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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114) and the Response and Amendment filed 13 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment or cancelation of the claims: (1) the 112(b) rejection of claims 7-12 has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1, 5-6, 8, and 12-19
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously canceled claims: None
Newly canceled claims: 2-4, 7, and 9-11
Amended claims: 1
New claims: 13-19
Claims currently under consideration: 1, 5-6, 8, and 12-19
Currently rejected claims: 1, 5-6, 8, and 12-19
Allowed claims: None
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 April 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, “7000ppm” should read, “7000 ppm”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (JP 2006-025706 A, see provided Espacenet translation) in view of Sims et al. (US 3,957,837 cited on the IDS filed on 9 May 2023), and as evidenced by Vegan Baking (Fat and Oil Melt Point Temperatures. (2020, July 18). Veganbaking.net. Accessed on 28 May 2025 from https://web.archive.org/web/20200718204402/https://www.veganbaking .net/articles/tools/fat-and-oil-melt-point-temperatures) and FEDIOL (FEDIOL. (1998). FEDIOL specifications for Rapeseed Oil. https://www.fediol.eu/data/ 175439775498SPEC453%20rapeseed%20oil%20_non%20binding_.pdf).
Regarding claim 1, Kawasaki discloses an oil and/or fat composition comprising: hydroxymethylfurfural, methional, phenylethanal, and ethanol – Kawasaki teaches a nut-like flavor composition characterized by including one or more kinds of fragrances selected from the group consisting of natural fragrances, hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, acids, esters, lactones, nitrogen-containing compounds, sulfur-containing compounds, phenols, and furan compounds (p. 3, ¶ 6). Kawasaki teaches that the alcohols include ethanol (p. 4, ¶ 3), the aldehydes include phenylacetaldehyde (i.e., phenylethanal) (p. 4, ¶ 4), the sulfur-containing compounds include methional (p. 6, ¶ 2), and the furans include hydroxymethylfurfural (p. 6, ¶ 6). Ethanol is also disclosed as a suitable solvent, if necessary (p.7, ¶ 5). Kawasaki further teaches that the nut-like flavor composition can used for many foods, including main food ingredients, such as fats and oils (p. 7, ¶ 6).
wherein a content of the hydroxymethylfurfural in the oil and/or fat composition is 100 ppm or more and 7,000 ppm or less; wherein a content of the methional in the oil and or fat composition is 1 ppm or more and 300 ppm or less; the phenylethanal content in the oil and/or fat composition is 7 ppm or more and 140 ppm or less; the ethanol content in the oil and/or fat composition is 1,100 ppm or more and 14,000 ppm or less;– Kawasaki teaches that the addition amount of the fragrance(s) to the nut-like flavor composition can be selected depending on the type of nut flavor, the food, or the palatability, for example about 0.0001 to 50% by weight (i.e., 0.1 ppm to 500,000 ppm) (p. 7, ¶ 3). The claimed ranges of 100 ppm to 7,000 ppm of hydroxymethylfurfural, 1 ppm or more and 300 ppm or less of methional, 7ppm or more and 140 ppm or less of phenylethanal, and 1,100 ppm or more and 14,000 ppm or less of ethanol lie inside the disclosed range. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
a mass ratio of the ethanol to the hydroxymethylfurfural is 0.30 or more and 100.00 or less – Kawasaki teaches that the addition amount of the fragrance to the nut-like flavor composition can be selected depending on the type of nut flavor, the food, or the palatability, for example about 0.0001 to 50% by weight (i.e., 0.1 ppm to 500,000 ppm) (p. 7, ¶ 3). Thus, Kawasaki teaches that the fragrances, including the claimed ethanol and hydroxymethylfurfural, are result-effective variables that affect the flavor and palatability.
MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states, “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”
Therefore, absent any evidence of criticality of the claimed ratio, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio of ethanol to hydroxymethylfurfural by routine experimentation to achieve the desired flavor or palatability. The claimed ratio of 0.30 or more and 100.00 or less is well-achievable given the disclosed range for the fragrance molecules and the fact that ethanol may be used as a solvent if necessary.
Kawasaki does not discuss that the oil and/or fat composition has a solid fat content of 10% by weight or less at 10 °C, or a moisture content comprising 0.5% by mass or less based on the whole oil and/or fat composition.
However, Sims teaches a polyunsaturated oil composition having increased resistance to oxidative rancidity; polyunsaturated vegetable oils, such as safflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil, rapeseed oil, cottonseed oil, peanut oil and sunflower oil are stabilized by adding methional at a concentration of about 0.005 to about 0.5 % by weight (i.e., 50-5000 ppm) to protect against oxidative rancidity of the oil (col. 1, lines 43-63).
As Kawasaki discloses adding, among other fragrances, methional, to oil or fat, but does not specify the type of oil, and Sims provides examples of vegetable oils to which the addition of methional prevents rancidity (col. 1, lines 43-63), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a vegetable oil disclosed by Sims as the oil to which the fragrances are added by simple substitution of one known element for another. One of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the predictable result of providing an oil for the nut-like flavor composition that has reduced oxidative rancidity. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding the solid fat content of the oil composition, MPEP § 2112(I) states, “‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’ Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
While Kawasaki and Sims do not address the solid fat content of the oil directly, Vegan Baking evidences that the vegetable oils disclosed by Sims (safflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil, rapeseed oil, cottonseed oil, peanut oil and sunflower oil) have melting points well below 10°C (p. 1, Table). As the oils are liquid above their melting/freezing temperatures, these oils necessarily have a solid fat content below 10% at 10°C. As the solid fat content of the disclosed oils is an inherent property of the oils, this limitation does not render the claim patentable.
Similarly, while Kawasaki and Sims do not address the moisture content of the oil composition directly, neither reference teaches adding water to the composition, and FEDIOL evidences that crude degummed rapeseed oil has a maximum of 0.4% moisture, volatile matter and impurities, and crude rapeseed oil has a maximum of 0.5% moisture, volatile matter and impurities (p. 1). Therefore, where it would have been obvious to use rapeseed oil as taught by Sims in the nut-like flavor composition of Kawasaki as described above, the composition necessarily would comprise 0.5% by mass or less moisture based on the whole oil composition.
For these reasons, claim 1 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Kawasaki teaches that the nut-flavor composition is extremely versatile and can be used for many foods, including beverages, frozen confectionery, desserts, confectionery, and seasonings (p. 7, ¶ 6). As such, Kawasaki teaches a food or drink product comprising the oil and/or fat composition of claim 1.
Therefore, claim 5 is obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Kawasaki teaches that seasoning food products include spread products such as butter and margarine (p. 8, ¶ 2). Butter and margarine are plastic oil and/or fat composition food products as claimed.
Therefore, claim 6 is obvious.
Regarding claims 8 and 15, Kawasaki teaches that the addition amount of the fragrance to the nut-like flavor composition can be selected depending on the type of nut flavor, the food, or the palatability, for example about 0.0001 to 50% by weight (i.e., 0.1 ppm to 500,000 ppm) (p. 7, ¶ 3). The claimed ranges of 2,500 ppm to 6,000 ppm (re: claim 8) and 500 ppm to 7,000 ppm (re: claim 15) of hydroxymethylfurfural lie inside the disclosed range. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Therefore, claims 8 and 15 are obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Kawasaki teaches that the addition amount of the fragrance to the nut-like flavor composition can be selected depending on the type of nut flavor, the food, or the palatability, for example about 0.0001 to 50% by weight (i.e., 0.1 ppm to 500,000 ppm) (p. 7, ¶ 3). The claimed range of 3,000 ppm to 10,000 ppm of ethanol lies inside the disclosed range. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Therefore, claim 12 is obvious.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Kawasaki and Sims teach the oil and/or fat composition of claim 1.
Kawasaki does not discuss that the oil and/or fat composition is selected from the group consisting of rapeseed oil, soybean oil, corn oil, safflower oil, high-oleic acid safflower oil, sunflower oil, high-oleic acid sunflower oil and rice bran oil (re: claim 13), or from the group consisting of rapeseed oil, soybean oil, corn oil, sunflower oil and high-oleic acid sunflower oil (re: claim 14).
However, Sims teaches a polyunsaturated oil composition having increased resistance to oxidative rancidity; polyunsaturated vegetable oils, such as safflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil, rapeseed oil, cottonseed oil, peanut oil and sunflower oil are stabilized by adding methional at a concentration of about 0.005 to about 0.5 % by weight (i.e., 50-5000 ppm) to protect against oxidative rancidity of the oil (col. 1, lines 43-63).
As Kawasaki discloses adding, among other fragrances, methional, to oil or fat (p. 7, ¶ 6), but does not specify the type of oil, and Sims provides examples of vegetable oils to which the addition of methional prevents rancidity (col. 1, lines 43-63), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a vegetable oil disclosed by Sims (e.g., rapeseed oil, soybean oil, corn oil, or sunflower oil, as claimed) as the oil to which the fragrances are added to provide an oil with both a nut-like flavor and reduced oxidative rancidity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention in doing so because these teachings of Kawasaki and Sims result in an oil and/or fat composition wherein the oil and/or fat is rapeseed oil, soybean oil, corn oil, or sunflower oil, as claimed.
Therefore, claims 13 and 14 are obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Kawasaki teaches that the addition amount of the fragrance to the nut-like flavor composition can be selected depending on the type of nut flavor, the food, or the palatability, for example about 0.0001 to 50% by weight (i.e., 0.1 ppm to 500,000 ppm) (p. 7, ¶ 3). The claimed range of 1 ppm to 180 ppm of methional lies inside the disclosed range. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Therefore, claim 16 is obvious.
Regarding claim 17, Kawasaki teaches that the addition amount of the fragrance to the nut-like flavor composition can be selected depending on the type of nut flavor, the food, or the palatability, for example about 0.0001 to 50% by weight (i.e., 0.1 ppm to 500,000 ppm) (p. 7, ¶ 3). The claimed range of 15 ppm to 140 ppm of phenylethanal lies inside the disclosed range. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Therefore, claim 17 is obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Kawasaki teaches that the addition amount of the fragrance to the nut-like flavor composition can be selected depending on the type of nut flavor, the food, or the palatability, for example about 0.0001 to 50% by weight (i.e., 0.1 ppm to 500,000 ppm) (p. 7, ¶ 3). Thus, Kawasaki teaches that the fragrances, including the claimed ethanol and hydroxymethylfurfural, are result-effective variables that affect the flavor and palatability.
MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A) states, “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”
Therefore, absent any evidence of criticality of the claimed ratio, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio of ethanol to hydroxymethylfurfural by routine experimentation to achieve the desired flavor or palatability. The claimed ratio of 0.30 or more and 10.00 or less is well-achievable given the disclosed range for the fragrance molecules and the fact that ethanol may be used as a solvent if necessary.
Therefore, claim 18 is obvious.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki in view of Sims et al. as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of McBride (McBride, J. (1998, September 22). New Margarines Go Softer on the Heart. USDA Agricultural Research Service. Retrieved August 31, 2026 from https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/1998/new-margarines-go-softer-on-the-heart/).
Regarding claim 19, Kawasaki and Sims teach the food or drink product according to claim 6.
Kawasaki teaches that seasoning food products include spread products such as butter and margarine (p. 8, ¶ 2), which are plastic oil and/or fat products.
The cited prior art does not discuss that a saturated fatty acid content in the plastic oil and/or fat composition is 20.0% by mass or more and 50.0% by mass or less.
However, McBride discloses a trans-fat-free margarine comprising 21 percent saturated fat (p. 2, ¶ 2) that reduced blood cholesterol by 4.7% and LDL by 6.7% compared to butter when consumed for 5 weeks (p. 1, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to prepare a seasoned margarine as taught by Kawasaki and Sims that is trans-fat-free and comprises 21% saturated fat as disclosed by McBride to provide a seasoned margarine that has the benefit of reducing blood lipid levels compared to butter and other margarines. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because McBride teaches a margarine with a saturated fatty acid content of 21%, which lies inside the claimed range.
Claim 19 is therefore rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103: Applicant’s arguments filed on 13 April 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argued that Kawasaki does not teach or suggest a composition simultaneously containing four components (HMF, methional, phenylethanal, and ethanol), nor does it teach or suggest the combination of concentration ranges for each component in the oil, and the necessity to maintain the EtOH/HMF ratio between 0.30 and 100.00 (p. 5, ¶ 2). Applicant argued that where the instant specification discloses “the combination of the four components simultaneously achieves richness, aroma, and reduction of off-flavors”, this represents a technical concept of structural selection, ratio conditions, and synergistic effect of four components, such disclosure not being found in Kawasaki and not reasonably predictable within the scope of mere optimization (Id.). Applicant argued that Kawasaki’s disclosure that one or more fragrance compounds being added within the range of 0.1 to 500,000 ppm based on the type of nut flavor, the target food product, or consumer preference is overly broad and would require undue experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art in order to arrive at the claimed invention (p. 5, ¶ 3).
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Kawasaki teaches a nut-like flavor composition characterized by including one or more kinds of fragrances selected from the group consisting of natural fragrances, hydrocarbons, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, acids, esters, lactones, nitrogen-containing compounds, sulfur-containing compounds, phenols, and furan compounds (p. 3, ¶ 6). Kawasaki teaches that the alcohols include ethanol (p. 4, ¶ 3), the aldehydes include phenylacetaldehyde (i.e., phenylethanal) (p. 4, ¶ 4), the sulfur-containing compounds include methional (p. 6, ¶ 2), and the furans include hydroxymethylfurfural (p. 6, ¶ 6). Ethanol is also disclosed as a suitable solvent, if necessary (p.7, ¶ 5). Kawasaki further teaches that the nut-like flavor composition can used for many foods, including main food ingredients, such as fats and oils (p. 7, ¶ 6).
“When the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named.” See MPEP § 2131.02(II). The selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle. See MPEP § 2144.07. In the present case, Kawasaki discloses hydroxymethylfurfural, methional, phenylethanal, and ethanol. As such, Kawasaki clearly teaches an oil and/or fat composition comprising these components. Although the disclosed range of a concentration of 0.1 to 500,000 ppm for each fragrance is broad, the claimed ranges lie within the disclosed range. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, MPEP § 2144.05(I).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the combination of the four components simultaneously achieves richness, aroma, and reduction of off-flavors”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
“Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. ‘The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims…In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.’ In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde, 242 U.S. 261, 271 (1916) (a patent based on a change in the proportions of a prior product or process (changing from 4-10% oil to 1% oil) must be confined to the proportions that were shown to be critical (1%)); In re Scherl, 156 F.2d 72, 74-75, 70 USPQ 204, 205 (CCPA 1946) (‘Where the issue of criticality is involved, the applicant has the burden of establishing his position by a proper showing of the facts upon which he relies.’)”, MPEP § 2144.05(III)(A).
Applicant asserted that the claimed ranges are critical in that Comparative Examples 1-1 to 1-7 and 2-4 of the present application demonstrate that several conditions falling within the range of the disclosure of Kawasaki failed to achieve the present application’s objects of “richness, aroma, and reduced off-flavors” (p. 5, ¶ 4 – p. 6, ¶ 5).
Applicant’s assertion of criticality/unexpected results is acknowledged. Applicant is reminded that “[w]hether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the ‘objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’ In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980)”. See MPEP § 716.02(d).
In the present case, Applicant’s examples use only the claimed components in oil, yet the open language “comprising” in the claims does not limit the invention to just the claimed components. The scope of the claimed invention is much broader as to include any number of other ingredients, including those disclosed by Kawasaki. Therefore, Applicant’s data are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. As such, no assertion of unexpected results can be persuasive. Applicant is advised to amend the claim language to instead recite “consisting essentially of”, which may render Applicant’s assertion of criticality of the claimed ranges persuasive. It is also noted that Applicant’s examples are limited to mainly rapeseed oil and, in Example 1-24, rice bran oil. It is not entirely clear that these two oils are representative of the scope of oils and/or fats that are encompassed by the scope of claim 1. It is recommended to further limit claim 1 to oils supported by evidence and to recite one or more of the sensory features disclosed in the specification to distinguish the claimed oil composition from any other mixture of other, potentially non-edible oils comprising the claimed components.
Applicant next argued that Kawasaki indicates that the various flavoring components are added to the flavoring compoisition at the disclosed range, and does not specifically disclose how the ppm of each aroma component is reached and maintained in the oil phase after being added to food, whereas the present claims directly specify the “target concentration” within the oil phase (pp. 6-7, bridging ¶).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. The instant claims do not directly specify “the target concentration within the oil phase” or an “effective ppm concentration within the oil phase”. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The instant claims recite, an oil and/or fat composition comprising the claimed components in the claimed ranges. Therefore, where Kawasaki teaches adding the claimed components to fats and oils (p. 7, ¶ 6) in the disclosed range, Kawasaki renders these features obvious.
Applicant next argued that Sims does not teach or suggest a composition simultaneously containing the four claimed components, nor the claimed concentration ranges (p. 7, ¶ 3). Applicant argued that Sims describes addition of methional for oxidation stabilization and not for “flavor improvement” or imparting the specific effects such as richness (p. 7, ¶ 4).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. MPEP § 2144(IV) provides, “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.")”. Therefore, the prior art does not need to recognize features such as richness as observed by Applicant for motivation to be proper.
Applicant further argued that one skilled in the art would have no motivation when seeking to obtain the “desirable nutty flavor” intended by Kawasaki to deliberately refer to Sims and intentionally combine a vegetable oil containing methional because doing so would adversely affect the “nutty flavor” based on Sims’ disclosure of methional having a “cabbage, potato, or broth-like odor” (pp. 7-8, bridging ¶).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive. Kawasaki itself teaches that methional is suitable for use in the nut-like flavor composition (p. 6, ¶ 2) in a range encompassing that disclosed by Sims.
Applicant further argued that the alleged deficiencies of Kawasaki are not overcome by Vegan Baking or FEDIOL for the same reasons (p. 8, ¶¶ 2-3). Applicant’s argument is not persuasive for the same reasons as described above.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as presented hereinabove.
Regarding the food or drink product of claim 5, it is noted that no amount of the oil and/or fat composition is claimed, broadening the scope of the invention to include any amount of the claimed components; In the final product, one cannot determine the source of any hydroxymethylurfural, methional, phenylethanal, or ethanol since any other ingredients in the food or drink product could also contain these molecules, and the oil and/or fat composition of claim 1 is subsumed into the final product. Effectively, the only requirement of claim 5 is that oil and/or fat, hydroxymethylurfural, methional, phenylethanal, and ethanol are present in the food or drink product in any amount. It is recommended to recite the amounts of HMF, methional, phenylethanal, and ethanol with respect to their concentrations in the final food or drink product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 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.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights