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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/17/26 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 9/17/25. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/17/26 has been entered. Claims 23-24, 28-35, 37-41, and 44-50 are pending and being examined on their merits in thus U.S. Patent Application. Applicant has amended claims 23, 28, 37, 38, 44, and 46 and added new claims 48-50. Claims 25-27, 36, 42, and 43 are cancelled and features of claims 27-28, and 36 have been incorporated into independent claim 23. Independent claim 23 has been also amended to delete the limitations of “wherein the coffee replica is a coffee concentrate replica, a coffee beverage replica, or a coffee granule replica”. Applicant amendment to claim 23 has overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth on the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 9/17/25.
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.
Claim(s) 23, 28-29, and 31-35, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. [US 20110318459 A1], hereinafter George, in view of Kindel et al. [US 20040202767 A1], hereinafter Kindel, and Zeller et al. [US 20020119235 A1], hereinafter Zeller, evidenced by Barbosa-Cánovas et al. [Chapter 8: Encapsulation processes, Food Powders, Physical Properties, Processing, and Functionality. (2005)], hereinafter Barbosa-Cánovas and Patron et al. [US 20160376263 A1], hereinafter Patron.
Regarding claims 23, and 28, George teach methods of making flavoring compositions [George, 0002], comprising one or more volatile organic compounds (VOC) [George, 0020-0063], and one or more non-volatile compounds [George, 0011, 0017, 0090-0136, 0187], forming an aqueous solution comprising: water, one or more VOCs that are water-soluble, and one or more non-volatile compounds that are water-soluble [George, 0017, 0067], forming an emulsion comprising: an oil, one or more VOCs that are fat-soluble, and one or more non-volatile compounds that are fat-soluble; and mixing the aqueous solution and the emulsion to form a flavor mixture [George, 0144, 0184-0187]. The flavor compositions of the invention may be modified to provide for any improved flavor profiles that closely replicates the food products [George, 0012], and one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with George’s disclosure can produce any number of suitable formulations with flavor and aromatic profiles similar to a formulation that is traditionally produced (equivalent to replicas) [George, 0063]. George teaches that the flavor composition comprising VOCs and non-volatile compounds may be applied to a solid substrate (applied onto various solid foods surface without limitation) to form a coated solid substrate [George, 0144, 0260, claim 28].
George does not teach a coffee replica (coffee replica flavor composition).
Kindel teaches a method of making coffee aroma compositions comprising aroma compounds (VOCs, [Kindel, 0011-0036]) and non-volatile compounds [Kindel, 0084-0107] as individual components in separate formulations for imparting the aroma impression of coffee (coffee replica) [Kindel, Abstract, and 0007]. Kindel further recognize the work of Mayer et al. (Eur. Food Res Technol. 2000, 211, 272-276, not relied upon for the rejection of record), where is disclosed that by mixing at least 24 individual compounds that have been identified within the typical aroma of coffee, it is possible to produce compositions that can simulate coffee aroma (coffee replica), using these odorant compounds as pure samples available commercially or synthetized according to available literature [Kindel, 0008], and [Mayer, p.273, Chemicals, Table 1]. The combination of VOC individual components is useful for imparting coffee flavor/aroma to foods and beverages [Kindel, 0070], and said VOCs or aroma substances may be combined as separate ingredients to prepare coffee flavored formulations in the form of emulsions, granulations, edible films and layers and layer-coatings [Kindel, 0072, 0073, 0079-0080].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed VOCs and non-volatile individual components to produce a coffee flavored replica that is a coffee concentrate replica, or a coffee beverage replica into the invention of George, in view of Kindel, since both are directed to methods of making flavor compositions using individual VOCs and non-volatiles, since George already disclosed making flavor compositions in emulsion form and that the flavor compositions of the invention may be modified to provide for any improved flavor profiles that closely replicates the food products [George, 0012], and one of ordinary skill in the art can produce any number of suitable formulations with flavor and aromatic profiles similar to a formulation that is traditionally produced [George, 0063], but simply did not mention coffee flavor. Doing so would provide simple aromatic compositions that are capable of imparting coffee aroma and flavors to foods/beverages and are characterized by having storage stability [Kindel, 0009].
Modified George does not teach wherein the coffee replica is a coffee bean replica, or a coffee grounds replica of claim 23, and wherein the coated solid substrate is the coffee grounds replica of claim 28.
