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 .
In the two claim sets filed September 22, 2023, claims 1-9 are pending in the application. Claims 7 and 9 are withdrawn from consideration (see below).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 8, in the reply filed on November 12, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 7 and 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 at line 4, it is recommended to change lowercase “a” to the uppercase form “A” after “chlorophyll” and before “pheophytin”.
In claim 1 at line 4, it is recommended to change lowercase “a” to the uppercase form “A” after “pheophytin” and before “and”.
In claim 1 at the end of line 5, it is recommended to change lowercase “a” to the uppercase form “A” after “pyropheophytin”.
In claim 6 at line 8, it is suggested to replace the period “.” with a colon “:” after “less”.
In claim 6 at line 12, it is recommended to insert a period “.” at the end of the claim.
In claim 8 at line 4, it is suggested to amend “(B)” to “(A)” at the beginning of the line and before “a heated/processed oil”.
In claim 8 at line 5, it is suggested to amend “(b1)” to “(a1)” after “of” and before “a first heated oil”.
In claim 8 at line 12, it is suggested to amend “(b2)” to “(a2)” after “raw oil, “and before “a roasted oil”.
In claim 8 at line 14, it is suggested to amend “(b3)” to “(a3)” after “and” and before “a second heated oil” . Appropriate correction is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites “(where T: heating temperature (⁰C), and t: heating time (minutes); if 85-6000/(270-T) yields a negative value, “5” is to be used)” at lines 10-12. It is unclear what is encompassed by this recitation. More specifically, the claim language within the parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the recitations within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. Additionally, it is uncertain whether “5” at line 11 refers to the heating time. Therefore, the scope of claim 6 is indefinite.
For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “(where T: heating temperature (⁰C), and t: heating time (minutes); if 85-6000/(270-T) yields a negative value, “5” is to be used)” at lines 10-12 of claim 6 (emphasis added) is interpreted as “where T is a heating temperature in ⁰C, and t is the heating time in minutes; and wherein when 85-6000/(270-T) yields a negative value, then the heating time t is equal to 5” (emphasis added).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gong et al. CN 106922844 (hereinafter “Gong”) (refer to the corresponding machine translation published in English).
With respect to claim 1, Gong relates to an oil composition (paragraph [0002]).
Regarding the recitation of characterized by containing: (A) a chlorophyll including one or more selected from the group consisting of chlorophyll a, pheophytin a, and pyropheophytin a; (B) a heated/processed oil and fat including one or more oils selected from the group consisting of (b1) a first heated oil obtained by heat-treating an unrefined raw oil including one or more oils selected from the group consisting of a pressed oil from an oil and fat material and an extracted oil from the oil and fat material, or an oil and fat that has passed through one or more steps selected from the group consisting of a degumming step, a deacidification step, and a decolorization step in a step for refining the unrefined raw oil, (b2) a roasted oil obtained by pressing or extracting the oil and fat material, which has been roasted, and (b3) a second heated oil obtained by heat-treating an oil and fat containing the oil and fat material and/or a processed product thereof; and (C) an edible oil and fat in claim 1, Gong teaches an oil composition comprising rapeseed oil, additional oil(s), and chlorophyll calculated in terms of chlorophyll A. The additional oil(s) may optionally be refined by decolorization. The chlorophyll content of the composition can be adjusted as desired by processing the oil components, such as by roasting rapeseed before pressing out the rapeseed oil or heat treating rapeseed oil or additional oil(s) (paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0065]-[0067], [0080], [0087], [0097], [0104], [0105], and [0113]).
With respect to claim 4, Gong is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the oil and fat material of the (B) heated/processed oil and fat includes one or more materials selected from the group consisting of corn, soybeans, and rapeseed in claim 4, Gong teaches the chlorophyll content of the composition can be adjusted as desired by processing the oil components, such as by roasting rapeseed before pressing out the oil or heat treating rapeseed oil or additional oil(s) (rapeseed oil, soybean oil, or corn oil) (paragraphs [0011], [0066]-[0067], [0080], and [0087]).
With respect to claim 5, Gong is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of containing one or more oils selected from the group consisting of rapeseed oil, soybean oil, corn oil, and palm olein as the (C) edible oil and fat in claim 5, Gong teaches addition oil(s), such as rapeseed oil, soybean oil, corn oil, and palm oil, may be used (paragraph [0011]).
With respect to claim 6, Gong is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding wherein the (b1) first heated oil has been heat-treated at 120⁰C or more, the (b2) roasted oil has been subjected to a roasting treatment at 90⁰C or more and 180⁰C or less, and the (b3) second heated oil has been subjected to a heat treatment under conditions that satisfy formula (1) below, with a heating time of 5 minutes or more and 240 minutes or less at more than 100⁰C and 220⁰C or less (1) 85-6000/(270-T)<t<240 where T is a heating temperature in ⁰C, and t is the heating time in minutes; and wherein when 85-6000/(270-T) yields a negative value, then the heating time t is equal to 5 in claim 6, Gong teaches rapeseed is roasted at 170⁰C in some embodiments, and the additional oil(s) maybe be heated to 200⁰C (paragraphs [0064], [0066], [0067], [0080], [0101]-[0103], and [0116]).
With respect to claim 8, Gong relates to an oil composition comprising chlorophyll (paragraphs [0002], [0005], and [0007]).
Regarding the recitation of “for inhibiting unpleasant taste in a food cooked using a chlorophyll-containing oil and fat composition” in the preamble of claim 8, it is noted that this recitation is a statement of intended use or field of use. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding the recitation of characterized in that the agent contains as an active ingredient (B) a heated/processed oil and fat including one or more oils selected from the group consisting of (b1) a first heated oil obtained by heat-treating an unrefined raw oil including one or more oils selected from the group consisting of a pressed oil from an oil and fat material and an extracted oil from the oil and fat material, or an oil and fat that has passed through one or more steps selected from the group consisting of a degumming step, a deacidification step, and a decolorization step in a step of refining the unrefined raw oil, (b2) a roasted oil obtained by pressing or extracting the oil and fat material,which has been roasted, and (b3) a second heated oil obtained by heat-treating an oil and fat containing the oil and fat material and/or a processed product thereof in claim 8, Gong teaches an oil composition comprising rapeseed oil, additional oil(s), and chlorophyll calculated in terms of chlorophyll A. The additional oil(s) may optionally be refined by decolorization. The chlorophyll content of the composition can be adjusted as desired by processing the oil components, such as by roasting rapeseed before pressing out the rapeseed oil or heat treating rapeseed oil or additional oil(s). Gong also teaches the oil composition can be used to reduce the generation of fumes during food cooking (paragraphs [0004], [0007]-[0009], [0065]-[0067], [0080], [0087], [0097], [0104], [0105], and [0113]).
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.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gong et al. CN 106922844 (hereinafter “Gong”) (refer to the corresponding machine translation published in English) as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 2, Gong is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of containing 0.05 mass ppm or more and 2.00 mass ppm or less of the (A) chlorophyll and 0.05 mass% or more and 10.0 mass% or less of the (B) heated/processed oil and fat in claim 2, Gong teaches the composition comprises 1-80% of additional oil(s) and a chlorophyll content of 0.1 ppm to 50 ppm (paragraph [0008]), and the ranges of Gong overlap with the presently claimed ranges. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 3, Gong is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the mass ratio of the (B) heated/processed oil and fat to the (A) chlorophyll is 1:200-1:250000 in claim 3, Gong does not expressly disclose the claimed ratio. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the mass ratio of the heated/processed oil to the chlorophyll in the composition of Gong through routine experimentation with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Gong teaches the chlorophyll content of the composition can be adjusted as desired by processing the oil components, such as by roasting rapeseed before pressing out the rapeseed oil or heat treating rapeseed oil or additional oil(s) (paragraphs [0007], [0065]-[0067], and [0080]), and it is understood that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYNESHA L. MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 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.
/T.L.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793