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 § 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.
Claims 18 and 19 are 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.
Claims 18 and 19 each depend from cancelled claim 4. Where the format of making reference to limitations recited in another claim results in confusion, then a rejection would be proper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). (MPEP 2173.05(f)) Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1, 6-8, 14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang USPGPub 20130004640.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Zhang teaches a beverage comprising a clouding agent. [0010] The clouding agent may comprise a coacervate of zein protein and pectin, carboxymethylcellulose, alginate, xanthan gum, gellan gum or gum Arabic. [0033-0039]
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Zhang discloses that the beverage may be orange juice which comprises citrus fiber as recited in claims 6 and 7. [0049]
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Zhang discloses beverages with a beverage base having a pH of 3-7. [0014]
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses an emulsion comprising 3-15 wt% oil which is sufficiently specific to read on the v/v proportions recited in claim 14.
Regarding claim 19, the coacervated particles of Zhang have a diameter between 1-3 µm. [0043]
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.
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 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang USPGPub 20130004640 as applied to claims 1 and 8 above.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the composition contains less than 20% dispersed complex coacervates which encompasses the range recited in claim 10. [0044] 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 claims 12 and 13, Zhang discloses that the beverage may be orange juice. [0049] It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have varied the amount of orange pulp (insoluble and insoluble citrus fiber) present in the beverage depending on the preferences of the consumer. As such, the proportion of citrus fiber recited in claims 11-13 does not provide a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang USPGPub 20130004640 as applied to claims 1 and 8 above in further view of Zhang II “Stabilizing oil-in-water emulsions with regenerated chitin nanofibers”, Food Chemistry, Volume 183, 15 September 2015, Pages 115-121
Regarding claim 11, Zhang teaches what is recited above but is silent regarding regenerated chitin.
Zhang II teaches that regenerated chitin is suitable for stabilizing emulsions. (Sec. 4)
Zhang and Zhang II are both directed to emulsions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have included regenerated chitin in the emulsion of Zhang since regenerated chitin was known in the art to be a suitable stabilizer for emulsions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have optimized the proportion of regenerated chitin depending on the properties desired for the emulsion. As such, claim 11 is rendered obvious by the modification of Zhang with Zhang II.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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