DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of claims
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-21 as amended on 2/04/2026 are pending and under examination in the instant office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-21 as amended remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by KR 2009/0056096 in the light of evidence by Bleakley et al (Foods, 2017, 6, 33, pages 1-34).
The cited document KR 2009/0056096 discloses a seaweed-based jelly composition comprising: 1) water as component of the jelly, 2) a seaweed paste or powder and 3) an additional component which is a gelling agent (see English abstract).
The seaweed powder is derived from red seaweed such as laver, Porphyra, Chondrus (see English abstract).
The gelling agent component is selected from various polysaccharides including galactomannan including guar gum, locust bean gum, tara gum (see machine translation page 4, par. 3) as encompassed by claims 1 and 2. The additional component can also a starch or raw starch or native starch without chemical modifications (see machine translation page 6, par. 3) as encompassed by claim 21.
Thus, the cited KR 2009/0056096 teaches incorporation of the same major ingredients as required for the claimed composition.
Further, With regard to limitation drawn to size distribution: the cited document teaches that although the seaweed materials might be micronized to particle sizes in the range 500-1500 µm, the preferred particle sizes are all less than 150 µM to provide a hardness but no less than 50 µm to avoid reduction of jelly texture page and loosing jelly (machine translation page 6, par. 5). Thus, for a preferred embodiment all particles have sizes in the range 50-150 µm. Therefore, the teaching of the cited document about particles size for the cited composition falls within the ranges as encompassed by the claims.
With regard to limitation drawn to ratio of seaweed powder to additional component: the cited document discloses that amount of solid content of seaweed paste (thus, seaweed powder) in the whole seaweed jelly compositions is 0.5-1.5% (see abstract). The total amount of gelling components is 0.8-2% (see English abstract; see machine translation page 5, last par ). The claim-recited ratio range (such as 1:1 to 9:1 or 50:50 to 90:10) allows for 1:1 (50:50) and the ratio of seaweed to total gelling agent in the cited composition (amounts 0.5-1.5% and 0.8-2% respectively) allows for 1:1 (0.8:0.8, for example) which fall within the claimed range.
Thus, in the cited composition of KR 2009/0056096 contains the same major ingredients in the same ratio and with the same particle sizes as encompassed by the claims. Therefore, it would be reasonably expected that the rheological characteristics including storage modulus G’ would be the same as encompassed by the claims as result of combining the same materials in the same relative amounts.
Thus, the cited document KR 2009/0056096 anticipates claim 1.
As applied to claim 2: the cited composition the additional gelling agent component is a mixture comprising various individual gelling agent (see English abstract) that include guar gum, locust bean gum, tara gum (see machine translation page 4, par. 3).
As applied to claim 3: the cited document KR 2009/0056096 discloses that the gelling agent is present in amount up to 2% (English abstract; machine translation page 5, las par.), thus, in amounts at least 1.5% and more as encompassed by the claims.
As applied to claim 4: the cited document KR 2009/0056096 discloses that the solid content in the jelly composition is 0.5-1.5% (English abstract), The rest would be liquid or water in amounts at least 5% and more as encompassed by the claims.
As applied to claims 6-7: the cited document discloses that red seaweed is Porphyra (see English abstract). The red seaweeds Porphyra belong to the claimed Rhodophyta and to family or class Bangiophyceae.
As applied to claims 9 and 11-12: the cited document KR 2009/0056096 teaches that although the seaweed materials might be micronized to particle sizes in the range 500-1500 µm, the preferred particle sizes are less than 150 µM to provide a hardness but no less than 50 µm to avoid reduction of jelly texture page and loosing jelly (machine translation page 6, par. 5). Thus, for a preferred embodiment all particles have sizes in the range 50-150 µm. Therefore, the teaching of the cited document about particles size for the cited composition falls within the ranges as encompassed by the claims.
As applied to claim 10: the composition of KR 2009/0056096 can be in a form food or beverage or jelly food (machine translation pages 1, 3).
With respect to claim 15 it is noted that term “acid insoluble material” has no clear specification definitions about what these materials are. Thus, the acid insoluble materials are considered to be, for example: proteins of seaweed (see translation page 4, line 1). The proteins are major seaweed components being present in red seaweed in amounts about 10-40% as evidenced by the reference by Bleakley et al (see table 1, page 6).
With respect to claims 13, 14 and 16-18: it is noted that the cited document describe the use of the same materials as claimed in the same amounts as claimed. Thus, the characteristics of the compositions and materials used (storage modulus, critical gelling concentration, color index) are inherently the same for the reason that the same materials as claimed are used in the cited composition.
With regard to new claims 19-21: the cited document discloses incorporation of galactomannan such as locust bean gum (translation page 4, par. 3; translation page 5, par. 2) and starch (translation page 6, par. 3).
Thus, the cited document KR 2009/0056096 is considered to anticipate the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-18 as amended remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2009/0056096, Lahaye et al (Carbohydrate Polymers, 1993, 22(4), pages 261-265) and US 5,316,937 (Whitehead et al).
The cited document KR 2009/0056096 is relied upon as explained above for the disclosure of a seaweed-based jelly composition comprising: 1) water as component of the jelly, 2) a seaweed paste or powder and 3) an additional gelling component is selected being glucomannan, xanthan gum, guar gum, locust bean gum, tara gum (see machine translation page 4, par. 3) and raw starch or native starch without chemical modifications (see machine translation page 6, par. 3) as encompassed by claims 1, 2 and 21.
The cited document KR 2009/0056096 considers evaluation of hardness and elasticity of the materials used and final product made (examples). But KR 2009/0056096 is silent about specific values of storage modulus, critical gelling concentration and color index as determined by CIELAB.
However, the prior teaches that gelling properties of the seaweed-based compositions including storage modulus fall within the broad claimed range 10-500 Pa and it can be modified by concentration of seaweed polysaccharide, pH, boric acid, calcium chloride (see abstract of Lahaye).
It is well known in the prior art that for agar, which is a main gelling agent of seesawed, the lowest concentration for gel formation or critical gelling concentration is about 0.3%. For example: see US 5,316,937 at col. 4, line 65-66.
Further, with regard to color index determined by CIELAB as claimed, it is considered obvious that one of skill in the art would modify or optimize the color of product depending on a specific design and/or desire for the final product. One of skill in the art is free to select and/or to modify a color for a final product.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed that the seaweed-based composition provide for characteristics including storage modulus, critical gelling concentration and color within the claimed ranges. In alternative, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was filed to modify or to optimize theses parameters depending on a final goal or a final design of seaweed compositions as intended because storage modulus, critical gelling concentration and color can be modified depending on specific materials, their concentration, pH, temperature and other well-known factors taught/suggested by the prior art.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The claimed subject matter fails to patentably distinguish over the state art as represented be the cited references. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 9-21 remain/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a product of nature without significantly more.
The claims recite a composition comprising water, seaweed and additional materials including galactomannan including locust bean gum, guar gum, etc. All claim-recited materials are natural materials or natural products. Thus, a simple mixture of all natural materials is a natural product. The claim-recited ratio and particle size do not functionally change the component alone or in combination as claimed. The red seaweeds contain mixed galactose-rich hydrocolloid compounds with storage modulus G’ of at least 287 Pa and higher (see abstract of Rhein-Knudsen et al. Food Hydrocolloids 2017, 63, pages 50-58) which is above claimed 20 Pa. Thus, the claimed G’ falls within natural properties of red seaweed-based composition and components thereof.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claimed elements in combination do not add a meaningful limitation or extra-solution to the claimed product, and the claimed product as a whole is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
With regard to claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by KR 2009/0056096 in the light of evidence by Bleakley et al (Foods, 2017, 6, 33, pages 1-34) Applicants argue that the cited document KR 2009/0056096 teaches incorporation of various polysaccharides as gelling agents including those that are excluded by the instant claims.
The argument is not found convincing because rejection over prior art broad disclosure instead of preferred embodiment is proper, because patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain and because alternative embodiments also constitute prior art. MPEP 2123.
The cited KR 2009/0056096 clearly teaches incorporation of gelling agent component that is selected from various polysaccharides including galactomannan including guar gum, locust bean gum, tara gum (see machine translation page 4, par. 3) as encompassed by claims 1 and 2. The additional component can also a starch or raw starch or native starch without chemical modifications (see machine translation page 6, par. 3) as encompassed by claim 21.
The cited KR 2009/0056096 clearly teaches incorporation of seaweed powder and gelling agent in the same ratio as explained above and incorporation of seaweed powder with the same particle size as explained above. Therefore, it would be reasonably expected that the rheological characteristics including storage modulus G’ would be the same as encompassed by the claims as result of combining the same materials in the same relative amounts.
With regard to claim rejection under 35 USC § 103 Applicants appear to argue that the cited prior art does not provide a motivation to select only a galactomannan for incorporation into seaweed-based composition to provide for present-claim recited rheological properties and/or for desirable hardens, elasticity or chewability.
This argument is not found persussve. The prior teaches that gelling properties of the seaweed-based compositions including storage modulus can be modified by concentration of seaweed polysaccharide, pH, boric acid, calcium chloride (see abstract of Lahaye). The claimed composition is open to incorporation of modifying agents including boric acid or calcium chloride. The claim-recited “galactomannan” is not a single ingredient but a mixture of several specific ingredients (claim 2). Moreover, the claimed seaweed is a generic representative of red seaweeds while as-filed specification discloses that rheological properties of seaweed-based compositions depend on a particular species (par. 0029 of published application). The final form of claimed composition is generic, and a criticality of rheological properties is not clear as argued and as disclosed. For example, specification figure 4a demonstrates that composition with a ratio below 1:1 (for example: 25/75 - 40/60, which is outside claimed ratio range) also has claimed value of storage modulus 20 Pa.
The scope of the showing must be commensurate with the scope of claims to consider evidence probative of unexpected results, for example. In re Dill, 202 USPQ 805 (CCPA, 1979), In re Lindner 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972), In re Hyson, 172 USPQ 399 (CCPA 1972), In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215, (CCPA 1980), In re Grasselli, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Clemens, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980). It should be clear that the probative value of the data is not commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by the claim.
It is well recognized that synergism is a highly unpredictable result that is very dependent on the ingredients used and the amounts of each. Thus, any combination for which synergism is not clearly established would be properly rejected because non-obviousness would not have been established.
With regard to claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 Applicant argue that claimed composition is a human made product with markedly different characteristics due to defined low-concentration rheological performance.
This argument is not found persuasive. The low concentration as argued are not clear or recited in claims as argued. The claim-recited components are red seaweeds and galactomannan. The red seaweeds contain mixed galactose-rich hydrocolloid compounds (galactomannan) with storage modulus G’ of at least 287 Pa and higher (see abstract of Rhein-Knudsen et al. Food Hydrocolloids 2017, 63, pages 50-58) which is above claimed 20 Pa. Thus, the claimed G’ falls within natural properties of red seaweed-based composition and components thereof.
No claims are allowed.
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 VERA AFREMOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-0914. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8.30am-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sharmila Landau can be reached on (571) 272-0614. 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.
Vera Afremova
March 10, 2026
/VERA AFREMOVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653