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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/13/26 has been entered.
Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1-3, 5-6,8-15,17-18 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3, 5-6,8-15,17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “ wherein the protective coating is effective to decrease the moisture absorption of the granular food product as compared to the edible moisture-sensitive particulate substrate” is not supported by the original disclosure. The instant specification does not disclose comparison of the granular food to the edible moisture-sensitive particular substrate. Applicant does not point to the disclosure and the examiner cannot locate the limitation in the specification.
Claim 1 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.
In claim 1: Line 13, the recitation “ the moisture absorption” does not have antecedent basis. It’s unclear what moisture absorption the claim is referring to. Additionally, the limitation “ as compared to the edible moisture-sensitive particulate substrate” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended because the particulate substrate is part of the granular food product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-3,5-6, 8-15,17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox ( 5545410) in view of Hoshino ( KR 20100087648).
For claim 1, Fox discloses a granular product comprising an edible moisture-sensitive particulate substrate coated with ingredients including food grade shellac and candelilla wax. The particulate substrate includes particles of sucrose, fructose which is a saccharide as claimed. Thus, the substrate is moisture-sensitive particulate substrate. ( see col. 2) Since Fox discloses substrate coated with shellac and candelilla wax, it’s obviously inherent a protective layer formed to act as a moisture barrier and the property in claim 1 is present. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), in re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990).
For claims 5-6, Fox discloses shellac coating. Thus, the coating contains shellac and meets the requirement that the shellac coating layer comprising ethanol-soluble, edible ,film forming resin that includes shellac in claim 6. ( see col. 2)
For claims 8,10 Fox discloses the particles comprise particulate size ranging from 30-1000 micrometers. ( see col. 3 lines 1-15)
For claims 9, 17,Fox discloses the particles including sucrose, fructose, glucose etc. which is saccharide. It is the same ingredient as claimed; thus, the particles are hygroscopic as recited in claim 17. ( see col. 2 lines 17-25)
For claim 11, Fox discloses the particles are coated with shellac coating layer. The processing step in claim 11 does not determine the patentability of the product. (see col. 2)
For claim 12-13, how the layers are formed do not determine the patentability of the product. In any event, Fox discloses forming the coating layers by coating in coating pan. ( see col 2 lines 60-61)
For claim 15, Fox discloses wax coating and does not disclose that it comprises organic solvents and petroleum ethers. Thus, it is free of these substances. ( see col. 2 lines 50-60)
For claim 18, Fox discloses forming coating on the particles by coating pan. ( see col. 2 lines 60-61)
Fox does not specifically disclose one or more wax coating and one or wax shellac coating and the amounts and wax is deposited as powdered wax as in claim 1, the features as in claims 2-3, the amounts as in claim 7, the features as in claim 14 and the layers as in claim 18.
Hoshino discloses coated product. Hoshino discloses spreading fine powder wax on the coated product for polishing. ( see the background art section)
Fox discloses coating particles of saccharide with coating materials including wax and shellac. Example 2 shows the particles are coated with layer of coating comprising ethyl cellulose and a second coating comprising wax. Thus, it would have been readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat the particles with wax layer and shellac layer. For instance, one can substitute the ethyl cellulose layer with shellac and a second layer of wax. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the amounts of wax, shellac and total of two layers depending on the extent of protection of the particulate desired. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to apply the shellac first and wax second or vice versa. It would also have been obvious to have the wax and shellac layers as the only coating material if only those materials are wanted in the coated product. This parameter would have been an obvious matter of choice. The limitation in claim 11 is directed to processing step which does not determine the patentability of the product. In any event, shellac is known to be dissolved in ethanol for application. Such parameter would have been within the skill of one in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use powdered wax depending on the appearance desired. A solution of wax would give a glossy finish versus the powdery look of powdered wax. As to depositing the powdered wax at temperature below the melting point and is never subsequently melted, this is processing parameter which does not determine the patentability of the product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues Fox does not teach or suggest the use of was and shellac together as to provide a moisture barrier. Applicant points to the statements made in example 12. This argument is not persuasive. Even if Fox does disclose that increased heat and moisture stability can be obtain with less soluble carbohydrate cores, it does not take away the disclosure that Fox discloses to coat edible moisture-sensitive substrate with materials including wax and shellac. Fox discloses coating particles of saccharide with coating materials including wax and shellac. Example 2 shows the particles are coated with layer of coating comprising ethyl cellulose and a second coating comprising wax. Thus, it would have been readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to coat the particles with wax layer and shellac layer. For instance, one can substitute the ethyl cellulose layer with shellac and a second layer of wax because both wax and shellac are disclosed as coating material. Since Fox discloses substrate coated with shellac and candelilla wax, it’s obviously inherent a protective layer formed to act as a moisture barrier and the property in claim 1 is present. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), in re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant further argues Hoshino does not teach or suggest that a coating exhibiting moisture barrier properties can be obtained through the combination of shellac and wax. The Hoshino reference is only relied upon for the use of powdered wax. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues on the lack of disclosure of the amounts. This argument is not persuasive. Fox teaches to coat particles with the coating material. It's obviously inherent that certain amount is applied to be able to coat the particles. The examiner maintains her position that the particular amount used can readily be determined by one of skilled in the art depending on the thickness and the degree of protection desired. While applicant alludes to the disclosure exhibiting excellent barrier properties, applicant has not shown any comparative testing to demonstrate criticality with respect to the claimed ranges.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
May 2, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights