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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s submission dated March 23, 2026. Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4-6, 9-16, and 18-25 remain pending. Claims 9-11 and 14-15 remain withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 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.
With respect to Claim 16, the recitation of “claim 1, wherein (b) further comprises: … 5,2,2-transmethylphenyl hexenal, isobutyraldehyde, isovaleraldehyde …” is indefinite due to claim 1 already comprising the recited compositions. For the purposes of examination, the three compounds already recited in claim 1 will not be considered as a limiting recitation of claim 16.
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 1, 4-6, 12, 13, 16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaslyng et al. (Chemical and Sensory Characterization of Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein, a Savory Flavoring, Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry) in view of Perez-Juan et al. (Generation of volatile flavour compounds as affected by the chemical composition of different dry-cured ham sections, European Food Research and Technology) and Byrne (US 5041296).
With respect to Claim 1, Aaslyng et al. teaches a savory flavoring product, used worldwide, known as hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP). [Pg. 481, Col. 1, Par. 1] The source of the protein can be from soybean, wheat, maize, or more. [Pg. 481, Col. 1, Par. 1] Aaslyng et al. teaches that enzymatic hydrolysis results in fewer carcinogenic compounds than acidic hydrolysis [Pg. 481, Col. 1, Par. 2] and the flavor can be enhanced by further processing in order to imitate flavors such as meat. [Pg. 481, Col. 2, Par. 4] Additionally, Aaslyng et al. presents the results of the analysis of the amino acid composition [Fig. 1] and volatile flavor compounds [Table 2] or the HVP types, including the HVP obtained through enzymatic process and mixed with glucose and heat, eHVPrea. [Pg. 482, Col. 1, Par. 6]
Aaslyng et al. does not provide numerical values for the amino acids in Figure 1, but using the bar graph results of eHVPrea, it is estimated that the amounts of relevant amino acids are 6.25mg/100mg Glutamic Acid (Glu), 3.75mg/100mg Tyrosine (Tyr), 1.75mg/100mg Tryptophan (Trp), and 4mg/100mg Phenylalanine (Phe). Therefore, the ratios would be about 0.6 Tyr:Glu, 0.64 Phe:Glu, and 0.28 Trp:Glu. These ratios all lie within the range recited in claim 1 (a). Additionally, the volatile flavor compounds present in eHVPrea, as taught by Aaslyng et al. comprise 2-methylbutanal and 3-methylbutanal, also known as isovaleraldehyde. [Table 2]
Aaslyng et al. is silent to the addition of 5,2,2-transmethylphenyl hexenal and isobutyraldehyde.
Byrne teaches a method for the production of a flavoring compounds that can be used in ready to eat meals, [Col. 1, Ln. 32-37] such as COCAL®, [Col. 1, Ln. 42] also known as 5,2,2-transmethyphenyl hexenal, as evidenced by the chemical representation of the compound. [Col. 1, Ln. 50] Additionally, Byrne teaches a flavoring composition that comprises isovaleraldehyde, 2-methyl butanal, in addition to 5,2,2-transmethyphenyl hexenal. [Table III]
Perez-Juan et al. teaches the flavor profile of dried, cured ham with respect to the amino acid content and volatile compound composition. [Abstract] Additionally, the volatile flavor compounds identified in the dry-cured ham sample include 2-methylbutanal, 3-methylbutanal, and 2-methyl-propanal, also known as isobutyraldehyde. [Table 4]
Aaslyng et al., Byrne, and Perez-Juan et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach flavor compositions for use in food products. Where Aaslyng et al. teaches a comprehensive method and product for a savory flavoring, Byrne teaches a method of producing flavoring compositions that are used in ready to eat foods, and Perez-Juan et al. teaches the specific components and ratios of a dry, cured, ham flavor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the 5,2,2-transmethylphenyl taught in Byrne in order to include a stable flavor composition and the isobutyraldehyde of Perez-Juan et al. to more closely imitate a meat product flavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have produced a flavor composition according to the limitations recited in claim 1 using the disclosure of an enzymatically treated HVP, further processed by glucose and heating.
With respect to Claims 4, 5, 18, and 19, Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. teaches on the composition recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, the flavor composition taught by Aaslyng et al. comprises one or more pyrazines, including 2,5-dimethylpyrazine and trimethylpyrazine, also known as 2,3,5 trimethylpyrazine. [Table 2] Therefore, Aaslyng et al. reads on the limitations recited in claims 4, 5, 18, and 19.
With respect to Claim 6, Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. teaches on the composition recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, the flavor composition taught by Aaslyng et al. comprises glucose, a sugar. [Pg. 482, Col. 1, Par. 6] Therefore, Aaslyng et al. reads on the limitations recited in claim 6.
With respect to Claim 12, Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. teaches on the composition recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Aaslyng et al. teaches a preparation of the HVP wherein the protein isolate flavor composition is mixed with NaCl and diluted into a 15% solution with tap water. [Pg. 482, Col. 2, Par. 5] This preparation teaches a weight percentage of the flavor composition between 0.001-70%. Therefore, Aaslyng et al. reads on the limitation recited in claim 12.
With respect to Claim 13, Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. teaches on the composition recited in claim 12, as described above. Additionally, the preparation taught by Aaslyng et al. with respect to claim 12 is a solution enriched with the protein, flavor composition obtained through the hydrolysis of vegetable proteins. [Pg. 482, Col. 1, Par. 6] Therefore, Aaslyng et al. is considered to be a protein-enriched preparation to meet claim 13.
With respect to 16, Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. teaches on the composition recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, the flavor composition taught by Aaslyng et al. comprises 3-methylthiopropanal and benzaldehyde. [Table 2] Therefore, Aaslyng et al. reads on the limitations recited in claims 16.
With respect to Claim 20, Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. teaches on the composition recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, the flavor composition taught by Aaslyng et al. is the result of filtration and freeze-drying [Pg. 482, Col. 1, Par. 6], a method well-known in the field of endeavor to result in a powder. Therefore, Aaslyng et al. is considered to be in the form of a powder to meet claim 20.
With respect to Claim 21, Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. teaches on the composition recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, the flavor composition taught by Aaslyng et al. is comprised of soy protein. [Abstract] Therefore, the flavor composition of Aaslyng et al. is free from meat to meet claim 21.
With respect to Claim 22, Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. teaches on the composition recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, the ratio of isovaleraldehyde to 2-methylbutanal taught in Aaslyng et al. is 1.89. [Table 2] The ratio of isobutyraldehyde to 2-methylbutanal taught in Perez-Juan et al. for 7 month cured ham is between 0.076-0.1. [Table 4] The ratio of Perez-Juan et al. reads on the limitation recited in claim 22, but Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. is silent to a ratio of 5,2,2-transmethylphenyl hexenal to 2-methylbutanal and isovaleraldehyde to 2-methylbutanal that overlaps with or lies inside the ratio recited in claim 22.
Though the prior art is silent to the exact ratio, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimal amount of each compound to add in order to determine the best savory flavor composition. According to MPEP 2144.05 II, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teachings of Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. to produce a flavor composition according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of isovaleraldehyde to 2-methylbutanal is between 0.05-1, isobutyraldehyde to 2-methylbutanal is between 0.01-0.75, and 5,2,2-transmethylphenyl hexenal to 2-methylbutanal is between 0.01-0.75, thereby rendering claim 22 obvious.
With respect to Claim 23, Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. teaches on the composition recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, the ratio of isovaleraldehyde to 2-methylbutanal taught in Aaslyng et al. is 1.89. [Table 2] The ratio of isobutyraldehyde to 2-methylbutanal taught in Perez-Juan et al. for 7 month cured ham is between 0.076-0.1. [Table 4] The ratio of Perez-Juan et al. reads on the limitation recited in claim 23, but Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. is silent to a ratio of 5,2,2-transmethylphenyl hexenal to 2-methylbutanal and isovaleraldehyde to 2-methylbutanal that overlaps with or lies inside the ratio recited in claim 23.
Though the prior art is silent to the exact ratio, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine the optimal amount of each compound to add in order to determine the best savory flavor composition. According to MPEP 2144.05 II, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teachings of Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. to produce a flavor composition according to claim 1, wherein the ratio of isovaleraldehyde to 2-methylbutanal is between 0.1-0.75, isobutyraldehyde to 2-methylbutanal is between 0.075-0.3, and 5,2,2-transmethylphenyl hexenal to 2-methylbutanal is between 0.075-0.3, thereby rendering claim 23 obvious.
With respect to Claim 24, Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 22, as described above. Aaslyng et al. does not provide numerical values for the amino acids in Figure 1, but using the bar graph results of eHVPrea, it is estimated that the amounts of relevant amino acids are 6.25mg/100mg Glutamic Acid (Glu), 3.75mg/100mg Tyrosine (Tyr), 1.75mg/100mg Tryptophan (Trp), and 4mg/100mg Phenylalanine (Phe). Therefore, the ratios would be about 0.6 Tyr:Glu, 0.64 Phe:Glu, and 0.28 Trp:Glu.
The ratio of Phe:Glu reads on the ratio recited in claim 24, and the ratios of Tyr:Glu and Trp:Glu taught by Aaslyng et al. are close to the ratios recited. The exact ratios recited in claim 24 are the results of routine optimization, and according to MPEP 2144.05 II, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the exact ratio of amino acids in order to determine the optimal nutritional content and flavor profile of the composition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teachings of Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al., to produce a flavor composition according to claim 22, wherein the Tyr:Glu is 0.75-0.9, the Phe:Glu is 0.6-0.8, and the Trp:Glu is 0.1-0.2, thereby rendering claim 24 obvious.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aaslyng et al. (Chemical and Sensory Characterization of Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein, a Savory Flavoring, Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry) in view of Perez-Juan et al. (Generation of volatile flavour compounds as affected by the chemical composition of different dry-cured ham sections, European Food Research and Technology) and Byrne (US 5041296) as applied to Claim 5, in further view of Wicker et al. (US 20170143022 A1).
With respect to Claim 25, Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 5, as described above. Aaslyng et al. and Byrne do not teach the use of 2,5-methylethylpyrazine or 2,6-methylethylpyrazine, but do teach the use of 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine with 2,5-dimethylpyrazine, as recited in claim 5.
Wicker et al. teaches a composition containing flavor modifier compounds, more specifically for imparting an umami flavor, for use in foods, beverages, dairy, and other comestibles. [0002] Of those compounds taught by Wicker et al., is included 5-methyl-2-phenyl-2-hexenal, [Pg. 15, Col. 2] also known as 5,2,2-transmethylphenyl. Wicker et al. teaches that the compounds 2,5-methylethylpyrazine, 2,6-methylethylpyrazine, [Pg. 10, Col. 2] and 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine [Pg. 20, Col. 2] are all compounds that impart umami flavor.
Aaslyng et al., Byrne, Perez-Juan et al., and Wicker et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach flavor compositions for use in food products. Where Aaslyng et al. teaches a comprehensive method and product for a savory flavoring, Byrne teaches a method of producing flavoring compositions that are used in ready to eat foods, Perez-Juan et al. teaches the specific components and ratios of a dry, cured, ham flavor, and Wicker et al. teaches a composition comprising compounds for enhancing the umami flavor of a food product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the 5,2,2-transmethylphenyl taught in Wicker et al. in order to elevate the flavor of a savory compound with the addition of umami and the isobutyraldehyde of Perez-Juan et al. to more closely imitate a meat product flavor.
According to MPEP 2144.06 II, “In order to rely on equivalence as a rationale supporting an obviousness rejection, the equivalency must be recognized in the prior art”. Wicker et al. recognizes the equivalent function of the compounds recited in claim 5.
Substituting 2,5-methylethylpyrazine with the amount of 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine taught in Byrne would result in a ratio of 2,5-methylethylpyrazine to 2,5-dimethylpyrazine of 2.36/8.17, or about 0.29. This amount falls within the range recited in claim 25.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Aaslyng et al. in view of Byrne and Perez-Juan et al. to produce a flavor composition according to the invention recited in claim 5, wherein the ratio of 2,5-methylethyl pyrazine to 2,5-dimethyl pyrazine is between 0.25-1.25, thereby rendering claim 25 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed March 23, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4-6, 12, 13, 16, and 18-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 Aaslyng et al. (Chemical and Sensory Characterization of Hydrolyzed Vegetable Protein, a Savory Flavoring, Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry), Perez-Juan et al. (Generation of volatile flavour compounds as affected by the chemical composition of different dry-cured ham sections, European Food Research and Technology), and Byrne (US 5041296).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on new references applied in the prior rejection of record for teachings or matters specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH CULLEN MERCHLINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/J.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights