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 .
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 1-20 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.
The phrase “producing an oil and/or fat composition” in claim 1, lines 1-2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how the method can produce both an oil and a fat composition as the method appears to only make a single composition.
The phrase “wherein the oil … 10 to 60% … A … B … C … fat composition” in claim 1, lines 11-16 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how A, B and C can be present in these amounts when B and C are not required but rather optional.
The phrase “a re-deodorized oil” in claim 1, line 17 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one knows oil is “re-deodorized” as the claim does not have 2 deodorization steps.
The phrase “wherein the oil … 10 to 60% … A … B … C … fat composition” in claim 11, lines 11-16 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how A, B and C can be present in these amounts when B and C are not required but rather optional.
The phrase “a re-deodorized oil” in claim 11, line 17 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one knows oil is “re-deodorized” as the claim does not have 2 deodorization steps.
The phrase “suppressing heat coloring” in claim 11, line 1 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how one can tell the method suppresses heat coloring as no color value is set forth.
The phrase “oil and/or fat composition” in claims 11, line 2 vague and indefinite as it is unclear how the method can produce both an oil and a fat composition as the method appears to only make a single composition.
Clarification and/or correction 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (WO 2013084567) in view of Sekiya et al. (JP 2015065833) and Kida et al. (WO 2009075278).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Hara (‘567) teaches a method for producing an oil and/or fat composition/suppressing heat coloring, containing 93% by mass or more of a deodorized oil and/or fat, (See Abs., p. 3, l. 7 to p. 5, l. 12, 100% deodorized palm olein.) comprising: deodorizing a refined, bleached, deodorized palm-based oil and/or fat so as to satisfy deodorized oil and/or fat A (See Abs., p. 3, l. 7 to p. 5, l. 12, 100% deodorized palm olein.); and adding silicone oil (See p. 7, ll. 3-12.), having a γ-tocotrienol content (See Abs., p. 3, l. 7 to p. 5, l. 12, no more than 78 ppm.), wherein in the oil and/or fat composition, 10 to 60% by mass of the deodorized oil and/or fat is the deodorized oil and/or fat A, 40 to 90% by mass of the deodorized oil and/or fat is the deodorized oil and/or fat B and/or the deodorized oil and/or fat C, and a total content of the deodorized oil and/or fat A, the deodorized oil and/or fat B, and the deodorized oil and/or fat C is 50 to 100% by mass of the deodorized oil and/or fat in the oil and/or fat composition (See p. 6, l. 22 to p. 7, l. 2 where the palm oil is 100-10%/(100-20%)/100-40%) and other oils/fats being soybean, corn, sunflower and other oils.), however, fails to expressly disclose and adding silicone oil so that a content of silicone oil in the oil and/or fat composition is 0.5 to 10 mass ppm based on the oil and/or fat composition content as 100% by mass,
wherein the deodorized oil and/or fat A is a re-deodorized oil and/or fat of palm-based deodorized oil and/or fat having a γ-tocotrienol content of 250 ppm or less in the deodorized oil and/or fat A as 100% by mass and an acid value of 0.03 or less;
wherein the deodorized oil and/or fat B is a deodorized oil having a total tocopherol content of 900 ppm or less in the deodorized oil and/or fat B as 100% by mass and an acid value of 0.03 or less, which is at least one selected from soybean oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, and sunflower oil.
Regarding the silicone oil content, it is noted Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for selecting one amount over another. The addition of silicone oil as an anti-foaming agent for frying oils was very well known for many years prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Sekiya (‘833) teaches adding silicone oil to palm frying oils like Hara (‘567) in an amount 1-5 ppm to suppress foam generation (See Abs., p. 2, ll. 14-15 and p. 4, ll. 7-12.).
Kida (‘278) teaches a palm olein composition similar to Hara (‘567) that can be blended with other oils (See p. 4, l. 4+.) which has a γ-tocotrienol of 100 to 240 ppm (See p. 5, l. 6+, 260 ppm tocotrienol which equates to about 130 ppm γ-tocotrienol at a 50% concentration.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date one could reasonably expect that Hara’s (‘567) γ-tocotrienol concentration, in view of Kida (‘278), would be within the claimed range when 100% of the oil is palm olein.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Hara (‘567) teaches wherein the content of the deodorized oil and/or fat in the oil and/or fat composition is 100% by mass (See Abs., p. 3, l. 7 to p. 5, l. 12, 100% deodorized palm olein.).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Hara (‘567) teaches wherein the deodorized oil and/or fat A is a re-deodorized oil and/or fat of a refined, bleached, deodorized palm oil and/or a refined, bleached, deodorized palm olein (See Abs., p. 3, l. 7 to p. 5, l. 12, 100% deodorized palm olein.).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Hara (‘567) teaches wherein 10 to 60% by mass of the deodorized oil and/or fat in the oil and/or fat composition is the deodorized oil and/or fat A, the remaining deodorized oil and/or fat is the deodorized oil and/or fat B and/or the deodorized oil and/or fat C, and a total content of the deodorized oil and/or fat A, the deodorized oil and/or fat B, and the deodorized oil and/or fat C is 100% by mass of the deodorized oil and/or fat in the oil and/or fat composition (See p. 6, l. 22 to p. 7, l. 2 where the palm oil is 100-10%/(100-20%)/100-40%) and other oils/fats being soybean, corn, sunflower and other oils.).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Hara (‘567) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the steps for deodorizing the deodorized oils and/or fats A to C are conducted under the conditions of the deodorizing temperature of 200 to 280° C, the vacuum degree of 100 to 500 Pa, the steam content of 1 to 8% by mass (vs oil and/or fat), and the deodorizing time of 30 to 120 minutes.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one deodorizer operating condition over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date the claimed conditions are typical and adjusting the parameters would have been foreseeable and obvious as deodorizers were known to come in various sizes and different vacuum systems. It was known that based on diameter and number of trays and systems attached the temperature, vacuum steam and time could vary.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Hara (‘567) teaches wherein the palm-based deodorized oil and/or fat is a palm oil or a fractionated oil of palm oil (See Abs., p. 3, l. 7 to p. 5, l. 12, 100% deodorized palm olein.).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Hara (‘567) teaches wherein the re-deodorized oil and/or fat is an oil and/or fat obtained by undergoing the deodorizing step twice or more (See Abs., p. 3, l. 7 to p. 5, l. 12.).
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (WO 2013084567) in view of Sekiya et al. (JP 2015065833), Kida et al. (WO 2009075278), Kamegai et al. (US 2010/0209564) and Gibon et al., Future prospects for palm oil refining and modifications; pp. 193-200 (2009).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Hara (‘567) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein in the oil and/or fat composition, the γ-tocotrienol content is 100 to 240 ppm, and a total tocopherol content is 100 to 900 ppm.
Kida (‘278) teaches a palm olein composition similar to Hara (‘567) that can be blended with other oils (See p. 4, l. 4+.) which has a γ-tocotrienol of 100 to 240 ppm (See p. 5, l. 6+, 260 ppm tocotrienol which equates to about 130 ppm γ-tocotrienol at a 50% concentration.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date one could reasonably expect that Hara’s (‘567) γ-tocotrienol concentration, in view of Kida (‘278), would be within the claimed range when 100% of the oil is palm olein.
Kamegai (‘564) teaches a palm olein composition similar to Hara (‘567) wherein tocotrienol and tocopherol are naturally present in palm olein and present at 440 ppm (See para. 103, Table 6.).
Gibon (2009) teaches about 29% of the combined tocopherols and tocotrienol in RBD palm olein being tocopherols and 71% being tocotrienol (See p. 196, Figure 4, 227 ppm tocopherols and 556 ppm tocotrienol).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date one could reasonably foresee and expect that Hara’s (‘567) tocopherol concentration, in view of Kamegai (‘564) and Gibon (2009), would be within the claimed range when 100% of the oil is palm olein.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (WO 2013084567) in view of Sekiya et al. (JP 2015065833), Kida et al. (WO 2009075278) and Kamegai et al. (US 2010/0209564).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Hara (‘567) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the γ-tocotrienol content in the deodorized oil and/or fat A is 50 to 200 ppm, a total tocopherol content in the deodorized oil and/or fat B is 100 to 800 ppm, a total tocopherol content in the deodorized oil and/or fat C is 150 to 500 ppm.
Kamegai (‘564) teaches a palm olein composition similar to Hara (‘567) wherein tocotrienol and tocopherol are naturally present in palm olein and present at 440 ppm (See para. 103, Table 6.).
Gibon (2009) teaches about 29% of the combined tocopherols and tocotrienol in RBD palm olein being tocopherols and 71% being tocotrienol (See p. 196, Figure 4, 227 ppm tocopherols and 556 ppm tocotrienol).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date one could reasonably foresee and expect that Hara’s (‘567) tocopherol concentration, in view of Kamegai (‘564) and Gibon (2009), would be within the claimed range when 100% of the oil is palm olein.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara et al. (WO 2013084567) in view of Sekiya et al. (JP 2015065833), Kida et al. (WO 2009075278) and Kruatian et al., Simple Spectrophotometric Method for Determination of Iodine Value of Vegetable Oils, Chiang Mai J. Sci. 2013; 40(3): 419-426; (2012).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Hara (‘567) teaches wherein an iodine value of the deodorized oil and/or fat B is 100 to 145
Kruatian (2012) describes the same oils as Hara (‘567) being blended with soybean oil having an iodine value of 125, corn 107 and sunflower oil 117 (See p. 424, Table 3.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date when Hara’s (‘567) blends of palm oil with soybean, corn, sunflower oils would all have iodine values of 100 to 145.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights