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 claims filed November 22, 2023 are acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from consideration (see below).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on November 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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, 3, 4, 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US 20210337817 (hereinafter “Lee”).
With respect to claim 1, Lee relates to a composition (paragraph [0002]).
Regarding the recitation of comprising: one or more monoglycerides of a C4-C28 fatty acid, present in a total amount of about 10 wt% to about 90 wt% of the composition; and a lecithin, present in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 90 wt% of the composition in claim 1, Lee teaches a composition comprising 70% of a mixture of 1-glyceryl palmitate and 1-glyceryl stearate and 30% lecithin (paragraphs [0051] and [0143]).
With respect to claim 3, Lee is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein: the one or more monoglycerides are present in a total amount of about 50 wt% to about 90 wt% of the composition; and the lecithin is present in an amount of about 10 wt% to about 50 wt% of the composition in claim 3, Lee teaches a composition comprising 70% of a mixture of 1-glyceryl palmitate and 1-glyceryl stearate and 30% lecithin (paragraphs [0051] and [0143]).
With respect to claim 4, Lee is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the one or more monoglycerides comprise: one or more monoglycerides of a C16-C28 fatty acid; and one or more monoglycerides of a C4-C14 fatty acid in claim 4, Lee teaches the composition may comprise mixtures of monoacylglycerides of fatty acids with carbon chain lengths of at least 14 and carbon chain lengths of less than 13 such as 7-13 (paragraphs [0141] and [0143]).
With respect to claim 14, Lee is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein each of the one or more monoglycerides independently comprises a compound of Formula I-i or Formula I-ii in claim 14, Lee teaches the monoacylglycerides used include compounds from Formula I-i and I-ii (paragraphs [0051], [0121]-[0123] and [0143]).
With respect to claim 16, Lee relates to a mixture (paragraph [0017]).
Regarding the recitation of comprising: the composition of claim 1; and a solvent in claim 16, Lee teaches the mixture comprises a solvent, and Lee is also relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above (paragraphs [0017], [0143], and [0212]).
With respect to claim 17, Lee relates to a coated agricultural product (paragraphs [0017]).
Regarding the recitation of comprising an agricultural product and a layer disposed on a surface of the agricultural product, wherein the layer comprises the composition of claim 1 in claim 17, Lee teaches a coating on the surface of an agricultural product, and Lee is also relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above (paragraphs [0017], [0143], and [0212]).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US 20210337817 (hereinafter “Lee”) as applied to claim 1 above, and as evidenced by Lecipro, “Composition of Soybean Lecithin” (hereinafter Lecipro”).
With respect to claim 8, Lee is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the lecithin comprises one or more glycerophospholipids in claim 8, Lee teaches soy lecithin is used (paragraphs [0143] and [0212]). Evidence is provided by Lecipro. Lecipro is merely used to show the presence of glycerophospholipids in soy lecithin (Abstract; P1, Introduction; P3-P7, Phospholipid components). Thus, Lee, as evidenced by Lecipro, successfully meets the claimed limitation.
With respect to claim 9, Lee is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the lecithin comprises one or more triglycerides in claim 9, Lee teaches soy lecithin is used (paragraphs [0143] and [0212]). Evidence is provided by Lecipro. Lecipro is merely used to show the presence of triglycerides in soy lecithin (Abstract; P1, Introduction; P3-P4, Table I). Thus, Lee, as evidenced by Lecipro, successfully meets the claimed limitation.
With respect to claims 10 and 11, Lee is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 8 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the one or more glycerophospholipids comprise the listed compositions of claims 10 and 11, Lee teaches soy lecithin is used (paragraphs [0143] and [0212]). Evidence is provided by Lecipro. Lecipro is merely used to show the presence of glycerophospholipids, including phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanolamine, inositol phosphatides and phosphatidic acid, in soy lecithin (Abstract; P1, Introduction; P3-P7, Phospholipid components). Thus, Lee, as evidenced by Lecipro, successfully meets the claimed limitations.
With respect to claim 12, Lee is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 8 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein one or more of the glycerophospholipids independently comprises a compound of Formula III in claim 12, Lee teaches soy lecithin is used (paragraphs [0143] and [0212]). Evidence is provided by Lecipro. Lecipro is merely used to show the presence of glycerophospholipids, including phosphatidylcholine, phosphatidylethanolamine, inositol phosphatides and phosphatidic acid, in soy lecithin (Abstract; P1, Introduction; P3-P7, Phospholipid components). Thus, Lee, as evidenced by Lecipro, successfully meets the claimed limitation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. US 20210337817 (hereinafter “Lee”) as evidenced by Lecipro, “Composition of Soybean Lecithin” (hereinafter Lecipro”) as applied to claim 9 above and further evidenced by Thielemans et al., “Impure Carbon Nanotubes as Reinforcements for Acrylated Epoxidized Soy Oil Composites” (hereinafter “Thielemans”).
With respect to claim 13, Lee as evidenced by Lecipro is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 9 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein one or more of the triglycerides independently comprises a compound of Formula IV in claim 13, Lee teaches soy lecithin is used (paragraphs [0143] and [0212]). Evidence is provided by Lecipro and Thielemans. Lecipro is merely used to show the presence of triglycerides from soy oil in the soy lecithin (Abstract; P1-P2, Introduction; P3-P4, Table I), and Thielemans is merely used to show the chemical structure of triglycerides found in soy oil (P1326, Fig. 2) . Thus, Lee, as evidenced by Lecipro and Thielemans, successfully meets the claimed limitation.
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, 5, 6, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 20210337817 (hereinafter “Lee”) as applied to claim 1 above.
With respect to claim 2, Lee is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein: the one or more monoglycerides are present in a total amount of about 10 wt% to about 50 wt% of the composition; the lecithin is present in an amount of about 50 wt% to about 90 wt% of the composition in claim 2, Lee teaches the composition comprises at least 50% of the monoacylglycerides (up to 50% lecithin) (paragraphs [0126] and [0143]), and the ranges taught in Lee 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 5, Lee relates to a composition (paragraph [0002]).
Regarding the recitation of comprising: one or more monoglycerides of a C4-C28 fatty acid; one or more alkyl esters of a C4-C28 fatty acid; and a lecithin; wherein: a ratio of a total mass of the one or more monoglycerides to a total mass of the one or more alkyl esters is about 20:1 to about 1:1; and a ratio of a total mass of the one or more monoglycerides and the one or more alkyl esters to a total mass of the lecithin is about 10:1 to about 1:10 in claim 5, Lee teaches the composition may comprise mixtures of monoacylglycerides of fatty acids with carbon chain lengths of at least 14 and carbon chain lengths of less than 13, esters (such as ethyl or methyl) of fatty acids with carbon chain lengths of at least 14 and/or carbon chain lengths of less than 13, and lecithin. The ratio of monoacylglycerides and esters of fatty acids to lecithin can be a range of 2 to 20 (paragraphs [0085] and [0141]-[0143]). 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).
Lee does not expressly disclose the ratio of monoacylglycerides to esters of fatty acids. 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 ratio of monoacylglycerides to esters of fatty acids 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 Lee teaches the ratio of ingredients can be adjusted in order to ensure the components of the composition are dissolved, suspended, or dispersed when combined with a solvent (paragraph [0142]), 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).
With respect to claim 6, Lee is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 5 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the ratio of the total mass of the one or more monoglycerides to the total mass of the one or more alkyl esters is about 10:1 to about 2:1 in claim 6, Lee does not expressly disclose the ratio of monoacylglycerides to esters of fatty acids. 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 ratio of monoacylglycerides to esters of fatty acids 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 Lee teaches the ratio of ingredients can be adjusted in order to ensure the components of the composition are dissolved, suspended, or dispersed when combined with a solvent (paragraph [0142]), 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).
With respect to claim 15, Lee is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 5 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein each of the one or more alkyl esters independently comprises a compound of Formula V in claim 15, Lee teaches the esters (such as ethyl or methyl) of fatty acids used include compounds from Formula V (paragraphs [0051], [0085], [0116]-[0119], and [0141]-[0143]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. US 20210337817 (hereinafter “Lee”) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Schmitt et al. US 20050227945 (hereinafter “Schmitt”).
With respect to claim 7, Lee is relied upon for the teaching of the composition of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the recitation of wherein the lecithin comprises a hydrolyzed lecithin in claim 7, Lee does not expressly disclose this limitation.
Schmitt relates to hydrolyzed lecithin products. Hydrolyzed lecithins can be used in combination with monoglycerides (Abstract; and paragraphs [0001] and [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Schmitt, to select hydrolyzed lecithin based in its suitability for its intended purpose in the composition of Lee with the expectation of successfully preparing a functional product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Schmitt and Lee similarly teach products comprising monoglycerides and lecithin, Schmitt teaches the combination of monoglycerides and hydrolyzed lecithin provides an end product with improved properties (paragraph [0028]), and said combination would amount to the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)) (MPEP 2144.07).
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
Prosecution Insights