DETAILED ACTION
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 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
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 – 3, 5, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palazzi US 2018/0133108 in view of Picolli US 2012/0294989 as further evidenced by Alam et al.
Regarding claims 1 – 3, and 5 Palazzi discloses a drinking straw which comprises an elongate tubular body of an insoluble material having an internal coating comprising matrix and one or more active agents, the one or more active agents being dispersed throughout the matrix the body sized to allow a carrier liquid to be drawn therethrough such that passage of the carrier liquid causes the matrix to release the one or more active agents into the carrier liquid to be consumed by a drinker (paragraph [0018]) and the matrix comprises an acid (citric acid) and a modified cellulose (hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as described in example 1) (paragraph [0077], example 4).
Claim 1 differs from Palazzi in the matrix further comprising a partially hydrolysed guar gum (PHGG).
Picolli discloses a coating comprising a matrix and one or more active agents (flavourant, nutraceutical) dispersed throughout the matrix which matrix comprises a partially hydrolysed guar gum (paragraph [0016]) (BENEFIBER®) (paragraph [0024]), acid (paragraph [0009]), and a modified cellulose (hydroxypropyl methylcellulose) (paragraph [0029]). Picolli is using partially hydrolysed guar gum in the matrix for the art recognized as well as applicant’s intended function, which is to allow the coating to have a quick release time, i.e., to dissolve quickly with reduced gumminess and no off-flavours (paragraph [0024]). To therefore modify Palazzi and use a partially hydrolysed guar gum in the matrix to allow the matrix and one or more active agents to dissolve quickly with reduced gumminess and no off-flavours as taught by Picolli would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. As further evidenced by Alam, BENEFIBER® was a partially hydrolysed guar gum (page 295, abstract).
Further regarding claim 1 and claim 5, Palazzi in view of Picolli as further evidenced by Alam disclose the matrix would comprise about 60% PHGG (‘989, paragraph [0027]) which would obviously allow for slightly more PHGG to be present which is seen to encompass an amount of 65% – 70% and that the matrix would comprise 5% of modified cellulose (paragraph [0029]). Regarding the acid content, Palazzi discloses 12 grams of citric acid would be mixed with 26 grams of an active agent pre-mix for a total of 38 grams (example 4) (‘108, paragraph [0077]) which is to say the active agent pre-mix would have about 31.6% citric acid and 15 grams of the pre-mix would thus contain about 4.7 grams of citric acid. When added to 15 grams of hydroxypropyl methycellulose (total of 19.47 g) as per example 4 with reference to example 1 (paragraph [0062]) it is seen that the matrix would comprise about 24 % citric acid.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have the matrix comprise 65 – 70% PHGG, 24% acid, and 5% modified cellulose.
Regarding claim 7, Palazzi in view of Picolli as further evidenced by Alam discloses the active agent would comprise nutritional supplements (‘108, paragraph [0022]) (‘989, paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 13, Palazzi in view of Picolli as further evidenced by Alam disclose a drinking straw which comprises an elongate tubular body of an insoluble material having an internal coating comprising a matrix and one or more active agents, the one or more active agents being dispersed throughout the matrix, the body sized to allow a carrier liquid to be drawn therethrough such that passage of the carrier liquid causes the matrix to release the one or more active agents into the carrier liquid to be consumed by a drinker (‘108, paragraph [0018]). Claim 13 is further rejected for the same reasons given above in the rejection of claim 5 over Palazzi in view of Picolli.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “prepared by a method comprising” and the limitations that follow thereafter are method limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the process produces unexpected results. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. MPEP 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Palazzi in view of Picolli as further evidenced by Alam discloses the straw as claimed in claim 1 as well as disclosing a coating material would be applied to the internal surface of a drinking straw which coating is then dried (paragraph [0038] – [0042]).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palazzi US 2018/0133108 in view of Picolli US 2012/0294989 as further evidenced by Alam et al. in view of Grant.
Claims 6 and 15 differ from Palazzi in view of Picolli as further evidenced by Alam in the dried coating having a water activity of 0.6 or less.
Grant discloses that the lowest recorded water activity for micro-organisms growth recorded to date is 0.61 (page 1251 paragraph 1) making it obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to have dried the coating to a water activity of 0.61 or less in order to provide a shelf stable product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 August 2025 have been fully and carefully considered but they are not found persuasive.
Applicant urges that the coating of Picolli is applicable to the top and outside of a bottle rim or around the edge of an aperture in a can and in contrast, the coating of the present application is for the inside of a drinking straw. Further applicant urges that if the composition of Picolli would be applied to the inside of a cylinder, the loss of water reduces the thickness of the composition, draws the composition away from the inside of the cylinder and as a result, the composition is likely to flake and fall away from the surface. This urging is not deemed persuasive.
Picolli was not brought for the surface for which it would be applied. That the surface to which the internal coating would be applied to, that is the internal surface of a drinking straw has been taught by Palazzi. Picolli was brought to teach that the use of partially hydrolysed guar gum in a coating to allow the coating to dissolve quickly, that is to have a quick release time was well established and conventional in the art and not for the application to the external surface of a cylindrical object.
Applicant further urges that Picolli describes coatings comprising a wide range of ingredients and that the claimed invention is directed to a very specific combination of ingredients. These urgings are not found persuasive.
Picolli was brought to specifically to teach that using partially hydrolysed guar gum in the matrix allows the coating to have a quick release time, i.e., to dissolve quickly with reduced gumminess and no off-flavours which teaching would clearly provide motivation to the ordinarily skilled artisan to use a partially hydrolysed guar gun in the coating matrix.
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 CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nikki 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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 18 November 2025
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792