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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10,18-19 in the reply filed on 11/14/25 is acknowledged.
Upon further consideration, it’s deemed that claims 11-14 and 20 should be group with the composition because they are directed to mix comprising the composition. Thus, they will be included with the examination of claims 1-10 and 18-19.
Claims 15-17 remain withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions. Claims 1-14, 18-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10,18 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. 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 and the oil as in claim 18.
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.
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.
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.
November 29, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793