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
Claims 1-6 are pending and examined in the current application.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Stortz et al., “Edible Oleo gels in Food Products to Help Maximize Health Benefits and Improve Nutritional Profiles” (from Lipid Technology, July 2012, Vol. 24, No. 7, pp. 151-154) in view of NPL Sagiri et al., “Stearic acid based oleo gels: A study on the molecular, thermal and mechanical properties” (from Materials Science and Engineering C 48 (2015) 688-699).
Regarding claims 1-5: Stortz discloses structuring vegetable oils (i.e., triacylglycerol oils and fats) with gelators, such as ethylcellulose and 12-hydroxystearic acid at levels below 8% to form oleo gels (see Stortz abstract; pages 151-152). Sagiri discloses structuring vegetable oils (i.e., triacylglycerol oils and fats) with gelators, such as stearic acid at levels between 1% to 25% (see Sagiri pages 688-689). Sagiri also discloses a preference of stearic acid over 12-hydroxystearic acid, as 12-hydroxystearic acid provides polarity to the molecules due to the hydroxyl group on the 12th carbon, which may favor the development of emulsion oleo gels. In hydrophobic gels, the presence of polar groups enhances the interfacial tension between the edible oil and the gelators, which results in poor stability of the oleo gels formed (see Sagiri page 688). Given the fact that both ethyl cellulose and stearic acid are known structurants/gelators of edible oils, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have combined both gelators (i.e., ethyl cellulose and stearic acid) in order to structure vegetable oil and form oleo gels, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations. As set forth in MPEP §2144.06(I), It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
As to the ethylcellulose polymer content in claim 3: Given the fact the ethylcellulose content in claim 3 overlaps the ethylcellulose polymer conbent in Stortz in view of Sagiri, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05).
As to the oil content in claim 4: Given the fact the oil content in claim 4 overlaps the oil content in Stortz in view of Sagiri, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05).
As to the stearic acid content in claim 5: Given the fact the stearic acid content in claim 5 overlaps the stearic acid content in Stortz in view of Sagiri, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding claim 6: Stortz and Sagiri disclose forming oleogels without using emulsifiers (see Stortz whole document and Sagiri whole document), accordingly Stortz in view of Sagiri disclose structuring oils with ethylcellulose and stearic acid without any other constituents (e.g., emulsifiers) (see Stortz and Sagiri whole documents). Accordingly, Stortz in view of Sagiri meet the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 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.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
