DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-17 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references do not teach a fully hydrogenated oil, or an iodine value and PDI as claimed (Remarks, pages 6-8). This argument is not persuasive, because Anderson teaches soybean oil is a natural oil which can be fully hydrogenated (Kurth, pages 5-6, paragraph 00026). Kurth does not measure a polydispersity index or an iodine value as claimed. However, the U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the exact same ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Applicant argues that no teaching in Kurth or Filippi would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to control the Kurth wax system to achieve the claimed combination of structural, process, and product-property limitations which are referred to by the Applicant as petrolatum-mimicking composition properties (Remarks, page 7). This argument is not persuasive, because Kurth and Filippi teach the composition as described below. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP § 2112.01(II). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the composition of Kurth and Filippi would be expected to have the claimed petrolatum-mimicking properties.
Applicant argues that Kurth broadly discloses soybean oil or natural oil derivatives, but does not claim soybean oil in isolation, and that Kurth and Filippi do not teach or suggest a specific fully hydrogenated soybean oil (Remarks, page 8). This argument is not persuasive, because Kurth teaches soybean oil is a natural oil which can be fully hydrogenated (Kurth, pages 5-6, paragraph 00026). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123(II).
New Claim Objections
Claims 7, 15, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 7, “10.0, ,” should read “10.0,”.
Regarding claim 15, “of Claim 13” should be followed by a comma.
Regarding claim 17, “of Claim 16” should be followed by a comma.
New 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 1-17 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.
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13, and 14, the parenthetical recitation of “(Mw/Mn)” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations in parentheses are part of the claimed invention or describing an example or preference. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-6 are each dependent on the rejected claim 1 and does not cure its deficiencies, and therefore are deficient for the same reason as above.
Claims 8-12 are each dependent on the rejected claim 7 and does not cure its deficiencies, and therefore are deficient for the same reason as above.
Claims 15-17 are each dependent on the rejected claim 13 and does not cure its deficiencies, and therefore are deficient for the same reason as above.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of “The natural oil-based composition of Claim 13 wherein the natural oil-based composition of Claim 8 having a polydispersity index…” renders the claim indefinite, because it is not clear what composition is being claimed. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner has interpreted this claim to read “The natural oil-based composition of Claim 13, wherein the natural oil-based composition has a polydispersity index…”.
Claims 16-17 are each dependent on the rejected claim 15 and does not cure its deficiencies, and therefore are deficient for the same reason as above.
Modified/Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurth (WO 2019140375 A1; IDS reference, 06/30/2023), further in view of Filippi (US 2006013788 A1; IDS reference, 06/30/2023. Kurth and Filippi were cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Kurth teaches a wax composition which is natural-oil based (Kurth, page 6, paragraph 00028) comprising at least 40% by weight of soybean oil (Kurth, claim 12), which overlaps the claimed range of 20-40%, and teaches soybean oil is a natural oil which can be fully hydrogenated (Kurth, pages 5-6, paragraph 00026). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Kurth further teaches a composition resulting from the esterification of a pre-melt mixture (Kurth, page 25, paragraph 000108) comprising a fatty acid dimer in 17% by weight, glycerin (i.e., glycerol) in 20% by weight, and a fatty acid in 52% by weight (Kurth, page 25, table 2, “405E”), which all lie within the claimed ranges, resulting in a product with an acid value of 1.5 or lower, which lies within the claimed range of less than 10. Kurth further teaches the natural oil derivative can be derived from combinations of methods known in the art including transesterification, esterification, and interesterification (Kurth, page 6, paragraph 00027). While Kurth does not specifically use the term “dehydration reactions” for the creation of ester bonds as claimed, as defined by the instant specification the term “esterification” means the creation of an ester bond including 1) the dehydration reaction of an alcohol with an acid; 2) transesterification; or 3) interesterification (specification, page 8, paragraph 0040). Therefore, the esterification taught by Kurth would be expected to include dehydration reactions as claimed.
Kurth does not measure a polydispersity index or an iodine value as claimed. However, the U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the exact same ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Kurth does not specifically teach the fatty acid is a C8 to C22 fatty acid substituted with one or more C1-C3 alkyl substituents as claimed, but does teach non-limiting examples of such fatty acids include C18 fatty acids (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057). Filippi, however, teaches a cosmetic composition comprising a wax which can be a hydrogenated oil (Filippi, pages 8-9, paragraph 0163), a fatty acid dimer (Filippi, claim 4), and the ester product of glycerol and a fatty acid (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087) which can be isostearic acid (i.e., a C18 fatty acid substituted with one C1 alkyl substituent; Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087).
Kurth and Filippi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because both Kurth and Filippi and the instant invention are in the same field of natural oil-based personal care compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kurth to include the specific C18 fatty acid taught by Filippi, because Kurth teaches C18 fatty acids as a non-limiting example (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057), while Filippi teaches isostearic acid as a specific embodiment of a reasonable fatty acid for use in an esterification with glycerol as claimed (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087).
Regarding claim 2, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Kurth does not specifically teach the fatty acid is a C8 to C22 fatty acid substituted with one or more C1-C3 alkyl substituents as claimed, but does teach non-limiting examples of such fatty acids include C18 fatty acids (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057). Filippi teaches a fatty acid (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087) which can be isostearic acid (i.e., a C18 fatty acid substituted with one C1 alkyl substituent; Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kurth to include the specific C18 fatty acid taught by Filippi, because Kurth teaches C18 fatty acids as a non-limiting example (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057), while Filippi teaches isostearic acid as a specific embodiment of a reasonable fatty acid for use in an esterification with glycerol as claimed (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087).
Regarding claim 3, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 2. Kurth teaches a composition resulting from the esterification of a pre-melt mixture (Kurth, page 25, paragraph 000108) comprising a fatty acid dimer in 30% by weight (Kurth, page 25, table 2, “1120-1”), which lies within the claimed range, and teaches a composition comprising a coconut fatty acid in 20% by weight (Kurth, page 25, table 2, “405 Lipo”), which lies with the claimed range of isosteric acid. As above, Kurth does not specifically teach the fatty acid is isosteric acid as claimed, but does teach non-limiting examples of such fatty acids include C18 fatty acids (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057). Filippi teaches a fatty acid (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087) which can be isostearic acid (i.e., a C18 fatty acid; Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Kurth to include the C18 fatty acid taught by Filippi, because Kurth teaches C18 fatty acids as a non-limiting example (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057), while Filippi teaches isostearic acid as a specific embodiment of a reasonable fatty acid for use in an esterification with glycerol as claimed (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087).
Regarding claim 4, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 3. Kurth teaches an acid value of less than 1.5 (Kurth, claim 19), which lies within the claimed range of less than 5.0.
Regarding claim 5, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 4. Kurth teaches an acid value of less than 1.5 (Kurth, claim 19), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5-5. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 5. Kurth teaches a composition having a drop point of 50.0°C (Kurth, page 27, table 6, “405-E”), which lies within the claimed range of 35-50°C.
Regarding claim 7, Kurth teaches a wax composition which is natural-oil based (Kurth, page 6, paragraph 00028) for use in personal care products (Kurth, page 2, paragraph 0009) comprising at least 40% by weight of soybean oil (Kurth, claim 12), which overlaps the claimed range of 20-40%, and teaches soybean oil is a natural oil which can be hydrogenated (Kurth, page 5, paragraph 00026). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Kurth further teaches a composition resulting from the esterification of a pre-melt mixture (Kurth, page 25, paragraph 000108) comprising a fatty acid dimer in 17% by weight, glycerin (i.e., glycerol) in 20% by weight, and a fatty acid in 52% by weight (Kurth, page 25, table 2, “405E”), which all lie within the claimed ranges, resulting in a product with an acid value of 1.5 or lower, which lies within the claimed range of less than 10. Kurth further teaches the natural oil derivative can be derived from combinations of methods known in the art including transesterification, esterification, and interesterification (Kurth, page 6, paragraph 00027). While Kurth does not specifically use the term “dehydration reactions” for the creation of ester bonds as claimed, as defined by the instant specification the term “esterification” means the creation of an ester bond including 1) the dehydration reaction of an alcohol with an acid; 2) transesterification; or 3) interesterification (specification, page 8, paragraph 0040). Therefore, the esterification taught by Kurth would be expected to include dehydration reactions as claimed.
Kurth does not measure a polydispersity index or an iodine value as claimed. However, the U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the exact same ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Kurth does not specifically teach the fatty acid is a C8 to C22 fatty acid substituted with one or more C1-C3 alkyl substituents as claimed, but does teach non-limiting examples of such fatty acids include C18 fatty acids (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057). Filippi, however, teaches a cosmetic composition comprising a wax which can be a hydrogenated oil (Filippi, pages 8-9, paragraph 0163), a fatty acid dimer (Filippi, claim 4), and the ester product of glycerol and a fatty acid (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087) which can be isostearic acid (i.e., a C18 fatty acid substituted with one C1 alkyl substituent; Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kurth to include the specific C18 fatty acid taught by Filippi, because Kurth teaches C18 fatty acids as a non-limiting example (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057), while Filippi teaches isostearic acid as a specific embodiment of a reasonable fatty acid for use in an esterification with glycerol as claimed (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087).
Regarding claim 8, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 7. As above, Kurth does not specifically teach the fatty acid is a C8 to C22 fatty acid substituted with one or more C1-C3 alkyl substituents as claimed, but does teach non-limiting examples of such fatty acids include C18 fatty acids (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057). Filippi teaches a fatty acid (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087) which can be isostearic acid (i.e., a C18 fatty acid substituted with one C1 alkyl substituent; Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kurth to include the specific C18 fatty acid taught by Filippi, because Kurth teaches C18 fatty acids as a non-limiting example (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057), while Filippi teaches isostearic acid as a specific embodiment of a reasonable fatty acid for use in an esterification with glycerol as claimed (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087).
Regarding claim 9, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 8. Kurth teaches a composition resulting from the esterification of a pre-melt mixture (Kurth, page 25, paragraph 000108) comprising a fatty acid dimer in 30% by weight (Kurth, page 25, table 2, “1120-1”), which lies within the claimed range, and teaches a composition comprising a coconut fatty acid in 20% by weight (Kurth, page 25, table 2, “405 Lipo”), which lies with the claimed range of isosteric acid. As above, Kurth does not specifically teach the fatty acid is isosteric acid as claimed, but does teach non-limiting examples of such fatty acids include C18 fatty acids (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057). Filippi teaches a fatty acid (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087) which can be isostearic acid (i.e., a C18 fatty acid; Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Kurth to include the C18 fatty acid taught by Filippi, because Kurth teaches C18 fatty acids as a non-limiting example (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057), while Filippi teaches isostearic acid as a specific embodiment of a reasonable fatty acid for use in an esterification with glycerol as claimed (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087).
Regarding claim 10, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 9. Kurth teaches an acid value of less than 1.5 (Kurth, claim 19), which lies within the claimed range of less than 5.
Regarding claim 11, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 10. Kurth teaches an acid value of less than 1.5 (Kurth, claim 19), which overlaps the claimed range, which as discussed above was interpreted by the Examiner to be 0.5-5. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 7. Kurth teaches a composition can be for use in personal care products (Kurth, page 2, paragraph 0009), but does not specify a personal care product from the claimed list. Filippi, however, teaches a composition with the same ingredients as a cosmetic composition (Filippi, abstract). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the personal care composition of Kurth in a cosmetic as taught by Filippi, because cosmetics are personal care compositions, and Filippi teaches a composition with the same ingredients to be useful as a cosmetic.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurth (WO 2019140375 A1; IDS reference, 06/30/2023), further in view of Filippi (US 2006013788 A1; IDS reference, 06/30/2023. Kurth and Filippi were cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 13, Kurth teaches a wax composition which is natural-oil based (Kurth, page 6, paragraph 00028) comprising at least 40% by weight of soybean oil (Kurth, claim 12), which overlaps the claimed range of 20-40%, and teaches soybean oil is a natural oil which can be fully hydrogenated (Kurth, pages 5-6, paragraph 00026). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Kurth further teaches a composition resulting from the esterification of a pre-melt mixture (Kurth, page 25, paragraph 000108) comprising a fatty acid dimer in 17% by weight, glycerin (i.e., glycerol) in 20% by weight, and a fatty acid in 52% by weight (Kurth, page 25, table 2, “405E”), which all lie within the claimed ranges, resulting in a product with an acid value of 1.5 or lower, which lies within the claimed range of less than 10. Kurth further teaches the natural oil derivative can be derived from combinations of methods known in the art including transesterification, esterification, and interesterification (Kurth, page 6, paragraph 00027). While Kurth does not specifically use the term “dehydration reactions” for the creation of ester bonds as claimed, as defined by the instant specification the term “esterification” means the creation of an ester bond including 1) the dehydration reaction of an alcohol with an acid; 2) transesterification; or 3) interesterification (specification, page 8, paragraph 0040). Therefore, the esterification taught by Kurth would be expected to include dehydration reactions as claimed.
Kurth does not measure a polydispersity index or an iodine value as claimed. However, the U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the exact same ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Kurth does not specifically teach the fatty acid is a C8 to C22 fatty acid substituted with one or more C1-C3 alkyl substituents as claimed, but does teach non-limiting examples of such fatty acids include C18 fatty acids (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057). Filippi, however, teaches a cosmetic composition comprising a wax which can be a hydrogenated oil (Filippi, pages 8-9, paragraph 0163), a fatty acid dimer (Filippi, claim 4), and the ester product of glycerol and a fatty acid (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087) which can be isostearic acid (i.e., a C18 fatty acid substituted with one C1 alkyl substituent; Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kurth to include the specific C18 fatty acid taught by Filippi, because Kurth teaches C18 fatty acids as a non-limiting example (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057), while Filippi teaches isostearic acid as a specific embodiment of a reasonable fatty acid for use in an esterification with glycerol as claimed (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087).
Regarding claim 14, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 13. As above, Kurth does not specifically teach the fatty acid is a C8 to C22 fatty acid substituted with one or more C1-C3 alkyl substituents as claimed, but does teach non-limiting examples of such fatty acids include C18 fatty acids (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057). Filippi teaches a fatty acid (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087) which can be isostearic acid (i.e., a C18 fatty acid substituted with one C1 alkyl substituent; Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kurth to include the specific C18 fatty acid taught by Filippi, because Kurth teaches C18 fatty acids as a non-limiting example (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057), while Filippi teaches isostearic acid as a specific embodiment of a reasonable fatty acid for use in an esterification with glycerol as claimed (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087).
Kurth does not measure a polydispersity index as claimed. However, the U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the exact same ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Regarding claim 15, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 13. As above, Kurth does not measure a polydispersity index as claimed. However, the U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the exact same ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Regarding claim 16, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 15. As above, Kurth does not specifically teach the fatty acid is a C8 to C22 fatty acid substituted with one or more C1-C3 alkyl substituents as claimed, but does teach non-limiting examples of such fatty acids include C18 fatty acids (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057). Filippi teaches a fatty acid (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087) which can be isostearic acid (i.e., a C18 fatty acid substituted with one C1 alkyl substituent; Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Kurth to include the specific C18 fatty acid taught by Filippi, because Kurth teaches C18 fatty acids as a non-limiting example (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057), while Filippi teaches isostearic acid as a specific embodiment of a reasonable fatty acid for use in an esterification with glycerol as claimed (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087).
Regarding claim 17, Kurth and Filippi together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 16. As above, Kurth teaches a composition resulting from the esterification of a pre-melt mixture (Kurth, page 25, paragraph 000108) comprising a fatty acid dimer in 30% by weight (Kurth, page 25, table 2, “1120-1”), which lies within the claimed range, and teaches a composition comprising a coconut fatty acid in 20% by weight (Kurth, page 25, table 2, “405 Lipo”), which lies with the claimed range of isosteric acid. As above, Kurth does not specifically teach the fatty acid is isosteric acid as claimed, but does teach non-limiting examples of such fatty acids include C18 fatty acids (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057). Filippi teaches a fatty acid (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087) which can be isostearic acid (i.e., a C18 fatty acid; Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of Kurth to include the C18 fatty acid taught by Filippi, because Kurth teaches C18 fatty acids as a non-limiting example (Kurth, page 13, paragraph 00057), while Filippi teaches isostearic acid as a specific embodiment of a reasonable fatty acid for use in an esterification with glycerol as claimed (Filippi, page 5, paragraph 0087).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights