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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 3/11/26. Claim 1 is amended and claims 2-3 are cancelled. Claim 21 is added. Claims 1,4-14,18-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,4, 6-10,18,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen ( 3743512) in view of Martinez-Serna Villagran ( 6287622) and Bright ( 2013/0243916).
For claims 1-2, Hansen discloses a composition in a form of dry powder comprising particles of a carrier coated with fatty acid glyceride comprising monoglyeride. The amount of fatty acid glyceride in the composition is 50%. The amount of monoglyceride is about 90% or higher which fall within the claimed range of 45-97%. Hansen discloses the fine powder formed is free flowing even after being store for months. For claim 4, the glyceride is derived from vegetable oil. For claim 6, the carrier includes starch, cane, beet, corn sugar, calcium phosphate etc.. Claim 7 is not limiting because fiber does not need to be selected as the carrier from the Markush group in claim 6. For claim 8, Hansen discloses wheat starch, corn starch etc.. For claim 9, Hansen discloses the size of particles is below 10 microns, with no particles being above 80 microns. ( see columns 2,4,6)
Hansen does not disclose the iodine value of the monoglyceride as in claims 1,3, the density and area as in claim 9, the antioxidant as claim 10, the oil as in claim 18 and the fatty acid feature as in claim 21.
Villagran discloses emulsifier that is used in dough compositions. The emulsifier coats the flour. The emulsifier comprises monoglyceride. The monoglyceride has iodide value of greater than 60 to about 120. The monoglyceride is derived from soybean oil, rapeseed oil, cottonseed oil, corn oil, sunflower oil etc.. The monoglyeride has a concentration of monoglyceride greater than 60%. ( see col. 9 lines 48-65, col. 10 lines 1-35)
Bright discloses low sodium salt tortilla containing fatty substance. Bright discloses fatty substances with high iodine number which is a measure for the number of double bonds in the fatty acid chains or in other words a low degree of saturation. ( see paragraph 0070)
While Hansen discloses a low value iodide monoglyceride, Hansen does not restrict the monoglyceride component to only low iodide number. As shown in Bright, the iodide number of monoglyceride is a measurement of the degrees of unsaturation ( measure of the number of double bonds in the fatty acid). The higher number indicates higher degree of unsaturation. It is known that unsaturated fat is healthier than saturated fat. Villagran discloses the use of monoglyceride having high iodide number to coat flour. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the monoglyceride as disclosed in Villagran when desiring a healthier alternative ingredient to perform the same function of coating the carrier. Hansen discloses the particle sizes within the range claimed; thus, it is obvious the bulk density and surface area are within the range claimed. It’s known in the art to add antioxidant to fat composition that is known to be prone to oxidation. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to add an antioxidant. Adding an additive for its art-recognized function would have been obvious to one skilled in the art. Antioxidant such as tocopherol, ascorbic acid, citric acid etc.. are known in the art. The percent of saturated fatty acid and unsaturated fatty acid of the monoglyceride depend on the source in which the monoglyceride is obtained. For instance, it’s known that soybean oil contains more unsaturated fatty acids than coconut oil. Villagran shows that monoglyceride can be obtained from different types of oil. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to select an oil to give varying amount of saturated fatty acid and monounsaturated fatty depending on the nutritional profile desired for the fat. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of skilled in the art through routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 5,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen ( 3743512) in view of Villagran ( 6287622) and Bright ( 2013/0243916) as applied to claims 1,4, 6-10 and 18 above, and further in view of Gregersen ( 4178393).
Hansen does not disclose the fatty acid in claim 5 and the carrier is maltodextrin as in claim 19.
Gregersen discloses a dry pulverulent monoglyceride product. The monoglyceride contains about 62% stearic acid, about 32.5 palmitic, about 3.2% myristic and about 2.3% arachidic acid. The monoglyceride is mixed with a carrier substance including maltodextrin. ( see col. 2 lines 61-65, col. 5 lines 14-20,col. 6 lines 1-15)
Both Hansen and Gregersen are directed to composition comprising monoglyceride and carrier. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the monoglyceride and maltodextrin disclosed in Gregersen as the source of monoglyceride and carrier as an obvious matter of using alternative ingredients to carry out the same function.
Claim(s) 11,13,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view Villagran ( 6287622) and Bright ( 2013/0243916) as applied to claims 1,4, 6-10 and 18 above and further in view of Develter ( 20190208794).
Hansen does not disclose the adding of enzyme as in claim 11, hydrocolloid as in claims 13 and 20.
Develter discloses bakery composition. Develter teaches the composition comprising enzyme to improve the properties of baked products. Develter discloses bread improvers comprising enzymes such as amylases, xylanases etc.. and gums. ( see paragraph 0069)
The recitation of bakery pre-mix in claim 11 is an intended use. The mix is the composition with the addition of enzyme. It’s known in the art to add enzyme to composition intended to be used for bakery products to enhance the properties of the baked products as taught in Develter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add enzyme to the Hansen composition to improve the properties of the baked product in which the composition is added. The Hansen composition is an additive to be used in preparation of baked goods. Since enzyme is a minor additive to the composition, it’s obvious the amount of the composition can vary to be almost exclusively the composition with remaining portion to be of additive. One of skilled in the art can readily determine the concentration through routine experimentation. For claims 13,20, Develter discloses to add gums which is a hydrocolloid to function as bread improver. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an additive for its art-recognized function. It would have been obvious to use any known hydrocolloids. All the claimed hydrocolloids are well known.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view Villagran ( 6287622) and Bright ( 2013/0243916) as applied to claims 1,4, 6-10 and 18 above and further in view of Sakuma ( 2005/0123667).
Hansen does not disclose the dough conditioner as in claim 12.
Sakuma discloses an oil/fat powder. Sakuma teaches to add antioxidant such as ascorbic acid to improve storage stability and improving stability of taste. ( see paragraph 0040)
The Hansen composition is a powder comprising fat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add antioxidant as disclosed in Sakuma to improve the storage stability and improving stability of taste.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view Villagran ( 6287622) and Bright ( 2013/0243916) as applied to claims 1,4, 6-10 and 18 above and further in view of Staeger ( 2008/0175958).
Hansen does not disclose as antimicrobial agent.
Staeger discloses fat composition. Staeger teaches to add antimicrobial agent such as potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate. ( see paragraph 0051)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an antimicrobial agent disclosed in Staeger in the Hansen composition to ensure the safety and stability of the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues that the combination of Hansen, Villagran and Bright fails to teach the composition a free-flowing dry powder. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed to col. 2 lines 57-59 where Hansen explicitly discloses “ this impalpably fine powder so formed is free flowing, even after being stored for months. Applicant further argues Hansen and Villagran teach away from each other with respect to an iodine value. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Hansen discloses the use of distilled monoglyceride that is fully hydrogenated and having an iodine number of 1. It's a common knowledge that fully hydrogenated fat has completely saturation and saturated fat is considered to be unhealthy. Villagran teaches monoglyceride containing higher iodine value, including about 60 which encompassed the claimed range of 40-60. Hansen does not disclose any requirement of only using monoglyceride having very low iodide value. As shown in Bright, the iodide number of monoglyceride is a measurement of the degrees of unsaturation ( measure of the number of double bonds in the fatty acid). The higher number indicates higher degree of unsaturation. It is known that unsaturated fat is healthier than saturated fat. Villagran discloses the use of monoglyceride having high iodide number to coat flour. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the monoglyceride as disclosed in Villagran when desiring a healthier alternative ingredient to perform the same function of coating the carrier. Applicant argues Villagran teaches iodine value greater than 70. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Villagran also discloses greater than about 60 which means 60 or little less. Furthermore, knowing the relationship between iodine value and degree of unsaturation, it would have been will within the skill of one in the art to select an iodine value that gives the desirable degrees of saturation depending on the nutritional profile desired. Such parameter would only require routine experimentation. Applicant argues that Hansen discloses 90% or higher monoglyceride but does not disclose or suggest a range of 45-97%. The basis of this argument is not understood. The disclosure of 90% falls within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "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).
Applicant argues Hansen and Villagran would not teach a free-flowing powder. This argument is not persuasive as it’s clearly disputed by the specific disclosure pointed out above. The Villagran reference is not relied upon for teaching of free-flowing powder.
The new claim 21 is addressed in the rejection above.
Conclusion
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.
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 14, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights