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 1,2,5,8,11,14 and 17-20 filed in a preliminary amendment on 9/5/2024 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/5/2024 and 3/16/2026 were filed before the first Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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) 1,17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. ", LWT- Food Science and Technology, 86 (14): 492-500, 2017, in view of Wong et al. (EP2636313A1) cited in an IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses (Table 1) a shea olein (SheaOL25), described as a low melting shea olein obtained by solvent fractionation of shea butter having a melting point of 25.5deg C and useful as a blending base oil for specialty fats. a low-melting shea olein (meeting the requirement of a liquid oil and/or fat) and satisfying the requirement of the claimed P+St of 10-45 wt.%, O+L range of 55-80 wt.%, and SU2 range of 30-70 wt.%. Zhang discloses SheaOL25 rich in SOO triglyceride; SOO is an SU2 triglyceride within the definition of claim 1 because St is a C18 saturated fatty acid and O is a C18 unsaturated fatty acid. Zhang further discloses improved emulsion stability when SheaOL25 is used as an oil phase. Zhang does not specifically report diglyceride content of SheaOL25.
Wong discloses fractionated shea olein having 5-10% diglycerides, which overlaps the claimed content of 8% or more and 40-75 wt.% SOO based on total triglycerides. Wong further exemplifies a shea fraction having 8 wt.% diglycerides and 61 wt.% SOO. Wong also discloses shea derived glyceride compositions containing 5-25% diglycerides, preferably 6-15 wt.% and particularly 7-12 wt.%.
It would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art to select Zhang’s SheaOL25 having a diglyceride content within Wong’s disclosed overlapping 8-10 wt.% range because Zhang and Wong are directed to the same fractionated low-melting shea olein material. Selection of a value within an overlapping prior art range would have been routine absent evidence of criticality.
The resulting shea olein satisfies limitations (A)-(D) in claim 1 and shea olein in claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang discloses the use of SheaOL25 as an oil phase providing improved emulsion stability. It would have been obvious to use the Zhang in view of Wong shea olein for its known emulsion stabilizing function, including reducing phase separation/syneresis when incorporated into an edible emulsion, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 2,5,8,11,14,18 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Wong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lantz et al. (EP 1040761 A1) cited in an IDS.
Lantz discloses randomized, interesterified shea olein and that such shea-olein fats may be blended with other edible oils and fats and used successfully in margarine compositions. Lantz particularly discloses puff pastry and cream margarine fat emulsions containing 40-90 wt.% fat, corresponding to emulsions containing up to about 60% non-fat/aqueous material, overlapping the claimed 25-70% aqueous phase.
It would have been obvious to employ the liquid shea olein of Zhang in view of Wong in the margarine emulsion of Lantz because Zhang identifies SheaOL25 as a blending base oil for specialty fats and blends thereof for margarine. A skilled artisan therefore would have had reason to combine the known shea-olein blending oil with conventional structuring fats to obtain the desired crystallization, hardness, plasticity, and emulsion properties of margarine, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Accordingly, Lantz provides the water-in-oil margarine emulsion and aqueous -phase range required by claim 2 and, for the same reasons, the 25-70% aqueous phase limitation of claim 20.
Regarding claim 5, Lantz discloses adjusting blends of randomized shea olein with liquid oils, tropical oils, palm fractions and hardened interesterified fats, including blends of 10-90 wt.% of shea-derives fat to provide solid fat characteristics required for margarine. The amount of liquid oil/fat and solid-fat profile are known result-effective variables governing margarine crystallization, hardness and plasticity. It would have been obvious to optimize the relative proportions of liquid and structuring fats within the overlapping 5-50% range to obtain a desired solid -fat profile.
Regarding claim 8, Lantz discloses blending the shea-derived fat with tropical oils including coconut oil and palm-kernel oil, rich in the C12/C14 fatty acids. For a lower saturated fat content, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the level of such fats and balance out to obtain a desired fatty acids profile, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, Lantz discloses formulations with and without hard/fully hardened vegetable fats. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to limit saturated C16+ fats to obtain targeted physical and nutritional properties, particularly a more desirable fatty acid profile, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18 Lantz discloses a particularly preferred fat obtained as randomized, interesterified shea olein and recognizes fractionation and random interesterification as conventional means for modifying physical properties of fat. It would have been obvious to fractionate a randomly interesterified fat to recover a lower-melting fraction for use as a liquid component of the Zhang in view of Wong specialty-fat system, because fractionation was a conventional method, for separating fats according to melting/solid fat characteristics and Zhang requires a low melting liquid base oil for plastic fats. One would therefore apply the method with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Lantz discloses margarine emulsions containing 40% to 90% fat. Selection of an aqueous phase within the claimed overlapping content would be obvious to obtain the desired fat content, texture, spreadability and consistency of a margarine emulsion, and would have been done by one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1,2,5,8,11,14 and 17-20 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