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 February 18th, 2025 has been considered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 4, 5 and 8 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7 and 9-12 are pending in the current application.
Claims 6 and 7 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-3 and 9-12 are examined in the current application.
Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 18th 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Stortz et al., “Edible Oleo gels in Food Products to Help Maximize Health Benefits and Improve Nutritional Profiles” (from Lipid Technology, July 2012, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 151-154) in view of NPL Sagiri et al., “Stearic acid based oleo gels: A study on the molecular, thermal and mechanical properties” (from Materials Science and Engineering C 48 (2015) 688-699) and Eskins et al. (US 5,676,994).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 8: Stortz discloses structuring vegetable oils (i.e., triacylglycerol oils and fats) with gelators, such as ethylcellulose and 12-hydroxystearic acid at levels below 8% to form oleogels (see Stortz abstract; pages 151-152), but fails to disclose gelators, such as stearic acid and starch; However, Eskins discloses using starch having amylose content of less than 35% (e.g., corn starch) for oil structuring, wherein 5 to 900 parts of oil are combined with 100 parts of the starch (i.e., oil comprises about 5-90% of the combined starch-oil composition on a dry weight basis) (see Eskins column 6, lines 17-47 and column 7, lines 36-40), and Sagiri discloses structuring vegetable oils (i.e., triacylglycerol oils and fats) with gelators, such as stearic acid at levels between 1 to 25% (see Sagiri pages 688-689). Furthermore, Sagiri also discloses a preference of stearic acid over 12-hydroxystearic, as 12-hydroxystearic acid provides polarity to the molecules due to the hydroxyl group on the 12th carbon, which may favor the development of emulsion oleogels. In hydrophobic gels, the presence of polar groups enhances the interfacial tension between the edible oil and the gelators, which results in poor stability of the oleogels formed (see Sagiri page 688). Given the fact that ethyl cellulose, stearic acid and starch are known structurants/gelators of edible oils, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have combined the three structurants (i.e., ethyl cellulose, stearic acid and starch) in order to structure vegetable oil and form oleo gels, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations. As set forth in MPEP §2144.06, It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
As to the ethylcellulose and stearic acid contents in claim 1 and the starch and oil contents in claims 1 and 8: Given the fact, the ethylcellulose and stearic acid contents in claim 1 and the starch and oil contents in claims 1 and 8, overlap the ethylcellulose, stearic acid and oil and starch contents in Stortz, Sagiri and Eskins, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 2: Stortz discloses structuring vegetable oils (e.g., canola oil) (see Stortz pages 151 and 152), Eskins discloses structuring vegetable oils (e.g., canola oil, soybean oil, olive oil) (see Eskins column 7, lines 1-5), and Sagiri discloses structuring vegetable oils (sesame oil, soybean oil). Since all vegetable oils have unsaturated oil to saturated fat ratios that are higher than 6:1 (see Table 1 in Stortz), Stortz in view of Sagiri and Eskins meet the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 9: Stortz, Sagiri and Eskins disclose structuring vegetable oils with ethylcellulose, starch and stearic acid without any other constituents (e.g., emulsifiers) (see Stortz and Sagiri whole documents). Accordingly, Stortz in view of Sagiri and Eskins meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 10 and 11: Stortz, Sagiri and Eskins disclose structuring vegetable oils and forming oleogels with ethylcellulose, stearic acid and starch, but fail to disclose the firmness of the oleogel formed by the combination of the three structurants; However, given the fact combining the three known gelators/structurants to treat oils to form the claimed oleogel would have been obvious (see discussion above), it is examiner’s position the firmness values recited in claims 10 and 11 are inherently present in Stortz in view of Sagiri and Eskins
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stortz, Sagiri and Eskins as applied to claims 1-3 and 9-11 above, and further in view of Ergun et al., (USPatPub. 2015/0157038).
Regarding claim 12: Stortz discloses structuring vegetable oils (i.e., triacylglycerol oils and fats) with gelators, such as ethylcellulose and 12-hydroxystearic acid at levels below 8% to form oleogels (see Stortz abstract; pages 151-152), but fails to disclose the viscosity of a 5% ethylcellulose polymers 80/20 solution of toluene/ethanol at 25°C; However, Ergun discloses using ethylcellulose polymers (i.e., ethocel) to attain oleogels where the ethylcellulose polymers have viscosity of 12mPas or higher in a 5% 80/20 solution of toluene/ethanol at 25°C is preferable and well known conventional (see Ergun paragraphs [0021]-[0023]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified Stortz and to use ethylcellulose polymers to form the oleogels where the ethylcellulose polymers have viscosity of 12mPas or higher in a 5% 80/20 solution of toluene/ethanol at 25°C, as known and conventional in the art, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 18th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because Stortz, Sagiri and Eskins fail to teach the ethylcellulose polymers have viscosity of 12mPas or higher in a 5% 80/20 solution of toluene/ethanol at 25°C as recited in claim 12. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above, while Stortz in view of Sagiti and Eskins fails to disclose the viscosity of a 5% ethylcellulose polymers 80/20 solution of toluene/ethanol at 25°C, Ergun discloses using ethylcellulose polymers (i.e., ethocel) to attain oleogels where the ethylcellulose polymers have viscosity of 12mPas or higher in a 5% 80/20 solution of toluene/ethanol at 25°C is preferable and well known conventional (see Ergun paragraphs [0021]-[0023]).
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