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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/18/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11-12, 15-17, 19-21, and 23 are pending. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 6-9, 12, 16-17, and 19-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan (US 20030193102 A1) in view of Achterkamp (WO 2007068484 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yan teaches a complex coacervate capsule (Page 5, Claim 5) which releases flavor [0002] for use in food [0038]. The capsule wall comprises chitosan, non-protein polymers, and protein polymers (Claim 4). It would have been obvious to have selected chitosan, a protein polymer, and a non-protein polymer for the capsule of Yan, since Yan teaches the use of multiple components and additionally teaches the claimed components for use in the capsule.
Yan teaches the use of the capsule in food but does not teach the inclusion of the capsule in a soup or bouillion in gel form.
Achterkamp teaches that soup in gel form allows the inclusion of wet ingredients, which improves the quality of the soup inclusions (Page 1, Lines 26-35 and Page 4, Lines 14-20). Achterkamp teaches that a gelled soup should have a ratio of elastic modulus to viscous (or loss) modulus of, preferably, at least 5, and a viscous (loss) modulus of preferably at least 50 Pa, which lie within the claimed ranges (Page 3, Lines 21-23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the complex coacervate capsule of Yan in the gelled soup of Achterkamp with the storage and loss modulus properties as claimed. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Yan teaches the use of the capsules in food, and Achterkamp teaches that gelled soup (which is a food) is a high quality soup product.
Regarding the limitation that the flavor ingredient is “releasable during the preparation of the flavored food product”, Yan teaches that the substance to be released may be released in a specific environment [0038]. It would have been obvious to formulate the capsule of Yan to release flavor upon the preparation of the flavored food product, since preparation of food is known in the art to expose food to different environments (e.g. heat or mechanical force). Additionally, given that Yan teaches the limitations of the Claim, the capsule of Yan is interpreted to provide flavor “releasable during the preparation of the flavored food product” as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, Yan teaches the use of gelatin (Page 5, Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 5, Yan teaches the use of gum arabic and carboxymethylcellulose (Page 5, Claim 4).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Yan teaches that the flavor capsule contains a flavor in a fat matrix [0021].
Regarding Claim 8, Yan teaches cross-linking via transglutaminase, as well as formaldehyde and glutaraldehyde [0035].
Regarding Claim 9, Yan teaches a method for making capsules [0040]. The method comprises dissolving a first polymer, a second polymer, and an oil in aqueous solution for form an emulsion. Note that where Yan teaches the mixture components as claimed, Yan teaches a hydrocolloid solution as claimed. The mixture is cooled to form capsules, which is the same as “forming a colloid wall”. The capsule is then cross-linked [0047]. Note that Yan teaches that the capsule components may be an oil [0021] delivering flavor [0002]. It would have been obvious to use the method of Yan for the preparation of a capsule comprising any of the ingredients as taught by Yan, since Yan teaches that the method is suitable for preparing complex coacervate microcapsules.
Yan does not teach first mixing the two polymers before the flavor in the initial dissolution step. However, selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV C. In the case of both Yan and the instant incentive food product, the steps prior to emulsification have the effect of creating a mixture of water-soluble polymers, water, and a water-insoluble flavoring component.
Regarding Claim 12, where Yan teaches the addition of a capsule comprising flavor to foods, as discussed above in regard to Claim 1, Yan is interpreted to teach a “method of conferring, improving, enhancing, or modifying the flavor…in a consumer product by using a coacervate core-shell capsule comprising a flavor ingredient…during the preparation of the…flavored consumer product, wherein the method increases flavor intensity”.
Regarding Claim 16, Yan teaches that the capsules may be ruptured by mechanical force [0050].
Regarding Claim 17, Yan teaches the use of gelatin (Page 5, Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 19, Yan teaches the use of gum arabic (Page 5, Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 20, Yan teaches that the core of the capsule comprises oil, such as oils used for food [0021]. Note that where Yan teaches oils used for food, Yan teaches food grade oils.
Regarding Claim 21, Yan teaches transglutaminase as a cross-linker [0047].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Achterkamp as applied to Claims 1, in view of Dong (“Optimization of cross-linking parameters during production of transglutaminase-hardened spherical multinuclear microcapsules by complex coacervation”, doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2007.11.007, November 2007)
Regarding Claim 11, Yan teaches cross-linking of the capsule [0035] but does not discuss a specific period of time for the cross-linking.
Dong teaches cross-linking of a complex coacervate microcapsule with transglutaminase (Abstract). Dong teaches that cross-linking can occur for 3 or 6 hours (Page 42, “Preparation of SMMs”). Dong teaches that the capsule is sufficiently hardened at 6 hours (Page 42, Section 3.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a cross-linking time of 6 hours, as taught by Dong, for the capsule of modified Yan. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Dong teaches that such a duration leads to a sufficiently hardened capsule.
Additionally, where Dong speaks to the effects of cross-linking time, e.g. release profile of the microcapsule (Page 44, Figure 2) and hardness and stability of the capsule (Page 43, Section 3.1), one of ordinary skill would have been able to have adjusted the cross-linking time to arrive at the durations as claimed through no more than routine experimentation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Achterkamp as applied to Claims 1 and 12, above, in view of Yang (“Development and evaluation of novel flavour microcapsules containing vanilla oil using complex coacervation approach”, DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2013.08.074, 2014).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Yan teaches a method for “conferring, improving, enhancing, or modifying” flavor as discussed above in regards to Claim 12, but does not discuss the release of the flavor ingredient by exposure to heat/humidity and/or mastication.
Yang teaches that complex coacervate capsules can be configured to release a payload in response to mechanical stress or temperature (Page 273, Paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to configure the capsules of Yan to release flavor upon exposure to mechanical stress (note that mastication confers mechanical stress) or temperature/heat. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Yang teaches that these are known release mechanisms for complex coacervate capsules.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan in view of Achterkamp as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Florida Chemical Company (http://www.idaromatics.co.uk/images/tech_data/Orange%20Oil__.htm, December 1996).
Regarding Claim 23, Yan teaches a capsule comprising flavor as discussed above in regards to Claim 1, but does not discuss a specific vapor pressure of the flavor.
Florida Chemical Company teaches that orange oil, which provides a desirable “sweet and fresh” citrus flavor (Page 2, Line 1) in food (Page 1, last paragraph), has a vapor pressure of 2 mm Hg (which is 267 Pascals). Note that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand vapor pressure to rise with temperature, absent evidence to the contrary. The flavoring of Florida Chemical Company is therefore interpreted to have a vapor pressure of higher than 0.007 Pa at 25 °C as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to utilize any amount of the orange oil of Florida Chemical Company, and therefore utilize at least 5 wt% of chemical compounds possessing a vapor pressure of higher than .007 Pa at 25 °C, in the capsule of modified Yan. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Florida Chemical Company teaches that orange oil provides a desirable flavor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5-9, 11-12, 15-17, 19-21, and 23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights