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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 are currently under examination and the subject matter of the present Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 12/12/2024 and 02/05/2026 were filed before the mailing date of the first office action on the merits. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tagi et al. (US 2017/0013855 A1; cited in the IDS) hereinafter Tagi.
Regarding Claims 1, 5-6, 10 Tagi discloses the invention of a food comprising soybean powder and an edible fat or oil, specifically wherein the edible fat or oil contains a triglyceride with a medium-chain fatty acids (Abstract; Claims 1 and 10). Tagi relates the production method of first mixing water and soybean powder, then an edible fat or oil is added and mixed [0194]. Ultimately, a cheese-like food can be produced, which can take various shapes inter alia a sheet [0194]-[0195].
The edible fat or oil used comprises a triglyceride with medium-chain fatty acids consisting of only medium-chain fatty acids having 8 and 10 carbon atoms, which thereby reads on Claims 2-3, 7-8 [0204].
Regarding Claims 4 and 9, Tagi expressly cheese like food wherein MCT1 is at 1% and soybean powder is at 35%, which reads on the range claimed (Tables 26 and 27, Comp. Ex. 18 and 23).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated MTC Kitchen (Gluten-Free Mamenorisan Soybean Paper (Soy Wrapper) Goma Sesame Non-GMO Soy Protein (20 Sheets) — MTC Kitchen. Obtained on 08/18/2026 from URL: <https://mtckitchen.com/collections/mamenorisan/products/gluten-free-mamenorisan-soybean-paper-goma-sesame-20-sheets>. Searchable on Google Apr 22, 2020.), hereinafter MTC, as evidenced by Healthline (MCT Oil vs. Coconut Oil: What's the Difference? Obtained from WayBack Machine on 08/18/2026. Available Nov. 13, 2019. URL: <https://web.archive.org/web/20191113165304/https:/www.healthline.com/nutrition/mct-oil-vs-coconut-oil#mc-ts >).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, MTC relates a gluten-free mamenorisan soybean sheet made from soy protein, which contains glycerol comprising palm oil, coconut oil, etc. which the Examiner interprets to mean triglyceride of fatty acids of these oils.
Regarding Claim 3, because mamenorisan comprises triglycerides of palm oil and coconut oil, etc. which the instant specification also notes to be the source of its MCT [0024]-[0025], MTC therefore anticipates the claim.
Regarding Claims 2 and 4, MTC teaches coconut oil, which comprise about 54% MCT of the fat in copra, and wherein the 54% comprises 42% lauric acid, 7% caprylic acid, and 5% capric acid, as evidenced by Healthline.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10-6 EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JANICE Y SILVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights