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 .
Status of the Claims
Receipt of Amendment/Remarks filed on 07/20/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 10 have been amended. Claims 4, 7, and 16 are cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-15 and 17-20 are presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Modified Rejection As Necessitated by the Amendment Filed 07/20/2026
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, 5-6, 8-10, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes et al. (US 4,689,235, Of record), hereinafter Barnes.
Barnes discloses the invention of an extrudable encapsulation matrix composition having improved loading capacity for flavors etc., wherein the matrix comprises a maltodextrin and hydrogen octenylbutanedioate amylodextrin or equivalent (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 1, Barnes teaches a particulate composition in the form of a solid extrudate comprising a matrix composition and up to about 40% loading, based on the weight of the particulate composition, of an active ingredient, wherein said matrix composition comprises (a) from about 5 parts to about 95 parts by weight of maltodextrin; and (b) about 95 parts to about 5 parts by weight of hydrogen octenyl butanedioate amylodextrin, also known as octenyl succinic starch or Capsul, wherein the combined weight of (a) and (b) being 100 parts (Claim 1; Col. 3, lines 47-55). The matrix composition reads on the carrier material instantly claimed. Barnes teaches the matrix comprises maltodextrin, and emulsifiers and viscosity agents (Col. 3, lines 25-41); the preferred proportions of maltodextrin to modified starch is about 80-60 parts maltodextrin and about 20-40 parts modified starch (Col. 3, lines 31-41). Barnes teaches an example wherein glycol is used for viscosity control up to 10% by weight, the composition may contain about 20% maltodextrin, about 30% Capsul, and about 40% flavor (Col. 4, lines 41-55). Therefore, by Examiner’s calculation, the modified starch is present in the matrix at about 50% of the matrix material, which is close to the upper limit of 49% in the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05.
The particulate composition of Barnes is prepared by extrusion from a hot cook solution (Claim 2; Examples V-VIII). Barnes teaches an embodiment wherein the composition may contain about 30% Capsul, which anticipates the modified starch and the claimed amount; and about 40% flavor, which also renders obvious the flavor and the claimed amount in Claim 8 (Col. 4, lines 44-48).
Barnes teaches that useful maltodextrins have a low DE (dextrose equivalent), i.e., in the range of 3 to 40, which encompasses the claimed ranges in Claims 1, 5, and 10 (Col. 2, lines 5-7). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. There appears to be no criticality to the DE range claimed. As such, Barnes range above would serve as starting point to figure out optimal DE.
Regarding Claim 2, Barnes does not require nor teach yeast.
Regarding Claim 3, Barnes expressly claims and teaches maltodextrin (Abstract; Claim 1; Examples III-VIII).
Regarding Claim 9, Barnes teaches that up to 25% of the components of the matrix composition can be replaced, and that either component can be replaced in part with sucrose or its equivalent polyhydric alcohol such as sorbitol and mannitol (Col. 3, lines 47-66).
Regarding Claim 6 and 10, Barnes teaches preferred proportions of the matrix are about 80-60 parts maltodextrin and about 20-40 parts modified starch (Col. 3, lines 31-41). However, Barnes also teaches that up to 25% of the components of the matrix composition can be replaced, and that either component can be replaced in part with natural gums, corn syrup solids having a DE below about 40, or sucrose. (Col. 3, lines 47-60). Therefore, the concentration of maltodextrin and modified starch and their ratio are amenable to variations depending on the amounts of other components added.
Furthermore, while the exact amount ranges of maltodextrin and modified starch is not disclosed by Barnes, it is generally noted that differences in concentrations do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration ranges are critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Given that applicant did not point out the criticality of amount ranges of maltodextrin and modified starch of the invention, it is concluded that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known would provide the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum concentration of maltodextrin and modified starch. NOTE: MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claims 15 and 19, Barnes teaches the suitability of its composition for consumer food products, and expressly teaches fruit essence or essential oil in flavor compositions (Col. 4, lines 5-8; Examples III, and V; Claims 5-6).
Regarding Claim 17, Barnes teaches an embodiment wherein the composition comprises about 40% flavor, reading on the greater the 15% weight claimed (Col. 4, lines 44-48).
Regarding Claim 18, Barnes teaches that up to 25% of the components of the matrix composition can be replaced, and that either component can be replaced in part with sucrose or its equivalent polyhydric alcohol such as sorbitol and mannitol (Col. 3, lines 47-66).
Claim 11, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes, as applied to Claim 1 above, and in view of Martin et al. (US 2012/0280419 A1; Of record), hereinafter Martin.
The teachings of Barnes has been set forth supra.
Regarding Claim 11, Barnes teaches an improved matrix composition adapted for extrusion and further having an improved capacity to contain in a stable manner a normally liquid dispersed phase, such as an organoleptic material, e.g., lemon oil, orange oil, or the like (Col. 1, lines 20-25). The extrudable encapsulating matrix composition of Barnes has an improved loading capacity, and contains up to about 40% comprising (a) from about 5 to about 95 parts by weight of maltodextrin and (b) from about 95 to about 5 parts by weight of hydrogen octenylbutane dioate amylodextrin (Col. 3, lines 13-20). The invention also contemplates a particulate composition comprising the matrix composition and from about 5% to about 40 weight percent of a normally liquid or volatile active ingredient, such as an organoleptic material, and other ingredients including water, emulsifiers, viscosity control agents in effective quantities generally below 10% by weight (Col. 3, lines 21-30).
Regarding step a), Barnes expressly teaches stirring together maltodextrin, Capsul (modified starch), an emulsifying agent, and water to form a uniform liquid blend (Example 1). Herein, the water reads on the plasticizer.
Regarding step b), Barnes expressly teaches heating the mixture and cooking until the temperature reached 110°C, while water is continually removed and orange oil added and mixed (Example 1).
Regarding steps c) - e), Barnes teaches fitting an extrusion cap or spinneret on the apparatus, and opening the valve to allow the contents to move through the spinneret and into a basket carried in a shallow tray of cold isopropyl alcohol (Col. 5, line 65 to Col. 6, line 3). Barnes relate that the extruder has a head provided with a large number of about 1/64 inch diameter orifices through which the combined mix is forced under pressure; the cold solvent removes excess active ingredient from the surface of the extrudate, effect solidification of the extruded melt (Col. 6, lines 3-11). Thus, Barnes teaches the feature of pumping and pushing the molten mass. Barnes teaches the extruded rods are broken into desired lengths. Further regarding step e), Barnes expressly teaches adding the orange oil in step b) (Example 1).
Barnes teaches a mixer, and that the particulate are discharged into a mixer, but does not expressly teach the static mixer (Col. 6, lines 20-23). Barnes teaches forcing or pushing the molten mass, but does not expressly teach that the melt is extruded through a die.
Martin discloses a method such that a material is melt processed and subsequently pelletized, transported, optionally chemically and/or physically modified [0003]. Martin recognizes that formulations containing flavors dispersed or dissolved in a matrix material are extruded through a die and optionally pelletized, or microencapsulated [0009]. The die in FIG. 7 is a single-body style including a nose cone attached to the die body; the die contains multiple die holes that vary in number and orientation pattern and design, e.g. round, oval, square, rectangular etc. [0165]. Additionally, Martin teaches that encapsulated active ingredients, flavors and fragrances, expanding agents, and the like can be pelletized its methods [0309].
Regarding the static mixer, Martin illustrate multiple systems that comprise a feeder, gear pump, and static mixer assembly (Fig. 2c-f, [0068]-[0073]). Martin teaches a more preferred embodiment which includes an extrusional mixing section with an inlet attached to static mixer[0152]. Martin suggests that different styles of mixing are performed where applicable, and relays that static mixing has the least shear and relies more on thermal energy [0154]. Static mixer can be used to heat a mixture and generate a uniform molten mass or can be used effectively to reduce temperature of the molten mass; a static mixer can provide improved dispersive and distributive mixing, where applicable [0158].
Barnes already teaches a mixer and has taught forcing the molten mass and producing extruded rods that are broken into desired lengths. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Martin and use a static mixer and a die in preparing/extruding the compositions containing flavor particles of Barnes. One would have been motivated to do so because Martin has taught that a static mixer can provide improved dispersive and distributive mixing, and generate a uniform molten mass, and that different designs can be obtained for the extrudate depending on the desired form by using a die with multiple holes that vary in number and orientation pattern and design. As such, it can be expected that using this technique would lead to uniform distribution of the particles in the desired design. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 13, Barnes teaches an embodiment wherein the composition comprises about 40% flavor, reading on the greater the 13% weight claimed (Col. 4, lines 44-48).
Regarding Claim 14, Barnes expressly teaches an Example VII wherein lemon oil is incorporated in an amount of 14%, which touches the claimed range. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 20, as mentioned above, Barnes expressly teaches stirring together maltodextrin, Capsul (modified starch), an emulsifying agent, and water to form a uniform liquid blend (Example 1). Water reads on the claimed plasticizer. Barnes teaches other examples wherein water is incorporated in the composition (Examples V-VIII).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Martin, as applied to Claims 1 and 11 above, and in view of BSC Teknik (What is the difference between an extrusion pump and a gear pump for extrusion?, January 2015, Of record), hereinafter BSC Teknik.
Barnes does not teach a gear pump.
BSC Teknik piston extrusion pump and gear pump (p. 1). The reference teaches that gear pumps optimize the extrusion process by generating a constant pressure and ensuring a constant flow of material, and therefore relieve the extruder of pressure build-up (p. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the piston pump in Barnes with a gear pump because BSC Teknik has taught that gear pumps optimize the extrusion process. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The known work in the extrusion field would have prompted variations in technologies used based on cost and production incentives or other market forces where the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant traversed the 103 rejection over Barnes, alleging that Barnes does not teach or suggest the limitations of amended Claim 1, because although Barnes teaches that "useful maltodextrins have a low DE (dextrose equivalent), i.e., in the range of 3 to 40,", its broad useful range begins at DE 3. Applicant argues that the amended instant Claim 1 requires the "at least one hydrolyzed starch" to have a DE "greater than 17DE" and further excludes from the carrier material maltodextrin having a DE "less than or equal to 6DE." Applicant also argued that none of the working examples in Barnes uses a hydrolyzed starch having a DE
greater than 17DE, acknowledges that Barnes teaches “Maltodextrin M-100", which the Applicant claims to have DE of 9-12, but reasoned that this is below the 17 DE. Applicant also argues that Martin and BSC Teknik do not cure the deficiency.
The Examiner considered the argument but was not convinced. Applicant acknowledged that Barnes teaches the range of 3 to 40. Applicant argues that, because the reference discloses DEs of lower values in addition to the ones instantly claimed, this somehow constitutes a teaching away from the claim. This is not persuasive. The examiner agrees with applicant that Barnes teaches “low DE” and further agrees that low DE starts at DE 3 in column 2 lines 5-7 however column 2 lines 5-7 also explicitly states that “low DE” goes up to DE 40, which would be with in the instantly claimed range. There is no requirement in Barnes in column 2 lines 5-7 or elsewhere to use the less than 6DE, nor to limit it to DE of 9-12 as exemplified. A preferred or exemplified embodiment does not constitute a teaching away from other embodiments disclosed within the four corners of the reference, including non-preferred embodiments. Applicant is reminded that the disclosure of a reference must be considered as expansively as is reasonably possible to determine the full scope of the disclosure and, as a result, is most certainly not limited to that which is preferred and/or exemplified. Thus, the fact that DE 9-12 is exemplified, and/or preferred does not negate or direct the artisan away from the broader teaching of the reference, which expressly provides for, and, thus, clearly contemplates maltodextrin DE in the range of 3 to 40.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bouquerand et al. (US 2016/0015061 A1). Bouquerand discloses a glass particle or bead comprising a) a plasmolysed micro-organism encapsulated flavor or fragrance, and b) a carrier (Claim 3). The particle is made by blending the encapsulated flavor or fragrance and the carrier; extruded; cut into granules; and cooled [0020]-[0027]. Bouqerand teaches an aspect wherein the carrier comprises Capsul [0032].
Snyder et al. (US 2019 / 0289891 A1) also discloses a method for making an extruded particle comprising by mixing a modified starch and water, adding flavor, and extruding the melt, and cutting the extrudate into ushing the extrudate to form an extruded; and further comprising mixing maltodextrin with starch and water (Claims 1 and 2).
No claims are allowed.
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 JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. 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.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights