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 .
The amendment filed 12/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 16-33 are pending. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 22 is 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.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the emulsion of (i)”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since an emulsion was not previously mentioned. Additionally, note that the combination of a flavor/odor ingredient and a carrier, as indicated in independent Claim 16, does not necessarily result in an emulsion. For the purposes of examination, the “emulsion” of Claim 22 is interpreted as any solution comprising a flavor/odor and carrier as set forth in Claim 16, part (i).
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.
Claims 16-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reineccius (“The Spray Drying of Food Flavors”, DOI: 10.1081/DRT-120038731) in view of Ittoh (EP 0334982 B1) and Daneshvari (US 10092518 B2).
Regarding Claim 16, 17, 19, 23, 24, and 33, Reineccius teaches spray drying of flavored compositions using maltodextrin as a carrier (Page 1290, “Encapsulation Matrices”, Paragraph 1). The composition does not comprise agar. Reineccius teaches that dispersibility can be improved by rewetting and agglomeration (Page 1314, “Dispersibility”).
Reineccius does not specifically address the use of a fluidized bed integrated with a drying process, or 10-30 volume% of a binder solution used to agglomerate.
Itoh teaches an apparatus for producing granules of a spray-dried composition (Page 2, Line 30). Particles are formed via spray-drying and subsequently granulated (Page 3, Lines 42-56). The particles are granulated with a binder-fluid that comprises polysaccharides (Page 4, Line 10). The spray-dried particles are simultaneously agglomerated in a single chamber (Page 3, Lines 42-45).
Itoh teaches that such a method of encapsulation, or granulation, of a spray-dried composition allows greater control of the water content of the final granule (Page 2, Lines 27-28) and prevents adherence of granules to the inner wall of the vessel (Page 3, Lines 40-41).
Itoh does not specifically address the use of 10-30 vol of a binder.
Daneshvari teaches a method for agglomeration of powders with good dissolution properties. The method comprises contacting a material to be granulated (such as a powder) with a solution that is 20-30 w/v% of gum arabic (Column 3, Lines 1-5, note that gum arabic is a polysaccharide), which lies within the claimed range. Daneshvari teaches that such a solution is low cost and provides for good dissolution of products such as instant beverages (Column 2, Lines 49-50 and 59-60). Additionally, note that w/v %is approximately equivalent to v/v%. The method of Daneshvari is therefore interpreted to meet the limitations of the Claim.
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 10-30 volume% of gum arabic as the solution of Itoh, and additionally to modify the method of Reineccius to utilize the method of Itoh. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Itoh teaches that the method allows for control of water content and adherence, and Daneshvari teaches that the claimed amount of gum arabic used in an agglomerating (or binding) solution is low cost and provides for good dissolution properties.
Regarding Claim 18, Reineccius teaches the use of fruit flavors (Page 1290, Introduction, Line 3).
Regarding Claim 20, Reineccius teaches a spray dried flavor comprising 20-40% flavorants (Page 1315, Paragraph 1). Where Reineccius additionally teaches the use of emulsifiers as claimed (Page 1298, last paragraph), Reineccius therefore teaches the compositional balance, i.e. up to 80%, of emulsifiers (100% minus 20% of flavorants). The ratio of flavorants to emulsifiers lies within the claimed range.
Additionally, where Reineccius speaks to the effects of emulsifier, e.g. emulsion stability (Page 1304, Paragraph 3), flavor, and volatile retention (Page 1201, Paragraph 4), one of ordinary skill would have been able to have adjusted the amount of emulsifier to have arrived at ratios as claimed through no more than routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 21, Reineccius teaches the use of gum arabic and modified starches as emulsifiers (Page 1304, Paragraph 3).
Regarding Claim 22, modified Reineccius does not specifically teach a ratio of emulsion to aqueous solution (binding liquid), or a solids ratio. However, Reineccius teaches the effects of spray dried solution (emulsion) solids content, e.g. flavor retention and drying speed, and additionally describes solids content as “the most important factor…determining the retention of volatiles” (Page 1300, Paragraph 2). Itoh additionally teaches the effects of the binder (Page 3, Line 15), e.g. the degree of granulation. One of ordinary skill would therefore have been able to have adjusted the solids content of both emulsion and aqueous solution to have arrived at ratios as claimed through no more than routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 25, Reineccius teaches a spray dried flavor comprising 20-40% flavorants (Page 1315, Paragraph 1), which overlaps the claimed range. Where Reineccius additionally teaches the use of carriers, binders, and emulsifiers as claimed, Reineccius therefore the compositional balance, i.e. up to 80%, of carriers, binders, and emulsifiers. Note that Reineccius teaches the use of gum as an emulsifier (Page 1291, Paragraph 4) and carrier (Page 1290, “Encapsulation Matrices”, Paragraph 1). Daneshvari teaches the use of gum acacia as a binder. The product of modified Reineccius therefore provides for a binder that is the same as the carrier and/or emulsifier.
Regarding Claim 26, Reineccius teaches spray drying of flavored compositions using maltodextrin as a carrier (Page 1290, “Encapsulation Matrices”, Paragraph 1) and gum arabic as an emulsifier (Page 1291, Paragraph 4).
Regarding Claim 27, Reineccius teaches the use of fruit flavors (Page 1290, Introduction, Line 3).
Regarding Claim 28, Reineccius teaches that spray dried products are used for food and beverages (such as instant beverages, Page 1290, Introduction, Paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 29 and 30, Reineccius teaches spray drying of flavored compositions using a carrier (Page 1290, “Encapsulation Matrices”, Paragraph 1). The composition does not comprise agar. Reineccius teaches that dispersibility can be improved by rewetting and agglomeration(Page 1314, “Dispersibility”).
Regarding the limitation that the method be for “improving oxidation stability of…flavorants and/or odorants”, Reineccius teaches that flavors in fractured particles (i.e. non-encapsulated) are oxidized (Page 1315, Paragarph 1). The method of Reineccius therefore prevents oxidation, which is “improving oxidation stability”.
Reineccius does not specifically address the use of a fluidized bed integrated with a drying process, or 10-30 volume% of a binder.
Itoh teaches an apparatus for producing granules of a spray-dried composition (Page 2, Line 30). Particles are formed via spray-drying and subsequently granulated (Page 3, Lines 42-56). The particles are granulated with a binder-fluid that comprises polysaccharides (Page 4, Line 10). The spray-dried particles are simultaneously agglomerated in a single chamber (Page 3, Lines 42-45).
Itoh teaches that such a method of encapsulation, or granulation, of a spray-dried composition allows greater control of the water content of the final granule (Page 2, Lines 27-28) and prevents adherence of granules to the inner wall of the vessel (Page 3, Lines 40-41).
Itoh does not specifically address the use of 10-30 vol of a binder.
Daneshvari teaches a method for agglomeration of powders with good dissolution properties. The method comprises contacting a material to be granulated (such as a powder) with a solution that is 20-30 w/v% of gum arabic (Column 3, Lines 1-5, note that gum arabic is a polysaccharide), which lies within the claimed range. Daneshvari teaches that such a solution is low cost and provides for good dissolution of products such as instant beverages (Column 2, Lines 49-50 and 59-60). Additionally, note that w/v %is approximately equivalent to v/v%. The method of Daneshvari is therefore interpreted to meet the limitations of the Claim.
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 10-30 volume% of gum arabic as the solution of Itoh, and additionally to modify the method of Reineccius to utilize the method of Itoh. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Itoh teaches that the method allows for control of water content and adherence, and Daneshvari teaches that the claimed amount of gum arabic used in an agglomerating solution is low cost and provides for good dissolution properties.
Regarding Claims 31 and 32, Daneshvari teaches that the use of gum arabic (Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 16-33 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
/D.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights