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 preliminary amendment filed on 8/15/24. Claims 3-13,15,17-18 are amended. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
In claim 1: Line 2, the limitation “ liquid or semi-solid fat composition” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is intended by “ composition”. Composition typically indicates mixture of different components but the claim just recites type of fat of either liquid or semi-solid ( for prior art application, it’s treated at liquid or semi-solid fat). Line 3, the recitation “ the form” does not have antecedent basis. Line 4, the recitation “ the composition” is unclear because it’s unclear what composition the line referring to; the composition recited on line 1 or the fat composition on line 2. Line 6, the recitation of “ any mixture or combination thereof” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is intended; combination thereof is the same as any mixture.
In claim 2, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The phrase “ any mixture or combination thereof” has the same problem as claim 1. The recitation “ comprises or is” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what in intended.
In claim 3, the recitation of “ the composition” has the same problem as claim 1.
In claim 5, the recitation of “ the range” does not have proper antecedent basis.
Claim 6 has the same problem as claim 5.
Claim 7 has the same problem as claim 2.
Claim 8 is vague and indefinite. It’s unclear how the claim further limits claim 1 because the limitation of the gelator is already recited in claim 1. The phase “ any mixture or combination thereof” has the same problem as claim 1.
In claim 11, the recitation of “ the range” does not have proper antecedent basis.
In claim 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The limitation “ the production of the composition” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what production the claim is referring to.
Claim 13 is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what applicant is trying to claim; is the claim directed to a food product comprising the composition or is the claim a product-by-process composition. ( either way, it’s interpreted as food product comprising the composition”)
Claim 14 has the same problem as claim 2 with regard to the phrase “ such as”.
In claim 15, the limitation “ the liquid or semi-solid fat composition” has the same problem as claim 1. The recitation “ the melting point” does not have proper antecedent basis.
Claim 16 has the same problem as claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a known asserted utility or a well-established utility.
A recitation of “ a use” is not a statutory category of invention.
Claim 17 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a known asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
A recitation of a use without any defining processing parameter is not enabling.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4,7-10,13,14,15,17,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Hild ( US 2019/0307144)
For claims 1-4,8,9,10 Hild discloses composition comprising oleogel and a filler. The oleogel comprises liquid fat, a gelator . The filler includes cellulose and starch which are solid particles. The filler comprises 2-125 ethylcellulose and 2-12% of starch. The total includes 24% of filler. The gelator is additive such as fatty acids, monoglyceride. ( see paragraphs 0005-0009, 0055). Hild discloses the same composition with the same ingredients. Thus, the formation of crystal and crystalline network with filler embed is inherent in the oleogel disclosed in Hild. For claim 9, the composition is an oleogel; thus, it’s a solid composition.
For claim 7, Hild discloses the oil is vegetable oils such as palm oil, rapeseed oil which is also known as canola oil. ( see paragraph 0043)
For claims 13,14 Hild discloses food product comprising the composition including dough, croissant, pastry. ( see paragraphs 0061,0071,0072,0102,example 9)
For claim 15, Hild discloses a method for producing the composition comprising the steps mixing oil, cellulose polymer, gelator, starch to form a mixture, heating and agitating as temperature of 80 degrees C or higher and cooling to form the composition. ( see paragraphs 0057-0059). The heating is done at least at 80 degrees C which is the same as disclosed in the instant specification on page 13. Thus, the temperature is higher than the melting point of the gelator.
For claim 17, Hild discloses using the composition in croissant which is a laminated dough.
For claim 18, Hild discloses a method for preparing a laminated dough comprising the steps of providing a dough and the fat composition on the dough to form layered composition and folding the layered composition on itself one or more time. ( see paragraph 0074)
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) 5,6,12,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hild ( 2019/0307144) in view of the literature on Ethocel ethylcellulose.
Hild does not disclose the particle size, milled particle and the aspect ratio as claimed.
Hild discloses using Ethocel ethylcellulose such as Ethocel 4,7,, 20 etc.. As shown in the literature, the ethylcellulose is a milled product with different particle sizes. For example, Ethocel 7 has a maximum size of 140 microns. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to select particle sizes that would give optimum mixing with other ingredients to give homogenous mixture. Such parameter can readily be determined by one skilled in the art through routine experimentation. As to the aspect ratio, it’s an indication of how spherical the particles and such factor would have been an obvious matter of choice as there is no property in the final composition that is dictated by the appearance of the particles.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hild ( 2019/0307144) in view of Marangoni ( WO 2010/143066).
Hild does not disclose the yield stress.
Marangoni discloses polymer gelation of oils. The oleogel comprises oils or fat, ethylcellulose and surfactant. The gels have a yield stress of greater than about 20Pa, for example from about 25Pa to about 300 Pa ( .025kPa-.3 kPa) ( see page 4 lines 20-32, page 5 lines 1-15)
Both Hild and Marangoni are directed to oleogel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the guideline of Marangoni for the yield stress and to optimize depending on the strength of the gel desired.
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 1, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights