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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/7/26 has been entered.
Claim 1 is amended and claim 12 is cancelled. Claim 16 is added. Claims 1-7, 10-11,13-16 are pending.
The previous 101,112,102 rejections are withdrawn due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7,10-11,13-16 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “ wherein the triglyceride composition comprises C12:0 from 15-40%” is not totally supported. Applicant points to embodiment 193 and the examples. The embodiment discloses C12:0 amount of 15-40%. However, there is no disclosure of method steps with the embodiment. There is no disclosure that the amount of C12:0 is obtained from the step and using the first fat and second fat recited in the claims. It’s not clear which examples applicant is referring to.
None of the examples specifically discloses the fat and step as claimed to obtain the C12 in the amount recited.
Claims 1, 10,13 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “ wherein the triglyceride composition comprises C12 from 15-40%” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended. The fat used in the step is limited to contain C16 and C18. Thus, it’s unclear where the amount of C12 comes from.
Claim 10 is vague and indefinite. The claim recites a hard stock or structuring fat obtained by the method of claim 1. However, claim 1 does not recite to produce a hard stock or structuring fat. The claim recites to provide a triacylglyceride composition. It’s unclear if the hardstock and structuring fat is the triacylglyceride composition or something else.
Claim 13 has the same problem as claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-7,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifeduba et al “ Enzymatic Interesterification of High Oleic Sunflower Oil and Tripalmitin or Tristearing” in view of Ma ( WO 2019/185444)
For claim 1, Ifeduba discloses a method for making a triacylglyceride composition comprising performing interestification of a first fat comprising tripalmitin or tristearin with a second fat. The tripalmitin or tristearin is a fat comprising stearic acid or palmitic acid to the glycerol backbone. Thus, it’s 100% fatty acids. The claimed more than 55% is 55% or more including 100%. The triacylglyceride composition in Ifeduba is the interestified blend (IB) which included 30.4% C16 and 2.4% C18 and the IB blend comprises 21.5% C16 and 2.4% C18 of sn-2 fatty acid for a 20% blend and 32.9% C16 and 2.2% C18 for a 30% blend. Thus, the amount of sn-2 fatty acids ranges from 23.9%-35.1% which falls within the claimed range of between 20 and 50%. The first and second fat are not hydrogenated and are not palm oil or palm oil-based or palm oil-derived fraction. The fatty acids are palmitic and/or stearic. ( see abstract, table 1 , table 2)
For claim 2, the first fat in Ifeduba includes tristearin. The tristearin is a fat comprising stearic acid attached to the glycerol backbone. Thus, the stearic acid is 100% at the sn2 position. The claimed at least 55% includes 55% up to 100%. For claim 3, if the fat used in tristearin, then there is no palmitic acid. The claimed amount of at most 11% is 11% and less including 0%. ( see abstract)
For claim 4, Ifeduba discloses TP ( tripalmitic) or TS ( tristearin) is blended with 10g sunflower oil at varying ratios of .1:1,.3:1 and .5:1. Thus, the amount of first fat is 1g, 3g or 5g and the percent is 9% or 23% or 33% which falls within the claimed range. ( page 62 under the paragraph “ preparation of physical and interesterified blends)
For claim 5, Ifeduba discloses a PB-C18 blend at 30% give an IB having 5.5% C16:0. ( see table 1)
For claims 7, 10, Ifeduba discloses a triacylglyceride obtained from the interesterified process. While claim 10 recites hardstock or structuring fat, it’s just the triacylglyceride composition. ( see abstract, table 1, table 2)
Ifeduba does not disclose the C12 amount as in claim 1 and the feature of claim 6.
Ma discloses a non-hydrogenated fat composition comprising caprylic acid, 13-32% lauric acid and 20-45% stearic acid and less than 12% palmitic acid. The fat composition is made by interesterifying fat selected from shea butter, shea stearin, shea olein with coconut oil. Table 1 shows fat A comprising SAFA of 76.9 and C18:1 of 20.7. Ma discloses the fat composition provide favorable sensory properties. The composition provides good physical properties to allow more air in whipped cream in order to obtain a desirable texture and sensory performance. ( see pages 2-3, page 4 lines 31-35, Example 1.)
As shown in Ma, the fatty acid profile of fat composition can be altered depending on the fat used and the amounts. Ma shows that the fat composition provides improved sensory performance containing high amount of saturated fatty acids and low amount of unsaturated fatty acids. Ifeduba discloses performing the interesterification with high oleic sunflower oil to give high amount of 18:1 and lower content saturated fatty acids. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute another oil such a coconut oil as taught in Ma to obtain C12 lauric acid and higher amount of saturated fatty acid when desiring to improve the sensory performance of the fat composition in food products. It would have been obvious to follow the guideline of Ma and to optimize depending on the sensory attribute and health desired. Such parameter can readily be determined by one skilled in the art through routine experimentation. For claim 1, the limitation of random interesterification is treated just as interesterification because there is no parameter defining random. Furthermore, interesterification is a random process as Ma discloses on page 1 lines 20-25 “ fat and oils are occasionally subjected to an interesterification process which randomly redistributes the fatty acid acyl residues amongst the glyceride molecules”.
Claim(s) 11, 13-16, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifeduba in view of Ma as applied to claims 1-7, 10 above, and further in view of Trujillo-Quijano ( 2014/0234483).
Ifeduba does not discloses the method as in claim 11, 13 and the product as in claims 14-16.
Trujillo-Quijano discloses a processes for preparing an edible hard stock to use in the formulation of margarine, spreads etc.. The process comprises the step of interesterifying fats comprising C16 and C18 with liquid oil that contains C18with total more than 80%. The oil includes soybean oil, sunflower oil. The hardstock is combined with liquid oil and aqueous phase to produce spread, margarine. ( see abstract, paragraph 0013, table 7)
It’s well known to use interesterified fat in margarine, spread as shown in Trujillo-Quijano. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the Ifeduba composition in such product as an obvious matter of choice.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7,10-11, 13-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7,13-15 of copending Application No 18/400753. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to a method for making triacylglyceride composition. The method of the copending application is encompassed in the claims of the instant application.
Claim 1-7, 10-11, 13-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/400978 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are directed to a method for making triacylglyceride composition. The method of the copending application is encompassed in the claims of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues the new limitation. New reference is added to address the limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
September 29, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
