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 4/9/26. Claims 1,4,11-13 are amended and claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1, 3-14 are pending.
The previous 112 second paragraph and 101 rejections are withdrawn due to the amendment. The 103 rejection is withdrawn due to the discovery of new prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 4, 6,8,10, 12 are 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 4 is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is intended. Claim 4 is a duplicate of claim 3.
Claim 6 is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is intended. The claim is a duplicate of claim 5. While claim 6 depends from claim 4 and claim 5 depends from claim 3, both claims 3-4 depend from the same claim and comprise the same limitation.
Claims 8,10 have the same problem as claim 6.
Claim 12 is vague and indefinite. While the claim recites fractionating, there is no parameter defining the step, it’s not clear how the method produced that product recited in claim 1. It’s not clear how the total constituent fatty acid of 16 or more carbon in the range of 79-97% and the CN 38 to CN46 triglyceride as recited in claim 1 is obtained in the method of claim 12 because the claim does not define oil that is used to produce such result. As disclosed in the instant specification, specific combination of oils is used to produce the oil and/or fat shown in table 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 3-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara ( WO 2013168554).
For claims 1,3,4 Uehara discloses an oil/fat composition. The composition comprises X3 content of 1-20% , and X20 content of 50-90% where X3 is triglyceride which 3 molecules are bonded and X is a saturated fatty acid having 14 or more carbon atoms, preferably 14-20 carbon atoms and X20 is saturated fatty acid and oleic acid. The composition comprises 5% or less of lauric acid and 5% or less of trans fatty acids. The content of fatty acids having 16 or more carbon atoms is 95%. With respect to claims 3,4, Uehara discloses the content of lauric acid and saturated fatty acid within the claimed ranges it’s obviously inherent that the amount of lauric acid based in total fatty acids falls within the claimed range. ( see pages 3-5)
For claims 5,6, Uehara discloses the transesterified oil comprises an oleic content of 10% and linoleic acid of less than 10%. Both oleic acid and linoleic acid are unsaturated fatty acids. ( see page 6)
For claims 7,8, Uehara discloses the fat composition has SFC or 15-70% at 30 degrees C, 45-90% at 25 degrees C. If the fat has 90% SFC at 25 degrees C, it’s obvious the SFC is even higher at lower temperature of 20 degrees C and 10 degrees since fat is more solid at lower temperature. Thus, the fat would inherently have the SFC within the range as claimed at 10 and 20 degrees C. The same with the SFC at 40 degrees since fat become less solid at higher temperature and the fat in Uehara can have SFC of 5% at 35 degrees C. ( see page 5
For claims 9,10, Uehara discloses the fat composition comprises stearic acid content of 5-30%. ( see page 5)
For claim 11, Uehara discloses the chocolate product comprising the fat composition and other ingredients such as cocoa butter, cacao ingredients etc… ( see page 9)
For claim 12, Uehara discloses a method for producing the fat composition comprising the step of fractionating the mixed oil of the transesterified oil A and the transesterified oil B and removing the high melting point portion to obtain low melting point portion and further separating the obtained low melting point portion to reduce the low melting point portion. It can be produced by removing the melting point to obtain a high melting point. That is the oil and fat composition is produced by fractionating mixed to obtain middle melting point portion of the mixed oil. The transesterified oil A has a ratio of P/S of 1.5-7 and the content of lauric acid is 3. The transesterified oil B has a P/S ratio of maximum of 4 and lauric acid content of 3. ( see pages 6,7,8)
For claims 13,14Uehara discloses an oil/fat composition. The composition comprises X3 content of 1-20% , and X20 content of 50-90% where X3 is triglyceride which 3 molecules are bonded and X is a saturated fatty acid having 14 or more carbon atoms, preferably 14-20 carbon atoms and X20 is saturated fatty acid and oleic acid. The composition comprises 5% or less of lauric acid and 5% or less of trans fatty acids. The content of fatty acids having 16 or more carbon atoms is 95%. With respect to claims 3,4, Uehara discloses the content of lauric acid and saturated fatty acid within the claimed ranges it’s obviously inherent that the amount of lauric acid based in total fatty acids falls within the claimed range. Uehara discloses the chocolate product comprising the fat composition and other ingredients such as cocoa butter, cacao ingredients etc… ( see pages 3-5,9-10)
Uehara does not specifically disclose the amount CN 38-46 as in claims 1, 13, the function of suppressing to b form as in claims 13,14.
Since Uehara discloses fatty acid carbons , the amount of fatty acid and the proportion of S2O and SSS within the range claimed, it is obvious the CN as claimed can be selected. The function of suppressing to beta form is inherent in the chocolate product of Uehara because fat having the same characteristics as claimed is added to chocolate product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1,3-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
June 22, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights