DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Claims
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 31 and 34-48 are pending.
Examiner’s Note
When making amendments to the claims Applicant is advised to be careful and not add new matter. If Applicant believes that support is present in the Figures then Applicant is advised to consider amending the text of the Specification to capture the new limitations while being careful not to add new matter. Applicant is advised to precisely point out where in the disclosure as filed, not the PGPUB, support is present for any amendments.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
All rejections of record in the Office Action mailed 7/16/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 10/15/2025.
NEW OBJECTIONS
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the phrase “derived from a single source” in Claims 1, 34, 39 and 44 is not described in the text of the Specification. Applicant is advised to consider amending the text of the Specification to incorporate this language while being careful not to add new matter.
NEW REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Official Correspondence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 31 and 34-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The phrase “canola oil derived from a single source” in Claim 1, line 1 is new matter. The disclosure as filed does not describe a “single source”.
The phrase “flaxseed oil derived from a single source” in Claim 34, line 1 is new matter. The disclosure as filed does not describe a “single source”.
The phrase “olive oil derived from a single source” in Claim 39, line 1 is new matter. The disclosure as filed does not describe a “single source”.
The phrase “coconut oil derived from a single source” in Claim 44, line 1 is new matter. The disclosure as filed does not describe a “single source”.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 31 and 34-48 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.
The phrase “processed canola oil … MAGs … greater than 30% … TAGs constitute 5% or less … processed canola oil” in Claim 1, lines 1-10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how this can be canola oil as all forms of canola oil have in excess of 90% TAGs and not 5% or less and minimal amount of MAGs and not greater than 30%.
It is unclear how a person can determine whether this oil is canola oil when its composition and properties are very much different than canola oil.
The phrase “single oil source” in Claim 1, line 1 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether this means the canola originates from a refinery in Canada or Montana or a single farm in Canada or Montana or does it mean the oil can originate from any source as long as the oil is canola oil. If the oil can originate form “any source” then it is unclear how it can be from a “single source”.
The phrase “single oil source is canola oil” in Claim 1, line 2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one can determine whether the source is just canola oil and not flaxseed oil or olive oil or coconut oil or soybean oil or a genetically modified oil when the values of MAGs and TAGs are not signatures of canola oil.
It appears impossible to determine whether another oil source could be present at 0.1% or 1% or 10%. Furthermore, the claims are not directed to method claims where one knows what oil is being processed and what oils are not being processed. Applicant is attempting to distinguish the prior art by method language when the claims are product claims.
The phrase “processed oil … comprising tocopherols naturally present therein” in Claim 1, lines 1-2 is vague and indefinite it is unclear how tocopherols can be naturally present in “processed oil” as the processed oil is not canola oil.
Canola oil naturally has tocopherols; however, this is not what is being claimed. The claimed “processed oil” with MAGs greater than 30% and TAGs constitute 5% or less is not canola oil.
The phrase “tocopherols naturally present in the canola oil remain present in the processed canola oil” in Claim 1, lines 9-10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one can know the tocopherols remain present in the processed canola oil.
For example, it is very well known to deodorize oil to remove impurities like FFA. During this process step tocopherols come off in the distillate with the FFA. It is thus, impossible to determine whether all tocopherols remain as stated in the claim.
The phrase “processed flaxseed oil … MAGs … greater than 30% … TAGs constitute 5% or less … processed flaxseed oil” in Claim 34, lines 1-10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how this can be flaxseed oil as all forms of flaxseed oil have in excess of 90% TAGs and not 5% or less and minimal amount of MAGs and not greater than 30%.
It is unclear how a person can determine whether this oil is flaxseed oil when its composition and properties are very much different than flaxseed oil.
The phrase “single oil source” in Claim 34, line 1 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether this means the flaxseed originates from a refinery in Canada or Montana or a single farm in Canada or Montana or does it mean the oil can originate from any source as long as the oil is flaxseed oil. If the oil can originate form “any source” then it is unclear how it can be from a “single source”.
The phrase “single oil source is flaxseed oil” in Claim 34, line 2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one can determine whether the source is just flaxseed oil and not canola oil or olive oil or coconut oil or soybean oil or a genetically modified oil when the values of MAGs and TAGs are not signatures of flaxseed oil.
It appears impossible to determine whether another oil source could be present at 0.1% or 15% or 10%. Furthermore, the claims are not directed to method claims where one knows what oil is being processed and what oils are not being processed. Applicant is attempting to distinguish the prior art by method language when the claims are product claims.
The phrase “tocopherols naturally present in the flaxseed oil remain present in the processed flaxseed oil” in Claim 34, lines 9-10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one can know the tocopherols remain present in the processed flaxseed oil.
For example, it is very well known to deodorize oil to remove impurities like FFA. During this process step tocopherols come off in the distillate with the FFA. It is thus, impossible to determine whether all tocopherols remain as stated in the claim.
The phrase “processed olive oil … MAGs … greater than 30% … TAGs constitute 5% or less … processed olive oil” in Claim 39, lines 1-10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how this can be olive oil as all forms of olive oil have in excess of 90% TAGs and not 5% or less and minimal amount of MAGs and not greater than 30%.
It is unclear how a person can determine whether this oil is olive oil when its composition and properties are very much different than olive oil.
The phrase “single oil source” in Claim 39, line 1 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether this means the olive oil originates from a refinery in Italy or Spain or a single farm in Italy or Spain or does it mean the oil can originate from any source as long as the oil is olive oil. If the oil can originate form “any source” then it is unclear how it can be from a “single source”.
The phrase “single oil source is olive oil” in Claim 39, line 2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one can determine whether the source is just olive oil and not canola oil or flaxseed oil or coconut oil or soybean oil or a genetically modified oil when the values of MAGs and TAGs are not signatures of olive oil and at it appears impossible to determine whether another oil source could at 0.1% or 1% or 10%. Furthermore, the claims are not directed to method claims where one knows what oil is being processed and what oils are not being processed. Applicant is attempting to distinguish the prior art by method language when the claims are product claims.
It appears impossible to determine whether another oil source could be present at 0.1% or 15% or 10%. Furthermore, the claims are not directed to method claims where one knows what oil is being processed and what oils are not being processed. Applicant is attempting to distinguish the prior art by method language when the claims are product claims.
The phrase “tocopherols naturally present in the olive oil remain present in the processed olive oil” in Claim 39, lines 9-10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one can know the tocopherols remain present in the processed olive oil.
For example, it is very well known to deodorize oil to remove impurities like FFA. During this process step tocopherols come off in the distillate with the FFA. It is thus, impossible to determine whether all tocopherols remain as stated in the claim.
The phrase “processed coconut oil … MAGs … greater than 30% … TAGs constitute 5% or less … processed coconut oil” in Claim 44, lines 1-10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how this can be coconut oil as all forms of coconut oil have in excess of 90% TAGs and not 5% or less and minimal amount of MAGs and not greater than 30%.
It is unclear how a person can determine whether this oil is coconut oil when its properties are very much different than coconut oil.
The phrase “single oil source” in Claim 44, line 1 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether this means the coconut oil originated from a refinery in Italy or a single farm in Thailand or Philippines or does it mean the oil can originate from any source as long as the oil is coconut oil. If the oil can originate form “any source” then it is unclear how it can be from a “single source”.
The phrase “single oil source is coconut oil” in Claim 44, line 2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one can determine whether the source is just coconut oil and not canola oil or flaxseed oil or olive oil or soybean oil or a genetically modified oil when the values of MAGs and TAGs are not signatures of coconut oil and at it appears impossible to determine whether another oil source could at 0.1% or 1% or 10%. Furthermore, the claims are not directed to method claims where one knows what oil is being processed and what oils are not being processed. Applicant is attempting to distinguish the prior art by method language when the claims are product claims.
The phrase “tocopherols naturally present in the olive oil remain present in the processed coconut oil” in Claim 44, lines 9-10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one can know the tocopherols remain present in the processed coconut oil.
For example, it is very well known to deodorize oil to remove impurities like FFA. During this process step tocopherols come off in the distillate with the FFA. It is thus, impossible to determine whether all tocopherols remain as stated in the claim.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
The limitations of the amended/new claims are discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 November 13, 2025
Prosecution Insights