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
The application has been withdrawn from issue in light of the IDS filed 06/08/2025, which disclosed the Katz reference (discussed in detail subsequently herein). Katz provides a supportive basis for rejecting claims 1, 3-5, and 7.
This action is NON-FINAL.
The status of the claims stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1, 3-5, and 7
Withdrawn claims: None
Canceled claims: 2, 6, and 8
Claims currently under consideration: 1, 3-5, and 7
Currently rejected claims: 1, 3-5, and 7
Allowed claims: None
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/08/2025 was considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cash et al. (U.S. 2007/0071874 A1) in view of Cao et al. (U.S. 2015/0237899 A1) and Madsen et al. (U.S. 2020/0296983 A1), as evidenced by Katz (Katz, J., “Experiment Report,” 02/25/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Cash et al. discloses an oil-in-water type composition ([0019]) for whipped cream ([0015]), the composition comprising hydroxypropyl methylcellulose ([0014]), an oil ([0019], [0026]), a non-fat milk solid ([0019], [0030]), and water ([0019], [0030]), wherein the whipped cream has an overrun value in the range of 125-150% (specifically, greater than about 125%) ([0015]).
Cash et al. does not disclose the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as having a ratio of interfacial elastic modulus to interfacial viscous modulus of equal to or higher than 2.0 when measured with a tensiometer at 25°C using a 0.2% by mass aqueous solution or the viscosity of the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as being in a range between 5.5-500 mPa·s when measured according to the claimed conditions. Cash et al. also does not disclose the production of a whipped cream with the composition, where the whipped cream has an overrun value of 125-150%.
Regarding the ratio of interfacial elastic modulus to interfacial viscous modulus, Cao et al. discloses the use of METHOCEL F50, a hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, for use in a whippable topping ([0117], Abstract). Katz discloses that METHOCEL F50 has an E’/E” ratio of 2.83 (p. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, such as METHOCEL F50 as taught in Cao et al., into a food product as in Cash et al., where the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose exhibited the claimed ratio as shown by Katz. First, Cash et al. teaches generally that the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose “may be prepared by any number of known methods” ([0023]) and that suitable material may be METHOCEL products ([0025]). Cash et al. also discloses that hydroxypropyl methylcellulose was known to be useful in whipped toppings to aid in the development of foam and foam structure ([0005]), as well as that the material contributes to cream stability, small fat globules, and good emulsion stability ([0014]). Since Cao et al. teaches METHOCEL F50 as a suitable hydroxypropyl methylcellulose for incorporation into a whippable topping (Abstract, [0117]) and Cash et al. indicates METHOCEL products as being suitable for foaming of whipped toppings, the incorporation of METHOCEL F50 into the product of Cash et al. would be obvious. Since Katz discloses that METHOCEL F50 has an E’/E” ratio of 2.83 (p. 3), the claimed limitation requiring the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose to have an interfacial viscous modulus of equal to or higher than 2.0 when measured according to the claimed protocol is likewise obvious.
Regarding the viscosity, Madsen et al. discloses a whipping cream that incorporates a low viscosity hydroxypropyl methylcellulose ([0001]) having a viscosity in the range of 20-1000 cP when measured at 2% in an aqueous solution at 20°C ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to use a hydroxypropyl methylcellulose having the claimed viscosity in the composition of Cash et al. As noted previously, Cash et al. teaches generally that the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose “may be prepared by any number of known methods” ([0023]), which would prompt a skilled practitioner to consult Madsen et al. for further instruction regarding suitable hydroxypropyl methylcellulose material. Madsen et al. teaches that both high and low viscosity hydroxypropyl methylcellulose are known for use in for whipping cream ([0015]), which renders hydroxypropyl methylcellulose having any particular viscosity obvious in a whipped cream product. Moreover, Madsen et al. discloses that the low viscosity hydroxypropyl methylcellulose produces a stable product that has desirable whipping properties ([0015]). The desirable properties achieved by a low viscosity hydroxypropyl methylcellulose in a whipping cream as disclosed in Madsen et al., wherein the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose had a viscosity in the range of 20-1000 cP when measured at 2% in an aqueous solution at 20°C ([0030]), thus renders the incorporation of a hydroxypropyl methylcellulose having the claimed viscosity of between 5.5-500 mPa·s when measured according to the claimed conditions into the whipped cream composition of Cash et al. obvious.
As for claim 3, Cash et al. discloses the composition as further comprising a sweetener (i.e., “sugars”) ([0030]).
As for claim 4, Katz discloses the interfacial viscous modulus (i.e., loss modulus) of the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as being in a range of between 5.0-35.0 mN/m (specifically, 19.34 mN/m) (p. 3).
As for claim 5, Katz discloses the interfacial elastic modulus (i.e., storage modulus) of the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as being in a range of between 10.0-210.0 mN/m (specifically, 54.64 mN/m) (p. 3).
As for claim 7, Katz discloses the interfacial viscous modulus (i.e., loss modulus) of the hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as being in a range of between 5.0-35.0 mN/m (specifically, about 19.34 mN/m) (p. 3).
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7 are rejected.
No claims are allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG whose telephone number is (571)270-5272. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights