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 .
The amendment filed 23 October 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claim 4 has been cancelled.
Claims 12-16 have been withdrawn.
New claim 17 has been submitted.
Claims 1-3, 5-11 and 17 are presented for examination on the merits.
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 17 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.
New claim 17 is rendered vague and indefinite by the phrase “wherein its palmitic acid content relative to total fatty acids is increased by more than 25 to 75% compared to a raw starting material”. This language is the only difference from that of the avocado oil of claim 1. It is unclear how this oil differs from that of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is unclear what the starting raw material actually is – avocado, avocado oil, refined avocado oil, etc.
Flores et al. (2019) discloses that the oil from the fruit of the Hass variety, originating from crops from Mexico, Australia, the United States, and New Zealand, was characterized by a high content of 62% lipids, of which oleic (42–51%) and palmitic (20–25%) lipids were present in a greater proportion.
So does the language of claim 17 mean that the palmitic acid content of the claimed avocado oil is 25-75% higher than 25-26%?
Note on claim interpretation:
The term “solid” used to describe the claimed avocado oil is a relative term, as different degrees of solidity exist and would be greatly dependent upon the temperature, (as anyone who has placed a bottle of avocado oil in the refrigerator can attest). But this is irrelevant since the avocado oil’s characteristics are recited, that is – a pour point between 8 and 15oC (i.e., the lowest temperature at which oil flows in a specified lab test. Specifically, the pour point is 3℃ (5℉) above the temperature at which the oil shows no movement when a lab sample container is held horizontally for 5 seconds), palmitic acid content of 15-35% and melting point of 20 to 50oC.
When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “cosmetic”, “pharmaceutical” or “food” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With respect to product-by-process claims (e.g., claim 8), it is noted that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on it method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 (and claims dependent thereon) are directed to a composition comprising natural products. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Effective January 7, 2019, subject matter eligibility determinations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 follow the procedure explained in the Federal Register notice titled 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No.4, 50-57), which is found at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf. Applicants are kindly asked to review this guidance as well as MPEP 2106.
The statutory categories of invention under 35 U.S.C. 101 are processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. However, certain members of these categories constitute judicial exceptions, i.e., the courts have determined that these entities are not patentable subject matter. These judicial exceptions include abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. The Office released guidance on December 16, 2014 for the examination of claims reciting natural products under 35 U.S.C. 101 in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972 (2013)) and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)), Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)) and Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. - 333 U.S. 127 (1948)). (inter alia). See eg. MPEP 2106.04(b)
The Supreme Court has explained that the judicial exceptions reflect the Court’s view that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are "the basic tools of scientific and technological work", and are thus excluded from patentability because "monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2116, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). The Supreme Court’s concern that drives this "exclusionary principle" is pre-emption. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354, 110 USPQ2d at 1980. The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena; i.e., one may not patent every "substantial practical application" of an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon, even if the judicial exception is narrow.
While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible.
Products of Nature: When a law of nature or natural phenomenon is claimed as a physical product, the courts have often referred to the exception as a "product of nature". Products of nature are considered to be an exception because they tie up the use of naturally occurring things, but they have been labeled as both laws of nature and natural phenomena. See Myriad 133 S. Ct. at 2116-17, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 (claims to isolated DNA held ineligible because they "claim naturally occurring phenomena" and are "squarely within the law of nature exception"); Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130, 76 USPQ 280, 281 (1948) (claims to bacterial mixtures held ineligible as "manifestations of laws of nature" and "phenomena of nature"). Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis uses the terms "law of nature" and "natural phenomenon" as inclusive of "products of nature".
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is important to keep in mind that product of nature exceptions include both naturally occurring products and non-naturally occurring products that lack markedly different characteristics from any naturally occurring counterpart. Instead, the key to the eligibility of all non-naturally occurring products is whether they possess markedly different characteristics from its closest naturally occurring counterpart.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When a claim recites a nature-based product limitation, examiners use the markedly different characteristics analysis discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(c) to evaluate the nature-based product limitation and determine the answer to Step 2A. Nature-based products, as used herein, include both eligible and ineligible products and merely refer to the types of products subject to the markedly different characteristics analysis used to identify product of nature exceptions.
The Markedly Different Characteristics Analysis
The markedly different characteristics analysis is part of Step 2A, because the courts use this analysis to identify product of nature exceptions. If the claim includes a nature-based product that has markedly different characteristics, then the claim does not recite a product of nature exception and is eligible. If the claim includes a nature-based product that does not exhibit markedly different characteristics from its closest naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, then the claim is directed to a "product of nature" exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis in Step 2B to determine whether any additional elements in the claim add significantly more to the exception.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nature-based Product Claim Analysis
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claim is to a nature-based product by itself, the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied to the entire product.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claim is to a nature-based product produced by combining multiple components, the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied to the resultant nature-based combination, rather than its component parts. Where the claim is to a nature-based product in combination with non-nature based elements, the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied only to the nature-based product limitation. For a product-by-process claims, the analysis turns on whether the nature-based product in the claim has markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart.
The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. Markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product’s structure, function, and/or other properties, and are evaluated based on what is recited in the claim on a case-by-case basis. If the analysis indicates that a nature-based product limitation does not exhibit markedly different characteristics, then that limitation is a product of nature exception. If the analysis indicates that a nature-based product limitation does have markedly different characteristics, then that limitation is not a product of nature exception.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Because the markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, the first step in the analysis is to select the appropriate counterpart(s) to the nature-based product.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination. Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature).
Markedly changed characteristics can include structural, functional, chemical changes. In order to show a marked difference, a characteristic must be changed as compared to nature, and cannot be an inherent or innate characteristic of the naturally occurring counterpart or an incidental change in a characteristic of the naturally occurring counterpart. Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2111, 106 USPQ2d at 1974-75. Thus, in order to be markedly different, applicant must have caused the claimed product to possess at least one characteristic that is different from that of the counterpart.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If there is no change in any characteristic, the claimed product lacks markedly different characteristics, and is a product of nature exception.
The claims are directed to a composition comprising a nature-based component (i.e., avocado oil from the recited varieties), which is not markedly different from its closest naturally-occurring counterpart because there is no indication that their combination or preparation has caused the nature-based product to have any characteristics that are markedly different from the closest naturally-occurring product and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Step 1: Determine if the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. YES, the claims are directed to a composition of matter, which is a statutory category within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A: PRONG ONE: Evaluate whether the claim recites a Judicial Exception
(e.g., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). YES, the claims are product claims reciting something that appears to be a nature-based product (i.e., avocado oil from the recited varieties) which is not markedly different from the closest naturally-occurring counterpart (i.e., the individual nature-based products).
Note: with respect to extracts of natural products such as plants, the closest naturally-occurring counterpart is always the same compounds found in the extract, present in the non-isolated form in the source plant material. Extracts that are made simply by separating the extracted components from the non-extracted components, is a partitioning process that absent any specific chemical modification, merely separates the compounds leaving their activities unchanged.
Ingredients recited in the claims are natural products that would occur naturally; thus, the claims involve the use of judicial exceptions. There is no indication in the record of any markedly different characteristics (either structural or functional) of the composition as broadly claimed. For example, there is no evidence of record of a structural difference between the extract(s) in the claimed composition and that of their nature-based counterparts. Consequently, the claimed compositions are structurally the same as their closest naturally- occurring counterparts.
Nor is there any difference in functional characteristics. To show a marked difference, the characteristic(s) must be changed as compared it closest natural-occurring counterpart. For example, and assertion of changed functionality must be accompanied with evidence of a comparison of the claimed composition with its closest naturally-occurring counterpart and should apply to the full scope of the claim. Furthermore, inherent or innate characteristics of the naturally occurring counterpart cannot show a marked difference. Likewise, differences in the characteristics that came about or were produced independently of any effort or influence by Applicant cannot show a marked difference.
The recitation of specific amounts of the ingredients does not affect this analysis because it is well known and routine in the art to mix specific amounts of active ingredients with additional ingredients. Therefore, the claim is not meaningfully limited and does not amount to significantly more than each product of nature by itself. Finally, the claimed mixture is like the novel bacterial mixture of Funk Brothers, which was held ineligible because each species of bacteria in the mixture (like each component in the instantly claimed mixture) continued to have “the same effect it always had”, i.e., it lacked markedly different characteristics. Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 131 (1948), discussed in Myriad Genetics, 133 S. Ct. at 2117. While not discussed in the opinion, it is noted that several of the claims held ineligible in Funk Brothers recited specific amounts of the bacterial species in the mixture, e.g., claims 6, 7 and 13. Funk Brothers, 333 U.S. at 128 n.1.
Thus, there is no evidence of record to indicate that the claimed product is markedly different, structurally, chemically, functionally, than its closest naturally occurring counterpart.
PRONG TWO: Evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed to a composition, not its practical use such as a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition.
Thus the cited claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentable subject matter.
Step 2b: Determine whether the claim directed to a judicial exception provides an inventive concept. For example, the claims may recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In the instant case, NO, the claims are directed to an extract composition without any other components that could add significantly more to the exception. No other specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field at a high level of generality have been added to the claimed nature-based product (e.g., addition of well-known ingredients).
Thus, the claimed product is not eligible subject matter under current 35 USC 101 standards.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Yanty et al. (2011). [cited by Applicant in IDS filed 3/4/24].
Yanty et al. discloses various avocado oils. Specifically, with 27.63% palmitic acid content ranging from 26.41 to 30.37%, melting points ranging from 27.25 to 31oC. Thus, these avocado oils would be solid at room temperature. Additionally the reference implicitly describes a cosmetic product comprising one of these oils (see entire document, including, e.g., tables 1-3, page 1999, right-hand column; paragraph 2, paragraph entitled “Conclusions”).
Consequently, the claimed composition(s) appears to be anticipated by the cited reference.
Even if the claimed avocado oil is not identical to the referenced avocado oil with regard to some unidentified characteristics, the differences between that which is disclosed and that which is claimed are considered to be so slight that the referenced avocado oil inherently possesses the same characteristics of the claimed avocado oil particularly in view of the similar characteristics which they have been shown to share.
A composition of matter that is old in the art cannot be patented by one who discovers a previously unknown property of that composition. Titanium Metals Corp. of Am. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985),
Alternatively, the instant claims rejected under U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yanty et al., in view of Eger et al. (EP1139771B1). [cited in IDS filed by Applicant on 3/4/24].
Eger et al. describes a food product comprising an avocado oil.
Thus is would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the Application to employ a “solid” avocado oil such as taught by Yanty in various products, such as food products such as taught by Eger et al.
If necessary, the adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., altering the relative proportions of constituent components, employing conventional means of administration, etc.) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan
Accordingly, the claimed invention as a whole was at least prima facie obvious, if not anticipated by the reference, especially in the absence of sufficient, clear, and convincing evidence to the contrary.
With respect to the USC 102/103 above, please note that in product-by-process claims, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference.” MPEP 2113. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 is proper because the “patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Please also note that the Patent and Trademark Office is not equipped to conduct experimentation in order to determine whether Applicants’ avocado oil differs and, if so, to what extent, from the discussed reference. Therefore, with the showing of the reference, the burden of establishing non-obviousness by objective evidence is shifted to the Applicants. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254-1255, 195 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 430, 432-33 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments/arguments, with respect to the indefiniteness rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of the previous Office action have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments/arguments filed with respect to the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claims have been amended to include the limitation “the avocado oil having a pour point as determined by the ASTM D 97 method of between 8 and 15 °C”. However, this merely states an inherent property of the oil, which is a consequence of the fatty acid composition of the oil. The pour point and melting points of an oil are dependent upon the relative proportion of saturated fatty acids within the lipids. The claims remain broadly directed to an avocado oil having 15 to 25% palmitic acid. As stated previously, this is well within the average of avocado oils, which can range up to 30%. The claims essentially cover the majority of avocado oils as seen in the Table 1 of Flores et al. (2019).
Applicant has shown only that Hass avocado oil with a palmitic acid content of 22%, which is elevated from the normal range (15±3%) and is solid at 20oC. (E1 in Table 1). This would seem to be the distinguishing characteristic of the Applicant’s invention. It is this embodiment that is actually different than the avocado oils of the prior art, and it is suggested that to expedite prosecution that the extremely broad claims be narrowed to the actual invention.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL G FIEBIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 5712720947. 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.
/RUSSELL G FIEBIG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1655
