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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 7-10, 12,14-15,21-22 in the reply filed on 7/20/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-18 are withdrawn from consideration as directed to non-elected inventions.
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 7-8, 10,15 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 7, the recitation “ the amount of acrylamide” is unclear and does not have antecedent basis because the claim has not established that the food product contains acrylamide. The step “ applying a composition” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what applying encompasses. There is no parameter defining the type of food; thus, it’s unclear what step is done in applying the composition.
Claim 8 has the same problem as claim 7 with respect to the limitation “ applied to the product”.
Claim 10 has the same problem as claim 8. Additionally, the concentration claimed is unclear. It’s unclear if the carnosic acid is in amount of 2-20ppp of the composition or the food, oil or what? The same problem is noted for the concentration of tocopherols.
Claim 15 is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is intended. The claim recites the composition reduces, delays and/or prevents the formation of acrylamide but the claim does not establish that acrylamide formed in the food during heating. There is also no comparative basis; what would be considered as reduce or delay or prevent.
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) 7-10, 12,14-15,21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urbanci et al “ Stablization of sunflower oil and reduction of acrylamide formation of potato with rosemary extract during deep-fat frying” in view of Wada et al “ The synergistic antioxidant effect of rosemary extract and tocopherol in sardine oil model system and frozen-crushed fish meat”.
For claims 7,8-9,12,15 Urbanic discloses a method for reduction of acrylamide formation in food product during frying using rosemary extract. The rosemary extract contains two major rosemary antioxidant components of 4% carnosic acid and .9% carnosol. The rosemary extract is added to sunflower at 1000mg/kg. The tocopherol is added to the sunflower oil at 1000mg/kg. The food product is fried in the oil after heating to 180 degrees C; thus, the rosemary extract and tocopherol are applied to the food. The method shows that the rosemary extract effectively slows sunflower oil deterioration during deep-frying of potato, along with the acrylamide formation in the deep-fried potato. The rosemary extract shows considerable antioxidative effects at a much lower concentration of active ingredients compared to synthetic products. (see section under material and conclusion.)
For claims 10,14,21,22,Urbanic discloses the rosemary extract contains 4% carnosic acid and the rosemary extract is added to oil at 1000mg/kg and tocopherol at 1000mg/kg ( see section under material)
Urbanci does not disclose the percent of mixture of rosemary extract and tocopherols as in claim 7, the concentration of carnosic acid tocopherol as in claims 10,14,21,22.
Wada discloses that a mixture rosemary extract and tocopherol give synergistic antioxidant effect. The treatment with mixture comprising .05% tocopherol and .02% rosemary extract gives the strongest antioxidant activity. The treatment in sardine oil delays the onset of oxidation 5 days longer than either tocopherol or rosemary extract alone. The treatment with the mixture also causes less triglyceride hydrolysis than either tocopherol or rosemary extract alone. Wada teaches that using rosemary extract at concentration of .o2% not only effectively inhibits oxidation of soybean oil but also improves its flavor stability. They disclose that rosemary extract imparts strong and undesirable taste to products when used in high concentration. ( see abstract, last paragraph of page 264)
The concentration as claimed is indefinite as explained in the 112 rejection above. The claims are interpreted as the concentration in the oil before the food is heated therein as disclosed on page 9 of the instant specification. Urbancic discloses testing with rosemary extract and tocopherol as antioxidant and reduction of acrylamide. Urbanic shows that the level of total polar compounds and FFA are less with the use of antioxidants such as rosemary extract and tocopherol. As shown in Wada, a mixture of tocopherol and rosemary extract gives synergistic effect. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mixture as taught in Wada to obtain the synergistic antioxidant effect. It would have been obvious to follow the guideline of Wada for the concentration and to optimize to obtain desirable result. In the mixture of Wada, the percent of tocopherol is 71.4% ( .05/.05+.02 X 100 and the percent of rosemary extract is 28.5% ( .02/.05+.02 X 100). Since rosemary extract has a strong flavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use more tocopherol in the mixture. Urbancic discloses that rosemary extract contains 4% carnosic acid. If .02% rosemary extract is used, the percent of carnosic is .0008% which is 8ppm and .05% tocopherol is 500ppm. One skilled in the art can follow the guideline and to vary depending on the desirable antioxidant effect and reduction of acrylamide. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wei discloses frying oil composition comprising antioxidants such as rosemary extract and vitamin e.
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.
September 2, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights