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 .
Claim status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claims on 12/02/2025.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 5 and 7 are currently amended. Claim 2 remains cancelled. Claims 3, 4, 6 and 8 are previously presented. Claims 9-11 are newly presented. Claims 1 and 3-11 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meggamoma, "Pork satay with perfect peanut sauce", [Online], published 2011-05-14, 2019, [retrieved on 2024-11-13]. Retrieved from the Internet: https://dolcedente.woropress.com/2011/05/14/pork-satay-with-perfect-peanut-sauce/) (hereinafter referred to as Meggamoma) in view of Tiffany, "Best ever healthy grilled pork tenderloin" [Online], published 2019-11-12 [retrieved on 2026-02-02]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20191112135648/https://www.lecremedelacrumb.com/best-ever-healthy-grilled-pork-tenderloin/> (hereinafter referred to as Tiffany) and Saito JP2019208368 A (English translation relied upon for reference, hereinafter referred to as Saito).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Meggamoma teaches a method of making a grilled pork (e.g., pork satay) comprising incorporating a seasoning blend that comprises, inter alia, roasted coriander seeds in ground form, lemongrass, cumin seed, white pepper, turmeric, salt, etc. (0020) in the pork. ( page 2 the whole page).
Meggamoma is silent regarding that the seasoning blend comprises rosemary and oregano.
Tiffany in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of making a grilled pork comprising incorporating a mixed spice that comprises basil, thyme, oregano and rosemary in the pork (page 11, Ingredients; Instructions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Meggamoma by combining the seasoning blend that comprises roasted coriander seeds, lemongrass, cumin seed, white pepper, turmeric and salt as disclosed by Meggamoma with the mixed spice that comprises basil, thyme, oregano and rosemary as disclosed by Tiffany to form a new mixed spice and adding the new mixed spice to the pork with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that as stated in MPEP 2144.06, "it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). In the instant case, prior art has established that both the seasoning blend that comprises roasted coriander seeds, lemongrass, cumin seed, white pepper, turmeric and salt, and the mixed spice that comprises basil, thyme, oregano and rosemary are suitable for flavoring/seasoning grilled pork thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the two compositions to form a new composition to be used for the same purpose.
Meggamoma teaches roasted coriander seeds but does not specify that the roasted coriander seeds comprises the fresh scent component and roasted scent component as recited in claim 1, and the ratio of which as measured by GC peak area, or the ratio of the roasted scent components to the internal standard (e.g., decane) as measured by GC peak area as recited in claim 1, when the roasted coriander seed is ground to particle size of 1 mm or less, a decane internal standard is added, and analyzed by GC-MS as recited in claim 1.
Saito teaches that if coriander seeds are roasted under a specific condition, a novel roasted coriander seed that maintains or enhances the original citrus-like flavor of coriander seed and has an appetizing flavor imparted thereto can be obtained, having both fresh scent component and roasted scent component (see Abstract). Specifically, Saito teaches that the specific condition comprises heating an unground coriander seed at a temperature of 170 °C or higher for 4-20 min, which will result in a roasted coriander seed having both fresh scent component and roasted scent component, wherein the fresh scent component is at least one selected from the group consisting of β-linalool, limonene, linalyl acetate, citronellyl acetate, nerol, geraniol, and geraniol acetate; wherein the roasted scent component is at least one selected from the group consisting of 2-methylpyrazine, 2-ethylpyrazine, 2,3-dimethylpyrazine, 2,5-dimethylpyrazine, 2,6- dimethylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-5-methylpyrazine, 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine, 3-ethyl-2,5- dimethylpyrazine, trimethylpyrazine, furfural, furfuryl acetate, acetylfuran, pyrrole, furfurylpyrrole, and 2-acetylpyrrole; and when the roasted coriander seed is ground to a particle diameter of 1 mm or less and decane is added as an internal standard substance at a ratio of 14.7 mass ppm based on the mass of the ground roasted coriander seed, followed by analysis by gas chromatograph mass spectrometry (GC/MS method), the total peak area [A] derived from the fresh scent, the total peak area [B] derived from the roasted scent, and the peak area [D] derived from the decan satisfy the following conditions (1) and (2):(1) 0.01 ≦ [B]/[A] ≦ 0.2 (2) [B]/[D] ≧ 0.1 (0010-0011; 0014).
