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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-19 filed in a preliminary amendment on 6/12/2024 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/12/2024 was filed before the first Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing (Fig. 1) provided for reference purpose is not of sufficient quality. Accordingly, a replacement drawing sheet in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) is required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures.
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 1,3, 6,13 and dependent claims 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 1 is a composition claim. Claim 13 is directed to a method. The open-ended transitional phrase comprising not completely define the scope of the shortening composition and method of making. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “acid value” but does not provide the method of estimation. As different analytical methods may produce slightly different results, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 and 6 recite a shortening composition comprising a palm oil derivative (claim 5) selected from a group of compounds/fractions(claim 6) with widely different properties. A meaningful comparison with prior art is not possible. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Niu et al. (CN106912626A) in view of Zhang et al. (CN102246946A) cited in an IDS.
Regarding claim 1 and 13, Niu (machine translation) discloses an oil composition that may be a vegetable oil based shortening, in which flavor is improved by heating with tallow. The oil and fat composition is mainly applied as a frying oil/fat but may be used in other foods. The flavor enhancement is therefore inherently due to aroma/flavor compounds produced during heating tallow. Niu discloses improving the flavor of frying oil comprising palm oil and tallow, but does not disclose enzymatically hydrolyzing tallow. The method in Niu involves heating at high temperatures to .
Zhang however discloses (machine translation Example 3, abstract) a method lipase hydrolysis of tallow to produce a meat flavor. Firstly utilizing lipase to carry out proper enzymolysis on fats and then regulating oxidation of enzymolysis products through mild heating. Enzymolysis occurs by adding 1000-2500U/g of lipase of a substrate to carry out at 30-50 DEG C for 2-6 hours to obtain the fat enzymolysis products, followed by mild heating. The method therefore results in producing meat flavor with controlled oxidation of the hydrolysate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been aware of the shortcomings of heating oil blends at high temperatures for example increased formation of oxidation products and coproducts
As both Niu and Zhang are directed to utilizing aroma compounds in tallow to improve flavor of fats of vegetable origin and food products prepared with these, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method in Zhang to obtain a meat flavor precursor, namely the hydrolyzed tallow containing fatty acids in improving the flavor of oils and fats or shortenings in Niu with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses an exemplary acid value of about 35-55mgKOH / g fat, which overlaps the claimed range (see summary).
Regarding claim 4, Niu discloses the tallow content in the oil and fat composition of the present invention preferably accounts for 5% to 95'%, by weight of the total oil content, more preferably 10 to 60% by weight, further preferably 15 to 50% by weight (see summary). One would add sufficient hydrolyzed tallow to obtain a desired aroma profile in modified Niu with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5 and 6, Niu discloses palm oil, palm kernel oil and derivatives in the base shortening.
Regarding claim 7, Niu discloses antioxidants, flavorings, and other additives in a shortening (see summary).
Regarding claim 8-10, Niu discloses use of the oil/fat/shortening composition in food products including bakery products and hotpot oil.
Regarding claim 11 and 12, Niu discloses that fried food products prepared with the modified oil/shortening have improved taste and flavor (see working examples).
Regarding claim 14 -18, Zhang discloses enzymolysis occurs by adding 1000-2500U/g of lipase of a substrate to carry out at 30-50 DEG C for 2-6 hours (abstract) at a pH of 6 to 8, falling within or overlapping the claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art would optimize temperature and time depending upon the nature of the lipase and desired level of hydrolysis of a selected tallow substrate with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang discloses a heating step at 50 deg-100deg C which is expected to inactivate the enzyme after hydrolysis is done, and separating water from the tallow (see working examples). One of ordinary skill in the art would have therefore followed these steps with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-19 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights