would naturally arrive at this claimed feature since Didier teaches a method that is identical to the presently claimed method as addressed above in claim 1, and Didier teaches the prepared vegetable oil blend possesses an optimal fatty acid profile (P6, L4-5; P6, L30-P7, L2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYNESHA L. MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 PM ET.
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.
/T.L.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793