Both Meggamoma and Saito are directed to roasted coriander seeds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Meggamoma by including, in the seasoning blend of Meggamoma, the roasted coriander seeds in ground form obtained by heating an unground coriander seed at a temperature of 170 °C or higher for 4-20 min followed by grinding with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that heating an unground coriander seed at a temperature of 170 °C or higher for 4-20 min will deliver the benefit of maintaining or enhancing the original citrus-like flavor of coriander seed and has an appetizing flavor.
Regarding claim 3, Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito teaches a mixed spice in connection with claim 1. The preamble language about the masking composition is not considered to further limit the composition. It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claim does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed composition and the prior art composition and further that the composition of the prior art is capable of performing the intended uses. Given that Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito teaches the same composition as that recited in the claim and that composition of Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito can be used to season a meat product, it is clear that the seasoning composition of Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito would be capable of performing the intended uses, i.e., as a masking composition.
Regarding claim 5, Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito teaches the mixed spice in connection with claim 1, which is herein incorporated by reference. Further, Meggamoma teaches mixing roasted coriander seeds with lemongrass to form the seasoning blend, and Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany teaches adding rosemary and oregano to the seasoning blend. Further, Saito teaches heating an unground coriander seed at a temperature of 170 °C or higher for 4-20 min to obtain the roasted coriander seeds.
Regarding claim 6, Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito teaches a mixed spice and the method of forming the mixed spices in connection with claims 1 and 5. The limitation about masking an oxidative odor from cooked foods that are left over time is not considered to further limit the composition. It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims do not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed composition and the prior art composition and further that the composition of the prior art is capable of performing the intended uses. Given that Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito teaches the same composition as that recited in the claim and that composition of Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito can be used to season a meat product, it is clear that the seasoning composition of Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito would be capable of performing the intended uses of masking an oxidative odor from cooked foods that is left over time.
Regarding claims 7-8, Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito as recited above teaches a cooked meat (e.g., grilled pork) comprising a mixed spice that comprises roasted coriander seeds, lemongrass, rosemary oregano, etc., in connection with claim 1, which is herein incorporated by reference.
The preamble limitation “for reducing an oxidative odor of food, which occurs over time after cooking” recites the purpose of the claim, and the recited purpose does not result in a manipulative difference between the claim and prior art because the actual steps recited Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito and the instant claim are the same and will necessarily provide the purpose in the preamble of claim 7.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito as recited above teaches a grilled pork that comprises a mixed spice comprising roasted coriander seeds, lemongrass, rosemary and oregano, but is silent regarding amount of each spice by weight of the grilled pork. However, the proportions of each of the spices are conventional result effective variables in the food art. In other words, one of ordinary skill in the art would have varied the amounts of roasted coriander seeds, lemongrass, rosemary and oregano such that the grilled pork has a desired flavor. As such, the proportions of the spices recited in claims 9 and 11 are merely obvious variants of the prior art.
Regarding claim 10, given that Meggamoma as modified by Tiffany and Saito arrives at the method of claim 7, the effects of reducing the oxidative odor of food to the level of not being felt and to the same as before over time after cooking is met by prior art. See In re Best. On the other hand, since it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to manipulate the amounts of each of the spice such that the food has desired flavor, the effects of reducing the oxidative odor of food to the level of not being felt and to the same as before over time after cooking would have been met by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/02/2025 with respect to pending claims have been considered and the examiner’s response is shown below:
Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-9 and 11-13of the Remarks regarding Fumiko in view of Veggie Belly and Saito (or Shirodkar) are considered but found moot over the new ground of rejection set forth in the instant office action.
Applicant assert unexpected result on pages 10-11 of the Remarks that Example 11 of the instant specification has shown that the specific combination of lemongrass, at least one of rosemary or oregano, and roasted coriander seeds could reduce not only the meat odor but also the unpleasant odor derived from cooked products, which occurs over time after cooking. Applicant further argues that a food or drink comprising the mixed spices of the present invention can have reduced unpleasant odors even when the mixed spices are added in an amount where the flavors of the mixed spices are not felt. And these effects or advantages are not disclosed in cited arts.
The argument is submitted previously to which the examiner has replied. See para. 33-37 of the OA issued 09/02/2025. Additionally, the examiner notes that example 11 is about cooked chicken, which can hardly enable a generic food that is cooked as recited in claim 7, or narrower, a cooked meat product as recited in claim 8. Note that meat of different genre can have different level of oxidation odor.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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 H 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791