As explained above, George teaches that the flavor/aroma composition comprising VOCs and non-volatile compounds may be applied to a solid substrate (applied onto various solid foods surface without limitation) to form a coated solid substrate [George, 0144, 0260, claim 28 of George], and Kindel teach the VOCs or aroma substances may be combined as separate ingredients to prepare coffee flavored formulations in the form of emulsions, granulations, edible films and layers and layer-coatings [Kindel, 0072, 0073, 0079-0080]. However, George and Kindel do not explicitly teach the coated solid substrate is specifically a processed or unprocessed grains or grain products, legumes or legume seeds, oil plants or seeds, and fruits or fruit products; and wherein the coffee replica is a coffee bean replica or a coffee grounds replica.
Zeller teach a coffee aroma composition and particulate coffee beverage preparation aroma composition [Zeller, Abstract]. The coffee aroma composition may be soluble in a volatile organic carrier and may be emulsified [Zeller, 0027]. Zeller teach various solid matrix materials in which the carrier (containing the coffee aroma composition) is adsorbed (adhered to the surface of a solid), [Zeller, 0035]. The coffee aroma composition can be converted into particulate form by using various methods including adsorption, granulation, fluidized bed coating (to form a coated solid substrate) and spray drying to increase size of the particle [Zeller, 0034].
Furthermore, the evidence of Barbosa-Cánovas disclose that encapsulation (as taught by Kindel [Kindel, 0073]), can be defined as a process where a continuous thin coating is formed around solid particles (coated solid substrate is the coffee grounds replica as required by claim 28), (King, 1995). In particular, food processing encapsulation is directly related to the coating of minute particles of ingredients, as well as whole ingredients (e.g., ground raisins, fruits as required by claim 23), nuts (oil seeds as claimed), and confectionery products, by microencapsulation and macro-coating techniques (Shahidi and Han, 1993), [Barbosa-Cánovas, p.199, par.1].
Moreover, the evidence of Patron disclose compounds and compositions for flavor modification, and combinations of said compositions with additional compositions, compounds and products such as foods, beverages, aromas/scents/odorants, and emulsions [Patron, Abstract], comprising one or more aromatic compounds (VOCs, i.e., 1-(2-furyl)-1,3-butanedione and diacetyl [Patron, 0147]), and one or more non-volatile compounds (i.e., adipic acid and alginic acid [Patron, 0147]), wherein said compositions may be provided in various forms to deliver the desired amount or functionality according to the particular application and/or embodiment in which said composition is used, and said forms include solid compositions, powder compositions, and also where the VOCs and non-volatile composition is attached to a solid substrate [Patron, 0284].
Since George already explicitly teach forming the aqueous solution and emulsion and mixing the aqueous solution and emulsion to form a flavor mixture, wherein the flavor/aroma composition comprising VOCs and non-volatile compounds may be applied to a solid substrate, and George, Kindel and Zeller are all directed to methods of making flavor and aroma compositions using VOCs and non-volatile compounds, and applying these flavor/aroma comprising VOCs and non-volatile compounds on the surface of solids, and further the evidence of Patron also disclose that it is known in the art to apply VOCs and non-volatile compounds to solid substrates without limitation, and the evidence of Barbosa-Cánovas disclose that it is known in the art the coating of solid substrates such as fruits, and/or oil seeds, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the solid substrates of fruits, and/or oil seeds, wherein the coffee replica is a coffee bean replica or a coffee grounds replica, and wherein the coated solid substrate is the coffee grounds replica as taught by Zeller and evidenced by Barbosa-Cánovas and Patron, in the method of George of applying the flavor mixture to the solid substrate to form a coated solid substrate, in order to produce the claimed coffee bean replica or coffee grounds replica. Further, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art to apply the flavor mixture to the solid substrate comprising fruits, and/or oil seeds, because Zeller teach that this would provide a method for coating solid particulates with undesirable small size so that they can be advantageously agglomerated, granulated and encapsulated in order to increase its size [Zeller, 0034-0035].
Regarding claim 29, modified George teach the coffee replica discussed above in claim 23 rejection, and teach wherein the one or more VOCs do not comprise at least one compound selected from the group consisting of the list of compounds as claimed such as 1-heptanol.
Regarding claim 31, modified George teach the coffee replica of instant claim 23 may include 2,3-butanedione [George, 0058], 2,3-diethyl-5-methylpyrazine [George, 0075], dimethyl trisulfide [George, 0081], furfural [George, 0049], gamma decalactone [George, 0075], (at least 5 VOCs as claimed).
