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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on December 4, 2024 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-6, 8-15 are currently pending. Claims 8-15 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-6, 16 and 17 are rejected.
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “selected from the group consisting of a fatty acid, and cellulose derivative.” It appears that this should recite, “selected from the group consisting of a fatty acid and a cellulose derivative.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 and 4 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.
Upon reconsideration, claims 3 and 4 remain indefinite for the following reasons: Claim 3 recites “wherein the at least one binding agent comprises the fatty acid.” Since claim 1 recites, at least one binding agent selected from a group consisting of a fatty acid and a cellulose derivative, claim 3 cannot use the open-ended comprising language which would have been broader than the claim from which it depends.
If it is intended for the at least one binding agent to only be stearic acid, then this rejections can be overcome by amending claim 3 to recite, “wherein the at least one binding agent consists of the fatty acid and the fatty acid consists of stearic acid; and the outer coating comprises stearic acid.”
Claim 4 recites “wherein the at least one binding agent comprises the cellulose derivative.” Since claim 1 recites, at least one binding agent selected from a group consisting of a fatty acid and a cellulose derivative, claim 4 cannot use the open-ended comprising language which would have been broader than the claim from which it depends.
If it is intended for the at least one binding agent to be hydroxy propyl methyl cellulose, then this rejection can be overcome by amending claim 4 to recites, “wherein the at least one binding agent consists of the cellulose derivative and the cellulose derivative consists of hydroxyl propyl methyl cellulose; and the outer coating comprises hydroxyl propyl methyl cellulose.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaklenec (US 20150164816) in view of Penhasi (US 20150296852), and in further view of Barkalow (US 20040096569), Riziq (US 20170208827), Seth (US 20040161461) and Hernandez Aguilar (US 20190159446).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 17, Jaklenec teaches substantially encapsulated micronutrient granules (see the abstract and Figure 1B, 1C, which show encapsulated granules) that are capable of fortifying an edible salt composition (i.e. “for fortification”). The encapsulated micronutrient granules comprise a micronutrient (see paragraph 50 - “iron” “zinc”) and a binder that can include oils or hydrogels (paragraph 85-86) and can be coated/encapsulated with a composition comprising a cellulose derivative and a fatty acid (see paragraph 94 “matrix is coated or encapsulated” and paragraph 97 which discloses cellulose derivatives and fatty acids and therefore a blend of the fatty acid and cellulose derivatives, as recited in instant claim 17).
Regarding the granules comprising 0.1-20% of at least one micronutrient, Jaklenec teaches at paragraph 114 that the particles can provide 50-100% of the RDA for the micronutrients. At paragraph 116, Jaklenec further teaches that the particles can provide 10mg/day of iron for 2grams of the particle composition. This would have suggested that the 2 grams of particles comprise 0.01g of iron, or 0.01/2 = 0.5% of the particle can comprise the iron micronutrient.
To therefore modify Jaklenec and to use 0.5% iron for example, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on providing to the consumer a recommended daily allowance of the given micronutrients.
Regarding the at least one binder being selected from a group consisting of a fatty acid and cellulose derivative, Jaklenec teaches cellulose derivatives and fatty acid such as stearic acid as part of the micronutrient core (see paragraph 50, 86, 90, 97), but claim 1 differs in specifically reciting that the at least one binder is selected from a fatty acid and a cellulose derivative and is present at 1-99%.
However, Penhasi discloses encapsulated granules (see paragraph 63) where the core granules can include micronutrients (paragraph 83 - omega 3 oil; see also paragraph 81 - “nutrients”) that also include a binding agent such as a fatty acid and/or cellulose derivative (paragraph 94, 173, 178, which disclose fatty acids such as stearic acid and binders such as HPMC) used at within the range of 1-99% (see page 18, table 5 above paragraph 344, where stearic acid is used at 10 or 16wt% for example). At paragraph 27 and 29, Penhasi suggests microcrystalline cellulose or cellulose derivatives as an absorbent component that is part of the core matrix and where HPMC has been taught by Penhasi to be a known cellulose derivative that can also serve as a binder (see paragraph 173). Penhasi therefore suggest cellulose derivatives as useful as an absorbent, which Penhasi suggests is also used within the range of 1-99% (see table 5 where MCC is used within the range of 1-99% and where cellulose derivatives can be used as the absorbent instead of MCC). Penhasi also teaches that the micronutrient granules can comprise an outer coating that can include a fatty acid (paragraph 182,184) and cellulose derivatives such as HPMC (see paragraph 218 and see paragraph 267 where an outer coating can comprise a cellulose derivative in combination with fatty acids and therefore is teaching a blend as recited in claim 17).
As Jaklenec teaches that the core of the encapsulated particles can also include additional materials (see paragraphs 85-91) and as Penhasi also teaches additional materials in the core of the encapsulated particles, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been routinely led to use binding agents, such as fatty acids or cellulose derivatives within the range of 1-99%, as taught by Penhasi for the purpose of keeping the contents of the core of the encapsulated materials bound together.
Further regarding the outer coating comprising a fatty acid and a cellulose derivative at a ratio of fatty acid to cellulose derivative of the outer coating ranging between 2:1 to 5:1 as recited in claim 1 and a ratio of 3:1 as recited in claim 2, while Jaklenec teaches that there can be a combination of cellulose derivative and fatty acid as a coating, Jaklenec is not specific regarding the specifically claimed ratios.
Barkalow teaches using encapsulation techniques (see paragraph 92 - “microencapsulation) where a combination of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose together with stearic acid can be advantageous for providing the desired encapsulation together with flexibility and softening while reducing brittleness and improving ease of manufacture (see paragraphs 87 and 89). Barkalow teaches that the stearic acid can be used at up to 20wt% or 2-10% (see paragraph 89) and the cellulose derivative can be used at 5-60% or 20-40% (see paragraph 87), thus suggesting a ratio of fatty acid to cellulose derivative of 2:1, for example (10% stearic acid to 5% hydroxypropyl methylcellulose). Barkalow therefore also suggests a ratio of 20wt% stearic acid and 5wt% HPMC for a ratio of 4:1 Barkalow is therefore also suggesting a blend of the fatty acid and cellulose derivative, as recited in claim 17.
Riziq also evidences using a combination of a fatty acid and a cellulose derivative as an encapsulating/coating composition (see paragraph 16 and claim 39 on page 25, which discloses a combination of a film forming polymer and a lipid; paragraph 171 discloses a coating layer of a hydrocolloid and a fatty acid; and paragraph 181 which teaches 2-20wt% of a hydrocolloid and 2-25wt% of a fatty acid; see paragraph 156 which teaches using HPMC; see paragraph 19 and 106 which teaches stearic acid as the fatty acid). Riziq teaches that using these components can be useful for encapsulation to improve delivery of compounds (see paragraph 12) and to protect the compounds (see paragraph 75). Riziq teaches that the purpose of the hydrocolloid and the fatty acid are for providing a protective encapsulation (see paragraph 11, 75) and where the use of hydrocolloids and fatty acids can be advantageous for promoting the delivery of micronutrients while preventing their interaction with other food components (see paragraph 12). Riziq suggests that the hydrocolloid can be used at 2-20% and the fatty acid can be used at 2-25wt% as part of the outer coating (see paragraph 181) and therefore, encompasses the claimed ratio of fatty acid to cellulose derivative of 2:1 to 5:1. Riziq provides additional specificity at paragraph 111, by teaching that the encapsulation can comprise 1-10wt% fatty acid; and at paragraph 157, Riziq suggests that the coating comprises 8-11wt% hydrocolloid (i.e. the HPMC). At paragraph 148, Riziq suggests a ratio of a first encapsulation agent to a second encapsulation agent at 4:1 to 1:4; and at paragraph 153, Riziq teaches that the encapsulating composition can comprise two encapsulating agents in a weight ratio of 4:1 to about 1:4 or 3:1 to 1:3. Riziq is thus seen to encompass and fall within the claimed ratio of fatty acid to cellulose derivative of 2:1 to 5:1. It is also noted that Riziq’s teaching of fatty acid being used at 25wt% and a cellulose derivative being used at 8wt% suggests a fatty acid to cellulose derivative ratio of 3.125: 1. Riziq is thus also teaching a blend of the fatty acid and cellulose derivative as part of the coating, as recited in claim 17 because on paragraph 16 and page 25, claim 39, there can be at least one coating layer including at least one encapsulating agent including a film forming polymer and a lipid.
Seth (US 20040161461) teaches a coating that can comprise 10wt% of a water soluble polymer such as HPMC (see paragraph 29, “The water-soluble polymer can be…water-soluble cellulose ethers…include but are not limited to… hydroxy propyl methylcellulose”; “The proportion of water-soluble polymer in the coating may vary between about 10% and about 75% of the coating dry weight), and a fatty acid such as stearic acid (see paragraph 29, “The proportion of plasticizer (e.g. stearic acid) in the coating may vary from about 3% to about 40%”). Therefore, Seth teaches that the coating, that encapsulates an active ingredient, can comprise 40wt% stearic acid and 10wt% HPMC, thus suggesting a ratio of fatty acid to cellulose derivative of 4:1. Seth also encompasses a ratio of fatty acid to cellulose derivative of 3:1, because Seth encompasses 30% of the fatty acid and teaches 10% HPMC. Seth teaches that such coatings can help to extend the release of the core component (see paragraph 28). Seth is also teaching a blend of the cellulose derivative and the fatty acid as recited in claim 17.
Hernandez Aguilar (US 20190159446) teaches a coating composition that can include a film forming matrix such as HPMC (see paragraph 24) at 3% (see paragraph 4 and 40) and a hydrophobic barrier component such as stearic acid (see paragraph 21) at 8-10wt% (see paragraph 38), therefore suggesting a fatty acid to cellulose derivative ratio of 3:1. Hernandez Aguilar teaches that these components in these amounts can be suitable for encapsulating edible components (see paragraph 23 “encapsulates”; paragraph 159 food products) and to protect the encapsulated components (see paragraph 3). As shown in figure 1, the fatty acid (52) and the cellulose derivative (54) are part of the outer layer and therefore is a blend, as recited in claim 17.
As Jaklenec already teaches providing encapsulation for protecting the granules and suggests the encapsulant comprising a cellulose derivative and a fatty acid (see paragraph 94 “one or more…thermally stable…polymers”), one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a combination of a cellulose derivative together with a fatty acid as part of an encapsulating outer coating, at a ratio of fatty acid to cellulose of 3:1, 4:1 or 2:1, as suggested by Riziq and Barkalow and as further evidenced by Seth and Hernandez Aguilar, because Riziq and Barkalow teach that the fatty acid together with the cellulose derivative can provide a desired degree of softening and flexibility to the coating, while reducing brittleness and improving manufacture and because a combination of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose together with a fatty acid such as stearic acid provide protection to the contents.
Regarding claim 16, Penhashi teaches that there can be “at least one layer of the reduced oxygen transmission rate layer (see paragraph 50) and at paragraph 85, Penhashi teaches more than three layers. At paragraph 227, Penhashi teaches that the outer layer can include fatty acids and can be polysaccharide based films (see paragraph 226). At paragraph 267 Penhashi teaches that this outer layer can include polymers such as water-soluble hydrophilic cellulose derivative polymers as well as fatty acids; and Penhashi already teaches using HPMC as a layer and which would have been a known water-soluble hydrophilic cellulose derivative. Therefore, Penhashi is teaching that there can be at least one outer coating and is therefore suggesting more than one consecutive layer of the fatty acid and the cellulose derivative, for protection purposes. In view of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination and added an additional coating layer, as a duplication of parts for the purpose of providing further protection to the micronutrients.
Regarding claim 3 and claims 4, in view of Penhasi (see paragraph 62, 94 and 174), the combination suggests stearic acid and a HPMC as a binding agent and in view of Jaklenec, Barkalow, Riziq and any of Seth, Hernandez Aguilar, the combination teaches that the outer coating can similarly comprise stearic acid and HPMC. Further regarding claims 3 and 4, claim allows for 1-99% of at least one binding agent and therefore reads on 1-99% of fatty acid and cellulose derivative together.
Regarding claim 6, Jaklenec teaches that the micronutrient can be an iron source, as discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Jaklenec (US 20150164816) as the primary reference, and in further view of Oshinowo (“Production of Iron Premix for the Fortification of Table Salt” - cited on IDS).
Claim 5 differs from the combination as applied to claim 1 above, in specifically reciting that the encapsulated micronutrient granules have a particle size of 200-800 microns.
However, Oshinowo teaches an encapsulated iron micronutrient (see the abstract) that comprises a binder such as a cellulose derivative, together with a fatty acid outer coating (see the abstract). Oshinowo further teaches that the average particle size should be near 300 microns (see page 14, “centered on 300 microns”, see also figures 4.2a, 4.2b and 4.2c) for avoid segregation with salt as well as preventing aesthetic problems when combined with salt (see page 14, section 4.2).
As Jaklenec is also directed to using the encapsulated micronutrients with salt, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Jaklenec to use a particle size such as 300 microns, so as to prevent segregation of the encapsulated micronutrient from salt while also providing a desired aesthetic when combined with salt.
Further regarding claim 4, the combination as applied to claims 1 and 2 teaches an outer coating comprising HPMC. Further regarding the binding agent also comprising HPMC at 1-99%, it is noted that Oshinowo teaches using HPMC at 1.5% as a binder for a granule that is to be encapsulated (see page 7). Since Penhasi already teaches HPMC as a binding agent, to modify the combination and to use HPMC at 1.5% as a binder for the granules that are to be encapsulated would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as an obvious matter of engineering and/or design, based on known amounts of HPMC functional as a binder for a nutrient that is to be encapsulated.
Response to Arguments
On page 2 of the Declaration, it is urged that the combination of 0.1-20% of at least one micronutrient, 1-99% of at least one binding agent selected from a fatty acid and cellulose derivative, encapsulated by an outer coating comprising a fatty acid to cellulose derivative ratio of 2:1 to 5:1 provides a uniform emulsion that is desirable for suitable taste-masking of encapsulated iron granules, preventing discoloration and organoleptic changes in the double fortified salt.
It is noted however, that the prior art teaches encapsulation techniques that can also use a combination of cellulose derivatives and fatty acids as part of the outer coating, within the claimed ratio, for additional purposes such as reducing brittleness and improving ease of manufacture (see Barkalow) as well as for improving the delivery of the micronutrient; protecting the micronutrient and preventing its interaction with other foods (see Riziq and Hernandez Aguilar) and extending the release of the core component, as taught by Seth. Jaklenec also teaches that the purpose of encapsulation is for preventing the iron from reacting with other components that it can be combined with (see paragraph 5) while providing heat and moisture stability as well as being uniformly colored and odorless (see paragraph 13). Jaklenec is therefore seen to overlap with the encapsulation helping to mask taste and prevent discoloration of the micronutrient. Furthermore, the secondary references are providing additional motivation for using a ratio of fatty acid to cellulose derivative with in the range of 2:1 to 5:1 and 3:1, as part of the outer coating. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
On page 3 of the Declaration, it is urged that ratios of 2:1, 3:1 and 4:1 resulted in effective taste-masking of encapsulated iron granules as well as prevention of discoloration and organoleptic changes in the double fortified salt, such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have expected the fatty acid and cellulose derivative ratios of 2:1, 3:1 and 4:1 to exhibit poorer performance as compared to fatty acid and cellulose derivative ratios of 1:5 to 1:1.
These urgings are not seen to be sufficient to overcome the rejection because the prior art as a whole provides evidence of ratios within the claimed range for a similar purpose. It is also noted that the Declaration is unclear with respect to what type of performance would the ratios of 2:1 to 4:1 would have been expected to be poorer compared to the ratios of 1:5 to 1:1. Further regarding the data provided in the Declaration, it is noted that the data is specifically referring to HPMC and stearic acid and at particular percentages together with ratios, while claim 1, for example, is open to any fatty acid and any cellulose derivative without providing any specificity as to percentages of each. Further regarding Exhibit 1, it is noted that the claims are directed to the composition and not the method of making or the method of using the composition, thus it is not seen how uniformity of an emulsion prior to encapsulation would have further limited the claim as currently presented, which recites substantially encapsulated micronutrient granules.
On page 7 of the response, Applicant urges that none of the cited documents disclose selection of a specific ratio of 2:1 to 5:1 of fatty acid to cellulose derivative which exhibits unexpected advantages over other disclosed ratios.
These arguments are not seen to be sufficient over the prior art teachings as whole. That is, the prior art teaches that a ratio of 2:1, 3:1 and 4:1, as well as 3.125:1 were envisioned by the prior art teachings for a ratio of fatty acid to cellulose derivative as part of an encapsulating composition.
On page 7 of the response, Applicant urges that Penhasi teaches using fatty acid and cellulose derivatives individually for coating but fails to disclose or suggest using a specific combination of cellulose derivative and fatty acid in a specific ratio.
These arguments are not seen to be sufficient because Penhasi teaches at paragraph 267, for example, that an outer coating can comprise a combination of fatty acid and cellulose derivative. Furthermore, while Penhasi does not disclose a specific example with a specific ratio, it is maintained that the prior art as a whole, teaches that ratios of 4:1 and 3:1 of fatty acid to cellulose derivative, for example would have been envisioned embodiments to one having ordinary skill in the art, especially in view of the multiple references that suggest such a ratio. It is additionally noted that Applicant’s specifically also appears to allow for any fatty acid to be successfully used (see paragraph 27 of the published application) while also allowing for a variety of cellulose derivatives to be successfully used (see paragraph 27).
On page 8 of the response, regarding Barkalow, Applicant urges that claim 1 discloses an amount of fatty acid that can vary between 66-84% of the total solid content of the outer coating, while the cellulose derivative varies between 16-33%; and this is in contrast to Barkalow who teaches a coating comprising a maximum of 20% by weight of a fatty acid.
These arguments are not sufficient, because they are not commensurate in scope with the claims. It is noted that the claims do not recite that the outer coating comprises 66-84% fatty acid and 16-33% cellulose derivative, but rather, is directed to a ratio of fatty acid to cellulose derivative, which ratio can fall outside of the above urged percentages.
Further on page 8 of the response, Applicant urges that Barkalow does not specifically teach that the selected ratio of 2:1 to 5:1 of fatty acid to cellulose derivative will result in uniform emulsion which results in taste-masking of encapsulated iron granules, prevention of discoloration and organoleptic changes. Applicant also urges that Barkalow and Riziq disclose a broad range over which the quantity of fatty acid and cellulose derivative may vary.
It is noted however, that Jaklenec also teaches that the purpose of encapsulation is for preventing the iron from reacting with other components that it can be combined with (see paragraph 5) while providing heat and moisture stability as well as being uniformly colored and odorless (see paragraph 13). Jaklenec is therefore seen to overlap with the concept of encapsulation helping to mask taste and prevent discoloration of the micronutrient. Furthermore, the uniformity of emulsion appears to be directed to a method of encapsulation and not toward “a substantially encapsulated micronutrient.” That is, the Declaration also appears to discuss that the ratio facilitates providing suitability for use as a coating while the claims are directed to a coated product. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, that cellulose derivatives and fatty acids, including HPMC and stearic acid, have been known to be used as part of compositions useful for coating micronutrients, as already suggested by Jaklenec and evidenced by Penhasi and Riziq. Hernandez Aguilar, for example, teaches a coating composition which can have a hydrophobic barrier component that can be stearic acid in combination with a film forming component which can be HPMC (Hypromellose) used in amounts that result in a ratio of fatty acid to cellulose derivative within the range of 2:1 to 5:1 for protecting the encapsulated product. This is similar to Jaklenec, Penhasi and Riziq and therefore provides evidence of combinations of fatty acid to cellulose derivative that can be successfully used for encapsulation. It is also noted that while Barkalow and Riziq provide broad ranges, all the claim requires is that the coating comprises a particular ratio of fatty acid to cellulose without any specificity as to amounts. Additionally, Barkalow is clearly suggesting the use of stearic acid, for example at 10 or 20% as part of the outer coating (paragraph 89) while film formers such as HPMC can be used at 5%, for example, thus suggesting a ratio of 2:1 and 4:1. Riziq is similar in this regard because at paragraph 111 the reference suggests 1-10% fatty acid and 2-20% hydrocolloid and at paragraph 153 the reference is suggesting a ratio of 4:1 and 3:1 of two encapsulating agents, which can be fatty acid and cellulose derivative because at paragraph 16 and page 25, claim 39, Riziq teaches the encapsulating agents can be a combination of a lipid and a film forming polymer.
Further on pages 8-9 of the response, Applicant urges that Seth does not teach that it is only the selected ratio of 2:1 to 5:1 which will result in uniform emulsion, resulting in taste-masking of encapsulated iron granules, prevention of discoloration and organoleptic changes in fortified salt.
It is noted however, that the claims are directed to a substantially encapsulated product, and not the method of encapsulating. Additionally, it is not seen that providing a uniform emulsion as an intermediate product provides added structure to the claimed substantially encapsulated micronutrient granule. The claim also does not discuss any particular uniformity of an emulsion. Even further, it is noted that the purpose of the combinations of fatty acid and cellulose derivative as taught by Jaklenec, Penhasi, Barkalow, Riziq, Seth and Hernandez Aguilar is for providing an encapsulated micronutrient and/or nutrient. For instance, Jaklenec, Penhasi and Riziq teach encapsulation of micronutrients thus suggesting the outer coating which the prior art teaches can comprise ratios of fatty acid to cellulose derivative within the claimed range, can be successfully used for coating micronutrients.
Further on page 9 of the response, Applicant urges that Hernandez Aguilar does not motivate a person skilled in the art to arrive at an outer coating comprising a fatty acid and cellulose derivative within the range of 2:1 to 5:1, because the reference is forming an exogenous film as applied to the horticulture and food product industries, such that a person looking for solutions to form encapsulated micronutrient granules for fortification would not have any motivation to refers to Hernandez Aguilar.
These arguments are not seen to be sufficient because the reference is seen to be reasonably pertinent in light of its teachings of encapsulation (see paragraph 23) via similar components as those already taught by Jaklenec, Penhashi, Riziq and Seth for nutrients and micronutrients.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-10 reiterate those remarks presented above and are not seen to be sufficient for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20110020519 discloses microencapsulating materials including fatty acids such as stearic acid (see paragraph 43) for oxidatively unstable compounds including micronutrients such as vitamins.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792