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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a 2nd Non-Final Rejection. Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks filed 07/06/2026, with regards to the 103 rejection over Wagner was given consideration and found convincing. However, upon further search and consideration, a closer prior art was found, and thereby relied upon in the rejection herewith.
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 07/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-17 are pending in this application. Claims 7-17, drawn to non-elected groups. Claim 6 is amended. Claims 1-6 are currently under examination and the subject matter of the present Office Action.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
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 is indefinite because it recites “into the product” which lacks antecedent basis. It is unclear what product in Claim 1 is being referred to, i.e. just the lactones from the heat treatment or the flavor-imparting agent comprising the lactones, or something else. Thus, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wagner et al. ("Key odorants of French fries." Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society 75.10 (1998): 1385-1392), hereinafter Wagner, as evidenced by Leech, J. (What Is the Healthiest Oil for Deep Frying? The Crispy Truth, obtained from Wayback Machine on 08/08/2026 URL: <https://web.archive.org/web/20171023072557/https:/www.healthline.com/nutrition/healthiest-oil-for-deep-frying#section1>, first published August 18, 2016, and Bezard et al. (J Am Oil Chem Soc 48, 134–139 (1971).
Regarding Claim 1, Wagner teaches using coconut fat as frying medium for potatoes; its fatty acid composition (g/100 g) after transesterification is 8:0 (7.2), 10:0 (6.0), 12:0 (44.2), 14:0 (15.1), 16:0 (8.1), 18:0 (3.2), 18:1 (5.2), and 18:2 (1.9), which totals to 72.5% and reading on the claimed amount of fatty acids (p. 1385, Materials). Deep frying temperature is between 176–190°C, and coconut oil has a smoke point at 180°C, as evidenced by Leech. The coconut fat led to a coconut note in the profile of French fries contributed by lactones, primarily by [Symbol font/0x67]-octalactone, anticipating the claim (Abstract; Table 3; p. 1388, Results). As such, Claim 3 is also anticipated.
Regarding Claim 2, Wagner teaches that (E,Z)-2,4-decadienal and (E,E)-2,4-decadienal cause the deep-fried note in the odor profile of French fries, and that these dienals are formed by autooxidation of linoleic acid found in coconut fat at 1.9%, which anticipates the claimed range for unsaturated fatty acid (p. 1391, L. Col., 1st and 2nd paragraph; Tables 4-5).
Regarding Claim 5, Wagner teaches coconut fat (Materials), which has a total glyceride that is almost exclusively triglycerides, i.e. 99.8% triglycerides, as evidenced by Bezard (Abstract).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner, as applied to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4, Wagner teaches that the [Symbol font/0x67]-lactones with 8 to 10 carbon atoms cause the coconut-like note atoms (p. 1390, Discussion, 1st paragraph). If a stronger coconut and a decrease in deep-frying note is desired, one would limit the triglycerides to only contain fatty acid precursors of [Symbol font/0x67]-lactones with 8 to 10 carbon.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Little Figgy (The Best Parmesan Truffle Fries Recipe - Little Figgy Food. May 29, 2020. Obtained from WayBack Machine on 08/08/2026. URL: <https://web.archive.org/web/20200918193323/https:/www.littlefiggy.com/the-best-parmesan-truffle-fries-recipe/>), as evidenced by Amazon (Amazon.com : The Truffleist Black Truffle Oil – Black Truffle Infused Olive Oil – 8.5 oz : Grocery & Gourmet Food. Obtained from URL: <https://www.amazon.com/TRUFFLEIST-Black-Truffle-Olive-Oil/dp/B01N9YSTPG> on 08/08/2026. Review posted for product on December 30, 2019), and Viola et al. (Clinics in Dermatology (2009) 27, 159–165).
Wagner does not teach mixing additional triglyceride.
Little Figgy teaches the preparation of truffle fries by adding fresh truffle oil on the cooked fries while it is still hot (p. 2, bottom 2 paragraphs; p. 6, To season section).
Most truffle oils are olive oil infused with black truffle, as evidenced by Amazon. Olive oil contains 98%-99% triglycerides as evidenced by Viola et al. (Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add truffle oil to fries cooked per the teaching of Wagner, to obtain truffle fries, which has truffle aroma. In doing so, the truffle oil, which is olive-oil based, would be mixed with the coconut oil the fries is cooked in. Because olive oil contains triglycerides, Claim 6 is obvious.
Response to Remarks:
Applicant’s arguments are centered around Grab and Grab2, which are no longer relied on in this 2nd Non-final Action.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10-6 EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JANICE Y SILVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights