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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 1-10, 12, 13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim USPGPub 20190364940.
Regarding claims 1, 6, 12, 13 and 19, Kim teaches a composition comprising:
0 wt% vegetable oil since the fat component of Kim may comprise materials such as palm oil and palm stearin which are not liquid. [0086]
0 wt% mono or disaccharides other than glucose [0092]
4.15 wt% flavoring comprising chicken and vegetable (Table 1)
0-25 wt% native ungelatinized starch [0036]
0-20 wt% sugar such as glucose [0037,0092]
2-60 wt% fat [0033]
The composition of Kim comprises 35-75 wt% inorganic salt such as potassium chloride and does not require added sodium to be present. [0070,0084]
The proportion of components a-f and sodium in Kim overlap or encompass the proportions recited in claims 1 and 6. The ratio of d) to e) in the composition of Kim overlaps the ratio recited in claims 1, 12 and 19. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
While Kim is silent regarding “dry glucose syrup”, Kim discloses that the composition comprises 0-10 wt% water. [0039] As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have provided the glucose recited as a dry syrup to prevent the introduction of water and because glucose is understood in the art to be a syrup.
The recitation in claim 1 that the composition is formed into a paste and then wrapped into cubes is a product-by-process limitation that does not impart any materially distinguishing characteristics to the composition claimed aside from it being a cube. Kim teaches a bouillon cube as recited in claims 1 and 13. [0074]
As such, the invention of Kim renders obvious the limitations of claims 1, 6, 12, 13 and 19.
Regarding claim 2, the composition of Kim is capable of forming a clear liquid when diluted with a sufficient quantity of hot water.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses 0-45 wt% herbs, spices, vegetables and mixtures thereof. [0038]
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses the composition comprises 0-10 wt% water which necessarily would provide the free water content recited in claim 4. [0039]
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses 0-20 wt% sugar such as glucose [0037,0092] In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 7, Kim does not require MSG to be present. [0035]
Regarding claim 8, Kim is silent regarding the DE number of the glucose disclosed. However, dextrose equivalence (DE) is merely another way to report the sweetness of a material relative to dextrose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have optimized the sweetness of the composition disclosed by Kim by selecting saccharide components with appropriate sweetness (i.e. dextrose equivalence). Therefore, the DE value recited in claim 8 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, while this claim recites the DE of maltodextrin, the claim does not require maltodextrin to be present because neither claim 1 nor claim 9 are limited to the embodiment in claim 1 comprising maltodextrin. As such, claim 9 only requires that when maltodextrin is present that it has a DE as claimed. The embodiment of Kim where maltodextrin is not present therefore reads on claim 9.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Kim further teaches that saccharide binders such as maltodextrin were also known to be useful in the bouillon art. [0013] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have substituted maltodextrin for the sugar binder in Kim because maltodextrin was known to be a suitable binder for bouillon cubes and because maltodextrin would provide a bouillon with decreased sweetness for savory applications. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)) (MPEP 2144.07)
Since Kim teaches proportions of sugar binder of 0-20 wt% [0027], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have utilized maltodextrin in this proportion. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Maltodextrin is amorphous as recited in claim 17.
Regarding claim 16, Kim is silent regarding the origin of the glucose disclosed, however, the recitation of where the claimed glucose syrup is derived from is merely a product-by-process limitation that does not impart any materially distinguishing characteristics to the glucose syrup claimed. As such, Kim renders obvious claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Kim teaches the components of the composition can have a particle size distribution where greater than 20wt% of the particles have a diameter of less than 100 µm. [0062] In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim USPGPub 20190364940 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Bobe USPGPub 20200120963.
Regarding claim 11, Kim teaches what has been recited above but is silent regarding the fat comprising shea butter.
Bobe teaches a bouillon cube wherein the fat comprises palm fat or shea butter. [0004,0030]
Kim and Bobe are both directed to bouillon cubes comprising palm fat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have substituted the shea butter of Bobe for the palm oil of Kim since both of these materials were known to be suitable fats for bouillon cubes. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) The modification of Kim with Bobe would have produced a bouillon composition having proportions of glucose and shea butter that overlap or encompass the proportions recited in claim 11. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Therefore, the modification of Kim with Bobe renders obvious claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 September 2025 have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
Applicant asserts on page 6 of the remarks that the range of glucose disclosed by Kim does not overlap with the instant claims. This is not found persuasive because the broad disclosure of sugar (which can comprise glucose) content in Kim overlaps with the present claims as enumerated above. Regarding applicant’s assertion that the native starch of Kim is not ungelatinized, it is unclear what basis applicant has for this assertion since once starch is gelatinized, it is no longer native.
Applicant asserts the claimed ranges of starch and dry glucose or maltodextrin are critical, however, no data has been provided comparing the claimed composition to the closest prior art or demonstrating criticality commensurate in scope with the instantly pending claims. Therefore, this assertion is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele L Jacobson whose telephone number is (571)272-8905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10-6.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/Michele L Jacobson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793