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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, with respect to the rejection of the instant claims 15, 17-20 under 35 USC 102 over the prior art of record have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of CN 109862902 (“Gokaraju et al”).
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 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 109862902 (hereinafter referred to as “Gokaraju et al”; see Mechanical English Translation).
Regarding independent clam 15, and dependent claims 19-20, Gokaraju et al discloses what it describes as an odor-masking preparation for unpleasant odor-containing oral products, such as pharmaceutical products and nutritional supplements, and a method for making the same (see abstract and first paragraph of the Description) (corresponding to the claimed “[a] method of preparing an oral composition”).
Gokaraju et al discloses that its preparation may comprise an herbal extract, specifically a valerian (Valeriana officialis) extract (read: active ingredient), and a hydrocolloid polymer (such as sodium alginate) crosslinked with a crosslinking agent (such as calcium chloride) to form a three-dimensional gel network. According to the invention, the hydrocolloid polymer in a solvent (i.e., water) is transferred to a mixer and a predetermined amount of valerian extract is added under continuous mixing. Uniform mixing helps the extract penetrate the three-dimensional gel network and capture odor-causing molecules (see Description) (corresponding to the claimed “forming a combination of an alginate with one or more further components that include at least an active ingredient; adding a crosslinking agent to the combination, the crosslinking agent being effective to crosslink at least a portion of the alginate and form a gel”; the “wherein the crosslinking agent is a source of calcium ions” recitation of claim 19; and the “wherein the source of calcium ions is calcium chloride” recitation of claim 20).
Lastly, Gokaraju et al further discloses that its resulting gel is collected in a stainless-steel tray, dried in a vacuum dryer, ground and sieved to obtain a product that masks the odor of the valerian extract in powder (read: particulate) form (see Description) (corresponding to the claimed “grinding at least a portion of the gel into a particulate form”).
Hence, Gokaraju et al anticipates the above-referenced claims.
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 17-18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 109862902 (hereinafter referred to as “Gokaraju et al”).
Regarding claim 17, since the preparation of Gokaraju et al is essentially an herbal product, and it is well known that such products are packaged in pouches for the purposes of marketing, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have placed the Gokaraju et al preparation in a pouch in order to contain the product for purposes of distributing and selling (corresponding to the claimed “further comprising placing the oral composition in a pouch”).
Regarding claim 18, CN 109862902 does not specifically say that its three-dimensional gel network structure is “substantially insoluble in saliva”, the whole purpose of the preparation is to reduce/mask the foul odor/flavor of the oral product and such cannot be achieved if it dissolves in the saliva of the user before said user has consumed it. As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have ensured that said preparation is insoluble in the user’s mouth in order for it to efficiently and effectively carryout its intended goal (corresponding to the claimed “wherein the gel is substantially insoluble in saliva”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIONNE WALLS MAYES whose telephone number is (571)272-5836. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays and Thursdays, 8:00AM - 4:00PM (EST).
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, Michael H Wilson can be reached at 571-270-3882. 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.
/DIONNE W. MAYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1747
Prosecution Insights