Regarding claim 32, modified George teach the coffee replica discussed above in claim 23 rejection, and teach wherein the one or more non-volatile compounds do not comprise at least one compound selected from the group consisting of the list of compounds as claimed such as 2,3,5,6-tetramethylpyrazine.
Regarding claim 33, modified George teach the coffee replica discussed above in claim 23 rejection, and teach wherein the one or more non-volatile compounds comprise at least one compound selected from the group consisting of coumaric acid (also known as trans-p- coumaric acid, see p.1, PubChem) [George, 0126], and/or syringaldehyde [George, 0134].
Regarding claim 34, modified George teach the coffee replica discussed above in claim 23 rejection, and teach wherein the one or more non-volatile compounds comprise at least 10 compounds from the claimed group such as tartaric acid [George, 0105], citric acid [George, 0106], malic acid [George, 0107], lactic acid [George, 0109], succinic acid [George, 0111], glucose [George, 0093], fructose [George, 0094], inositol [George, 0096], arabitol [George, 0099], sorbitol [George, 0100], and mannitol [George, 0102].
Regarding claim 35, modified George teach the coffee replica discussed above in claim 23 rejection, and teach wherein the one or more non-volatile compounds comprise at least 3 compounds from the claimed group such as vanillic acid [George, 0128], lactic acid [George, 0109], succinic acid [George, 0111].
Claim(s) 24, 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George in view of Kindel and Zeller as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Kawasaki [JP 2006020526 A], and the evidentiary reference of Shanmugam [Granulation techniques and technologies: recent progresses, 2015].
Regarding claim 24, modified George teach the methods and concepts discussed above in claim 23 rejection, but is silent regarding the method further comprising processing the flavor mixture to commercial sterility.
Kawasaki teach a coffee flavor composition comprising individual components as active ingredients selected from a group that includes one or more volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and non-volatile compounds [Kawasaki, claim 1 and 0001]. Kawasaki teach examples of methods for sterilizing coffee flavor compositions of the invention in which the coffee flavor is mixed with a dairy product, heat-sterilized the resulting mix and bottled, (as disclosed by applicant on page 102, lines 28-30, and page 103, lines 1-5, and 9 “element (d) hot fill packaging”), and another method in which the coffee beverage is heat sterilized at pH of 3 to 5.5, [Kawasaki, 0080], (as disclosed by applicant on page 222, lines 11 and 16, “element (d) hot fill at pH of <4.6”). Examples 101-102 of Kawasaki teach the preparation of a straight coffee beverage and a milk-containing coffee beverage where both products are sterilized by fill and retort processing, [Kawasaki, 0128 and 0130], (as disclosed by applicant on page 103, lines 11-12, and 15 “element (c) fill and retort processing”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed processing the flavor mixture to commercial sterility into the invention of modified George in view of Kawasaki since both are directed to methods of flavor and aromatic compositions comprising VOCs and non-volatile individual components. Doing so would provide a coffee flavored product having an excellent aroma, flavor, and fragrant coffee feel, as well as a coffee flavored product with suppressed deterioration of aroma components [Kawasaki, 0080, 0129, and 0131].
Regarding claim 30, modified George teach the coffee replica of instant claim 23, but does not teach wherein the one or more VOCs comprise at least one compound selected from the group consisting of 2-pentanol, beta-ionone, ethyl benzoate, geranyl acetate, isoamyl alcohol, maltol, massoia lactone, and methyl anthranilate.
Kawasaki teach the coffee flavor composition may include β-ionone [0061, line 52], ethyl benzoate [0065, p.21], geranyl acetate [0065, p.21], isoamyl alcohol [0018], maltol [0020], massoia lactone [0066] and methyl anthranilate [0068].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Grzeschik to incorporate the teachings of Kawasaki and provide the desired individual one or more VOCs selected from the group as claimed. Doing so would provide a coffee flavored product with the desired aroma/flavor improvers [Kawasaki, 0068].
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George in view of Kindel and Zeller as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Ortiz De Zarate et al. [US 20090258109 A1], hereinafter Ortiz De Zarate.
Regarding claim 37, modified George teach the coffee replica as discussed in claim 23 rejection, comprising a solid substrate as discussed in claim 27, but does not explicitly teach the solid substrate comprises grape seeds.
Ortiz De Zarate teach a process for coating the surface of a product [Abstract]. Ortiz De Zarate disclose that hard coating is an operation employed particularly in the confectionery field [0002]. The disclosure teach the process enables the coating of all types of products including seeds [0071]. While Ortiz De Zarate does not specifically mentions grape seeds, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of a variety of seeds according to the particular application in which the coated product is being used.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed grape seeds as solid substrate into the invention of modified George in view of Ortiz De Zarate, doing so would provide a method of coating solid particles of all types including grape seeds and a variety of different food products that can be coated [Ortiz De Zarate, 0071]. Since modified George in view of Kindel already teach encapsulation, edible layers and coatings [Kindel, 0073, 0079, 0080], since modified George in view of Zeller teach VOCs may be adsorbed or adhered into the surface of a solid [Zeller, 0035], and since the substitution of one known form (i.e. solid substrate of Zeller) for another (i.e. seeds of Ortiz De Zarate) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The selection of a known material, which is based upon its suitability for the intended use, is within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (see MPEP § 2144.07).
Claim(s) 38, 44-47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George in view of Kindel and Zeller as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Franklin et al. [US 6090431 A1], hereinafter Franklin.
Regarding claims 38 and 44-47, modified George teach the coffee replica comprising a solid substrate as discussed in claim 23 rejection, but does not teach the solid substrate have an average particle size of about 250 µm to about 1500 µm (claim 38), adding a tableting aid to the coated solid substrate (claim 44), wherein the tableting aid comprises a starch, a sugar, a gum, or a combination thereof (claim 45), wherein the method further comprises forming the coated solid substrate into a coffee bean-like shape to form the coffee bean replica (claim 46), and wherein forming the coated solid substrate into a coffee bean-like shape comprises using a rotary pill press (claim 47).
Franklin teach beverage beans and methods for their manufacture and use [Title]. The disclosure teach a pelletized food product comprised of individual pieces of edible plant materials and binding agents to bind the individual pieces into said pelletized form, and further subjected to a grinding process to form a beverage [Abstract]. The invention provides a variety of food products as well as methods for their manufacture and their use in creating various beverages. In a preferable aspect, the food products of the invention comprise various ingredients that are manufactured into discrete bean-shaped pellets having a physical structure, e.g., hardness and friability, which is similar to that of coffee beans (coffee bean-like shape, claim 46) so that they may be ground in traditional coffee grinders [col.1, lines 45-53 and col.2, lines 45-48]. The coffee bean shaped pellets may be coated on the outside with flavors, scents, functional ingredients with spraying or coating process (applying flavor) to provide layers of various ingredients and/or dietary supplements such as vitamins, minerals, amino acids, standardized or non-standardized herbal extracts, and herbal supplements, medicaments, and the like [col.6, lines 17-28]. Franklin teach the pelletized coffee bean shaped bodies may be formulated in tablet form [col.4, lines 22-23], where the ingredients used to make the tablets are bind with binding agents such as starches, sugars and gums (tableting aid, claims 44-45) [col.3, lines 26-40 and col.2, lines 9-15].
Franklin teach the pelletized coffee bean shaped comprised of individual pieces of edible plant materials bind together by a binding agent into a pelletized body as explained above, and further teach the granulation particle size is reduced by passing it through a smaller mesh screen. An example is provided in the disclosure where a tablet having about a 3/16th of an inch diameter (4.76 mm diameter) is formed by granulated particles passed by a 20 mesh screen (841 µm particle size), which is between the claimed range in (claim 38) [col.4, lines 61-64], therefore, granules or coffee grind replicas with the claimed particle size may be produced. A variety of tablet machines may be employed to compress the granulation, including rotary tablet machines, high speed rotary tablet machines (equivalent to rotary pill press as claimed, claim 47) and the like [col.5, lines 29-32].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed particle size, adding a tableting aid to the coated solid substrate, wherein the tableting aid comprises a starch, a sugar, a gum, or a combination thereof, and wherein the method further comprises forming the coated solid substrate into a coffee bean-like shape to form the coffee bean replica using a rotary pill press into the invention of modified George in view of Franklin in order to provide a pelletized product with coffee bean shape comprising the claimed tableting aids and sprayed with coffee flavor and/or coffee granules of the claimed particle size. Doing so would provide compositions that allow individuals to enjoy the ritual of grinding “beans” for hot or cold brewing of beverages other than coffee [Franklin, col.1, lines 36-38]. Moreover, changes in shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed shape was significant. MPEP 2144.04 (IV) B.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George in view of Kindel and Zeller as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Deng et al. [WO 2012084624 A1], hereinafter Deng, evidenced by Cudre et al. [WO 2010143120 A1], hereinafter Cudre and Gaonkar [US 5322704 A].
Regarding claim 39, modified George teach the coffee replica comprising the aqueous solution as discussed in claim 23 rejection, does not explicitly teach using low shear blending to form the aqueous solution.
Deng teach compositions of fat-soluble active ingredients containing plant protein soy polysaccharide complexes [Deng, Title] and preparation of said protein/soy soluble polysaccharide emulsions [Deng, p.11, line 12]. The disclosure teach the composition may be added as an aqueous stock solution, wherein mixing can be done by using low shear mixer (equivalent to low shear blending as claimed) or other mixing methods/apparatuses, depending on the formulation of the final application [Deng, p.9, lines 14-19].
The evidence of Cudre teach inverse emulsion and use thereof [Cudre, Title]. The emulsion of Cudre’s invention may be formed by any method known to the person skilled in the art, such as low shear mixing (low shear blending as claimed) and homogenization [Cudre, p.6, par.6].
The evidence of Gaonkar teach method for preparing a multiple emulsion [Gaonkar, Title]. Gaonkar disclose that some steps in emulsion formation are critical since excess mixing may fracture drops in an emulsion resulting in a simple O/W (oil-in-water) emulsion. The internal water droplets are lost and mixed with the external aqueous phase as the oil drops are torn apart. For this reason, a low shear mixer may be used [Gaonkar, col.1, lines 59-67].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed low shear blending to form the aqueous solution into the invention of modified George in view of Deng. Doing so would provide an aqueous solution for forming an emulsion in which the method of mixing may be selected based on the formulation of the final application, since mixing/blending techniques are well known by the skilled artisan [Deng, p.9, lines 16-19], since Cudre disclose emulsions may be prepared using any method known by skilled artisans such as low shear mixing [Cudre, p.6, par.6], and since Gaonkar also disclose low shear mixing may be employed to avoid fracture of drops in emulsions caused by excess mixing [Gaonkar, col.1, lines 59-67].
Claim(s) 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George in view of Kindel and Zeller as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Grzeschik et al. [DE 102009048534 A1], hereinafter Grzeschik.
Regarding claims 40-41, modified George teach the coffee replica comprising the emulsion portion with oil, VOCs and non-volatiles that are fat-soluble as discussed above in claim 23 rejection, but does not explicitly teach forming an emulsion (i.e., oil, VOCs, and non-volatiles) comprises homogenizing (claim 40), and wherein forming an emulsion comprises the addition of an emulsifier, a starch, a gum, a polysaccharide, or a combination thereof (claim 41).
Grzeschik teach a coffee flavored emulsion comprising an aqueous phase and an oil phase emulsified with each other to produce a confectionery emulsion with coffee flavor [Abstract]. Grzeschik disclose the emulsion may be performed by using a rotor stator or high pressure emulsifier (equivalent to homogenizing, as disclosed by Applicant on page 102, lines 19-22, “In some embodiments, forming an emulsion comprises using a rotator stator high shear homogenizer. In some embodiments, forming an emulsion comprises using a high pressure inline recirculating homogenizer.”) [Grzeschik, 0047]. Grzeschik disclose the emulsion may comprise a polysaccharide in the oil phase [Grzeschik, 0047].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed homogenizing and polysaccharide into the invention of modified George in view of Grzeschik since both are directed to emulsions and flavor compositions. Doing so would provide emulsions with high viscosity where an oil containing coffee aroma components is dispersed in a solution comprising a polysaccharide in the oil phase [Grzeschik, 0047], to produce emulsions with a pleasant coffee taste suitable for making beverages [Grzeschik, 0003].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 37, and 48-50 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 37, and 48-50 would be allowable for disclosing a method of preparing a coffee replica, the method comprising: forming an aqueous solution comprising: water, one or more VOCs that are water-soluble, and one or more non-volatile compounds that are water-soluble; forming an emulsion comprising: an oil, one or more VOCs that are fat-soluble, and one or more non-volatile compounds that are fat-soluble; mixing the aqueous solution and the emulsion to form a flavor mixture; and applying the flavor mixture to a solid substrate to form a coated solid substrate, wherein the solid substrate comprises grape seeds; wherein the solid substrate comprises legumes or legume seeds; wherein the legumes or legume seeds comprise chickpeas; wherein the solid substate consists of chickpeas; and wherein the coffee replica is a coffee bean replica or a coffee grounds replica.
George teaches flavor and aroma replica compositions produced by a mixture of VOCs and non-volatile components, and that the flavor composition comprising VOCs and non-volatile compounds may be applied to a solid substrate to form a coated solid substrate [George, 0144, 0260, claim 28]. However George does not specifically teach coating a grape seed, legumes or legume seeds, or chickpeas to form a coffee replica that is a coffee bean replica or a coffee grounds replica.
Kindel teaches VOCs or aroma substances may be combined as separate ingredients to prepare coffee flavored formulations in the form of emulsions, granulations, edible films and layers and layer-coatings [Kindel, 0072, 0073, 0079-0080]. However Kindel does not specifically teach coating a grape seed, legumes or legume seeds, or chickpeas to form a coffee replica that is a coffee bean replica or a coffee grounds replica.
Ortiz De Zarate teach a process for coating the surface of a product [Abstract]. Ortiz De Zarate disclose that hard coating is an operation employed particularly in the confectionery field [0002]. The disclosure teach the process enables the coating of all types of products including seeds [0071]. However Ortiz De Zarate does not specifically teach coating a grape seed, legumes or legume seeds, or chickpeas to form a coffee replica that is a coffee bean replica or a coffee grounds replica.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejection has been modified in view of the amendments to independent claim 23, such as the deletion of the elements “the coffee replica is a coffee concentrate replica, a coffee beverage replica, a coffee granule replica”, and the incorporation of the features of previous claims 27-28, and 36 of “applying the flavor mixture to a solid substrate to form a coated solid substrate, wherein the solid substrate comprises one or more of processed or unprocessed grains or grain products, legumes or legume seeds, oil plants or seeds, and fruits or fruit products”.
On pages 4-6 of the Remarks, part I., section A., Applicant urges that one of ordinary skill in the art would not look into George to make a composition having flavor profiles that mimic traditional coffees because George is directed to making flavor compositions that mimic products that require long aging periods. This argument is not persuasive because George teaches that the flavor compositions of the invention may be modified to provide for any improved flavor profiles that closely replicates the food products [George, 0012], and further explicitly teach that one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with George’s disclosure can produce any number of suitable formulations with flavor and aromatic profiles similar to a formulation that is traditionally produced (equivalent to replicas) [George, 0063]. George also teaches that the flavor composition comprising VOCs and non-volatile compounds may be applied to a solid substrate (applied onto various solid foods surface without limitation) to form a coated solid substrate [George, 0144, 0260, claim 28]. Moreover, a skilled artisan in the field of flavor and aroma compositions made from individual VOCs and non-volatile compounds would recognize that different combinations of these substances would produce different flavor profiles of coffees such as having different degrees of roasting taste, non-aged coffee taste and aged coffee taste.
On pages 6-8 of the Remarks, part I., section B., Applicant urges that Kindel does not disclose a coffee replica having the taste and aroma of traditionally produced coffee and that Kindel does not show or teach the replication of the aroma and taste of traditionally produced coffee without using a traditionally produced coffee product based on the Examples 1 and 3 of Kindel’s disclosure.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a coffee replica having the taste and aroma of traditionally produced coffee) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, the above argument regarding taste and aroma is not persuasive because the rejection is based on the combination of George in view of Kindel, and as already explained above George teaches that the flavor compositions of the invention may be modified to provide for any improved flavor profiles that closely replicates the food products, and Kindel teaches making coffee aroma compositions comprising aroma compounds and non-volatile compounds as individual components in separate formulations for imparting the aroma impression of coffee (coffee replica). The term replica is given its broadest reasonable definition which would include a close copy, the same way Applicant describe a coffee replica on page 10, lines 27-30 and page 11, lines 1-11, wherein the coffee replicas can be called “coffee-like products” that can have characteristics including taste, aroma, mouthfeel and appearance of traditionally produced coffees, providing a similar sensory experience. That is, an exact taste and aroma is not required by the claim or by the term coffee replica. Moreover, while the examples in Kindel teach using traditional coffee products, Kindel does not teach away from using the coffee flavor formulation of the invention (which does not contain traditional coffee products) by itself in order to provide for a coffee flavor. In fact Kindel disclose that a typical coffee flavor and aroma can be achieved by simply combining a number of individually selected VOCs which are the main components responsible for the coffee aroma and flavor with significantly improved stability and shelf life [Kindel, 0008, 0011-0070]. Therefore, taking everything discussed above in combination with the prior art teachings, it is the examiners position that modified George does teach a coffee replica as claimed.
On pages 8-10 of the Remarks, part I., section C., Applicant argues that George does not teach making flavor profiles that do not require long aging processes (regarding this argument see section A. discussion above). Applicant further urges that the examiner failed to provide a reasoned explanation of why a skilled artisan would look into Kindel to modify George. This argument is not persuasive because the examiner provided motivation on page 4 of the last Non-Final Office action, noting that since George and Kindel are both in the field of making aroma and flavor compositions using VOCs and non-volatiles, and since George already disclosed making flavor compositions in emulsion form and that the flavor compositions of the invention may be modified to provide for any improved flavor profiles that closely replicates the food products, and Kindel disclose using some of the same VOCs and/or non-volatile substances as George, a skilled artisan would be motivated to produce compositions and methods of making replicas of various traditional products including coffee flavors and aromas that are characterized by having improved storage stability and shelf life as taught by Kindel [Kindel, 0009].
On pages 10-11 of the Remarks, part I., section D., Applicant argues that George does not teach making flavor profiles that do not require long aging processes (regarding this argument see section A. discussion above) and teaches other flavors such as vinegar and cheese. This argument is not persuasive because as explained above George teaches that the flavor compositions of the invention may be modified to provide for any improved flavor profiles that closely replicates the food products [George, 0012], and Kindel disclose using some of the same VOCs and/or non-volatile substances as George. In fact Kindel explicitly teach specific VOCs and/or non-volatile substances known to be responsible for the coffee aroma and flavor, and further shows various combinations of these substances that provide for significantly improved stability and shelf life of coffee flavor and aromas [Kindel, 0008, 0011-0070]. Therefore, it is the examiners position that it would be well within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to produce a coffee flavor profile because George teaches that based on his disclosure, a skilled artisan can produce any desired flavor/aroma using VOCs and non-volatile compounds [George, 0012], and Kindel teaches using VOCs and non-volatile compounds to produce a coffee flavor/aroma composition, particularly because both George and Kindel disclose using some of the same VOCs and non-volatile compounds such as the VOC beta-damascenone [George, 0059; Kindel, 0035], and the non-volatile compound mannitol [George, 0102; Kindel, 0086].
On pages 11-13 of the Remarks, part II., section A., Applicant argues that Zeller and Ortiz De Zarate fail to teach or suggest the presently claimed solid substrate of processed or unprocessed grains or grain products, legumes or legume seeds, oil plants or seeds, and fruits or fruit products, that Ortiz De Zarate is silent in regards to coffee, and that the evidences of Barbosa-Cánovas and Patron do not remedy the deficiencies of George and Kindel. This argument is not persuasive because Zeller teach various solid matrix materials in which the carrier (containing the coffee aroma composition) is adsorbed (adhered to the surface of a solid). The coffee aroma composition can be converted into particulate form by using various methods including adsorption, granulation, fluidized bed coating (to form a coated solid substrate) and spray drying to increase size of the particle, which read on the previous limitation presently deleted of coffee granule replica and also reads on the present limitation of a coated solid substrate and coffee grounds replica, particularly since George already teach compositions comprising VOCs and non-volatile compounds may be applied to a solid substrate to form a coated solid substrate [George, 0144, 0260, claim 28], and Ortiz De Zarate teach coating of all types of products including seeds [Ortiz De Zarate, 0071]. Therefore, a skilled artisan would recognize the inclusion of seeds in the coating method of modified George to provide for a desired coated solid substrate replica. Regarding the argument of Ortiz De Zarate being silent in regards to coffee, the examiner notes that Kindel is the reference relied upon for the coffee flavor/aroma limitation. In regards to the evidentiary references of Barbosa-Cánovas and Patron, these are relied upon for showing that solid particles from fruits (raisins) and oil seeds (nuts) are suitable for coating (Barbosa-Cánovas), and Patron was to show evidence of VOCs and non-volatile compositions can be attached to a solid substrate [Patron, 0284].
On pages 13-14 of the Remarks, part II., section B., Applicant argues that the examiner has not properly considered each and every claim element and failed to provide a reasoned explanation of why a skilled artisan would look into Ortiz De Zarate, Zeller and Kindel to modify George, and that it appears that the examiner relies on evidentiary references (Barbosa-Cánovas) disclosing particular claim elements. This argument is not persuasive because as explained above Ortiz De Zarate, Zeller, Kindel and George teach the methods and concepts of coating a solid substrate with VOCs and non-volatile compositions having coffee flavor/aroma profiles, where Ortiz De Zarate teaches the coating of all types of products including seeds with no limitations, and Barbosa-Cánovas explicitly disclose that solid particles minute solid particles and whole solid particles from fruits (raisins) and oil seeds (nuts) are suitable for coating. Therefore, a skilled artisan would be motivated to coat fruits and/or oil seeds in minute particle form (for a ground coffee replica) or as a whole seed (for a coffee bean replica) as claimed by incorporating these solid substrates in the method of modified George. Moreover, in the last Non-Final Office action of 9/17/25, pages 10-11, the examiner provided the motivation for the combination of references as to why one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would incorporate the claimed solid substrates in order to provide a method for coating solid particulates with undesirable small size so that they can be advantageously agglomerated, granulated and encapsulated in order to increase its size [Zeller, 0034-0035], and also provide a method of coating solid particles of all types including seeds and a variety of different food products that can be coated [Ortiz De Zarate, 0071], because modified George in view of Kindel already teach edible layers and coatings [Kindel, 0073, 0079, 0080], modified George in view of Zeller teach VOCs may be adsorbed or adhered into the surface of a solid [Zeller, 0035], yielding predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art for a method of preparing a coffee replica.
On pages 14-17 of the Remarks, part II., section C., Applicant argues that the examiner has not provided a reasoned rationale as to why a skilled artisan would look into Barbosa-Cánovas “encapsulation” of solid substrate types could be used in the “adsorption” methods of Zeller. This argument is not persuasive because while not all references use the same terminology and language used by Applicant in the claims such as “applying”, “coated”, and previously claimed now deleted limitation of “spray applying”, the references do reasonably teach contacting a solid substrate with a VOCs and non-volatile substance flavor/aroma composition in order to enrobe, coat, cover adhere or adsorb (adhered to the surface of a solid) said flavor/aroma VOCs and non-volatile composition on said solid substrate. Furthermore, Barbosa-Cánovas is relied upon as evidence and since George already teaches coating a solid substrate with a VOC/non-volatile composition, and Kindel also teach the VOC/non-volatile composition is suitable for coating, it would be reasonably to expect that a skilled artisan would recognize the use of various solid substrates for coating based on the prior art of record relied upon of George in view of Kindel and Zeller, with the additional disclosure in the evidence of Barbosa-Cánovas with a reasonable expectation of success.
In summary:
George teaches forming an aqueous solution of VOCs and non-volatiles and forming an emulsion of VOCs and non-volatiles, mixing the aqueous solution and the emulsion to form a flavor mixture that can be applied to solids, wherein the VOCs and non-volatiles can be combined to form any desired flavor.
Kindel teaches VOCs and non-volatiles can be combined to form coffee flavored compositions suitable for coating, where some of the VOCs and non-volatiles disclosed by Kindel are the same as George.
Zeller teaches a coffee aroma composition that may be soluble in a volatile organic carrier and may be emulsified wherein various solid matrix materials in which the carrier (containing the coffee aroma composition) is adsorbed (adhered to the surface of a solid), and wherein the coffee aroma composition can be converted into particulate form by using methods including adsorption, granulation, fluidized bed coating to form a coated solid substrate and increase size of the particle.
Barbosa-Cánovas disclose the coating of minute particles and whole particles such as fruits (raisins) and oil seeds (nuts); and
Patron disclose VOCs and non-volatile composition being attached to a solid substrate (using the same term or claim language as applicant).
Therefore, a skilled artisan in the field of VOCs and non-volatile compositions for coating solids, based on the teachings of the reference(s), would be motivated to select a variety of VOC and non-volatile substances to create a desired flavor including coffee to coat a variety of solid substrates including those presently claimed in independent claim 23.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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.
/L.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792