Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/039,388

GUM ARABIC FROM ACACIA SEYAL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 30, 2020
Examiner
ZILBERING, ASSAF
Art Unit
1792
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Döhler GmbH
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
33%
Grant Probability
At Risk
4-5
OA Rounds
4y 9m
To Grant
60%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 33% of cases
33%
Career Allow Rate
206 granted / 619 resolved
-31.7% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 9m
Avg Prosecution
81 currently pending
Career history
700
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
57.9%
+17.9% vs TC avg
§102
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 619 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Note: The amendment of August 5th 2025 has been considered. Claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14-16 and 21 have been amended. Claims 2, 6, 9, 13 and 19-22 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-18, 20, 21 and 23-25 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 11, 12, 16-18 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 8, 10, 14, 15, 21 and 23-25 are examined in the current application. Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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 8, 10, 14, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over NPL “Tayebat” (from https://web.archive.org/web/20131022235059/http://prebiotik-probiotik.serianggerik.com/tayebat.html) in view of NPL Crus Figueroa-Espinoza et al., “Grape seed and apple tannins – Emulsifying and antioxidant properties” (Food Chemistry 178 (2015) 38-44) and NPL Mhinzi “Intra-Species Variation of The Properties of Gum Exudates From Acacia Senegal Var. Senegal and Acacia Seyal Var. Fistula From Tanzania” (from Bull. Chem. Soc. Ethiop. 2003, 17(1), 67-74). Regarding claims 8-10, 19 and 22: Tayebat discloses a mixture of the gum arabic extracts from acacia seyal and acacia senegal to be blended with water in order to promote the health of the consumer (see Tayebat page 1), which reads on claim 8: “[a] composition comprising gum arabic, and an added phenol source selected from bark, polyphenols, gallic acid, and a second gum arabic”, claim 10: “[t]he composition of claim 9 wherein the gum arabic from acacia seyal is selected from gum arabic of acacia seyal var. seyal, acacia seyal var. fistula and mixtures thereof”. As to the relative content of tannins recited in claim 8 and the and the variety of the acacia seyal and acacia senegal recited in clam 10: Tayebat discloses that tannins are detected in the mixture (see Tayebat page 2), but fails to disclose the relative content of the tannins, or the variety of the acacia seyal and acacia senegal; However, Mhinzi acknowledges the commercial value of tannins and discloses acacia senegal var. senegal exudate comprises 0.3wt%-0.6wt% tannins and acacia seyal var. fistula comprises 0.6wt%-1.2wt% tannins (see Mhinzi abstract; page 70 second paragraph; table 2), which is higher than 700ppm. While Mhinzi also acknowledges the tannin content may vary within the same acacia species variety, depending on factors, such as, the age of the acacia trees (see Mhinzi page 70, second paragraph), Espinoza discloses tannins are antioxidants that stabilize emulsions comprising oil and water and can be added to food or beverages (see Espinoza abstract; page 39, left column and bottom of right column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to select gum arabic extracts from acacia seyal and acacia senegal varieties with sufficient levels of tannins and/or added tannins in order to attain a composition that is stabilized, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations. As set forth in MPEP §2144.05 discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claims 14 and 15: Espinoza discloses tannins are antioxidants that stabilize emulsions comprising oil and water and can be added to food or beverages (see Espinoza abstract; page 39, left column and bottom of right column). Claims 8, 10, 14, 15, 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over NPL Mhinzi “Intra-Species Variation of The Properties of Gum Exudates From Acacia Senegal Var. Senegal and Acacia Seyal Var. Fistula From Tanzania” (from Bull. Chem. Soc. Ethiop. 2003, 17(1), 67-74) in view of NPL Crus Figueroa-Espinoza et al., “Grape seed and apple tannins – Emulsifying and antioxidant properties” (Food Chemistry 178 (2015) 38-44). Regarding claims 8, 10, 19, 21 and 23-25: Mhinzi discloses acacia seyal var. fistula comprises 0.6wt%-1.2wt% tannins (see Mhinzi abstract; page 70 second paragraph; table 2), which reads on claim 8: “[a] composition comprising gum arabic…wherein the composition has a tannin content >700ppm (w/w)…”, claim 10: “[t]he composition of claim 9 wherein the gum arabic from acacia seyal is selected from gum arabic of acacia seyal var. seyal, acacia seyal var. fistula and mixtures thereof”. Mhinzi acknowledge the commercial value of tannins and that the tannin content may vary within the same acacia species variety, depending on factors, such as, the age of the acacia trees (see Mhinzi abstract; page 70 second paragraph), but fails to disclose additional source of phenols; However, Espinoza discloses phenols (e.g., tannins) are antioxidants that stabilize emulsions comprising oil and water and can be added to food or beverages (see Espinoza abstract; page 39, left column and bottom of right column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to select gum arabic extracts from acacia seyal varieties with sufficient levels of phenols and/or add additional phenols in order to attain a composition that is stabilized to the desired level, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations. As set forth in MPEP §2144.05 discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, involves only routine skill in the art. Regarding claims 14 and 15: Espinoza discloses tannins are antioxidants that stabilize emulsions comprising oil and water and can be added to food or beverages (see Espinoza abstract; page 39, left column and bottom of right column). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed on August 5th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because neither Tayebat, nor Mhinzi disclose the additional phenol and its effect. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While Tayebat and Mhinzi fail to disclose an additional source of phenol, Espinoza discloses phenols (e.g., tannins) are antioxidants that stabilize emulsions comprising oil and water and can be added to food or beverages (see Espinoza abstract; page 39, left column and bottom of right column). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to select gum arabic extracts from acacia seyal varieties with sufficient levels of phenols and/or add additional phenols in order to attain a composition that is stabilized to the desired level, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations. As set forth in MPEP §2144.05 discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, involves only routine skill in the art. 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 at (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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 30, 2020
Application Filed
Dec 16, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 20, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 18, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 21, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 05, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599143
EMULSIFIED OIL AND FAT COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588688
METHOD FOR PRODUCING AN INGREDIENT COMPRISING A COMBINATION OF AT LEAST THREE MILK PROTEINS AND USE OF THE INGREDIENT OBTAINED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582135
DHA Enriched Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Compositions
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577593
DHA ENRICHED POLYUNSATURATED FATTY ACID COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564198
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SN-2 PALMITIC TRIACYLGLYCEROLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
33%
Grant Probability
60%
With Interview (+27.2%)
4y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 619 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month