DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The status of the claims stands as follows:
Pending claims: 24-34
Cancelled claims: 1-23
Claims currently under consideration: 24-24
Currently rejected claims: 24-34
Allowed claims: None
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 24, 27-28, and 30-32 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In property viii of claim 24 on page 4, “solution and the and the viscosity” should be read as “solution and the viscosity”.
In property ii of claim 24 on page 5, the “.” after the “3” in the phrase “embodiment 3. measurement method” should be read removed.
In property iii of claim 24 on page 8, the “.” after the “2” in the phrase “embodiment 2. measurement method” should be read removed.
In property v. of claim 24 on page 8, the “.” after the “4” in the phrase “embodiment 4. measurement method described” should be read removed.
In property vii. of claim 24 on page 9, “aqueous suspension of of at least 150 g” should be read as “aqueous suspension of at least 150 g”.
In claims 27, 28, 30, 31, and 32, “characterized in that characterized in that” should be read as “characterized in that”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101/112
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a use of a multi-component system and fails to recite steps involved with the use of the system.
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.
Claim 33 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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. Claim 33 does not recite any method steps involved with the use of the multi-component system; therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 24-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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.
Claim 24 and 32 recite that the base component comprises as liquid binder. However, claims 26 and 32 recite that the base component is a powder. It is unclear as to whether the phrase “liquid binder” in claims 24 and 32 means that (A) the base component is in liquid form; or (B) the base component is intended as a binder for the liquid ingredients in a sauce and/or soup comprising the base component. Therefore, claims 24, 26, and 32 are indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the base component will be interpreted as described in option (B).
Claim 24 recites “the fiber dispersion” in lines 6, 17, and 20 on page 3; in line 5 on page 4; in lines 3, 14, 17, and 25 on page 5; in line 24 on page 6; in lines 1, 8, and 16 on page 7; in lines 12, 21, and 24 on page 8; and in line 1 on page 9. Claim 24 also recites “the fiber suspension” in lines 9 and 13 on page 3; in line 1 on page 4; in lines 6, 10, and 21 on page 5; in line 27 on page 6; in lines 4 and 12 on page 7; and in lines 15, 18, and 28 on page 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For the purpose of this examination, the terms will be interpreted as meaning “a fiber dispersion”.
Claim 24 recites “the measuring method described in embodiment 2”, “the measuring method described under embodiment 2 described in embodiment example 2”, “the measuring method described under embodiment 2”, “the measurement method described in embodiment 2”, “the measuring method described in embodiment 2 measurement method”, “the measurement method described in Example of embodiment 2”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For the purpose of this examination, these phrases will be interpreted as meaning the measurement method recited in the section from line 9 on page 80 to line 17 on page 81 of the present specification.
Claim 24 recites “the measuring method described in embodiment 3”, “the measuring method described in embodiment 3 measurement method described”, and “the measuring method described under embodiment 3”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For the purpose of this examination, these phrases will be interpreted as meaning the measurement method recited in the section from line 5 on page 82 to line 5 on page 83 of the present specification.
Claim 24 recites “the measuring method described in embodiment 4 measurement method”, “the measurement method described in embodiment 4 measuring method”, and “the measuring method described in embodiment 4 described in embodiment 4”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
For the purpose of this examination, these phrases will be interpreted as meaning the measurement method recited in the section from line 4 on page 85 to line 20 on page 86 of the present specification.
Claims 24 and 34 recite “optionally a refining component”. However, it is unclear as to what is meant by “a refining component”; therefore, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, “a refining component” will be interpreted as meaning an additional ingredient.
Claims 24 and 32 recite the phrases “activatable pectin-containing citrus fiber”, “activatable pectin-containing apple fiber”, and “activatable apple or citrus fiber”. Neither the claims nor present specification disclose what is meant by “activatable” in these phrases; therefore, the claims are indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the activatable fibers will be interpreted as fibers having the features as recited in claim 24.
Claims 24, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, and 34 recite “fine texture component”. The term “fine” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of this examination, “fine texture component” is interpreted as being apple fiber or citrus fiber as described in section b of claim 24.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
Claim 24 recites the broad recitation “a yield point II (rotation) in the fiber suspension of 0.1 - 1.0 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously from 0.3 - 0.9 Pa and particularly advantageously from 0.6 - 0.8 Pa” on page 3 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point II (cross over) in the fiber suspension of 0.1 - 1.0 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously from 0.3 - 0.9 Pa and particularly advantageously from 0.6 - 0.8 Pa” on page 3 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point I (rotation) in the fiber dispersion of 1.5 - 3.5 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously from 2.0 - 3.0 Pa” on page 3 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point I (cross over) in the fiber dispersion of 1.0 - 4.5 Pa,”, and the claim also recites “advantageously from 1.5 - 4.0 Pa and particularly advantageously from 2.0 - 3.5 Pa” on page 3 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a dynamic Weissenberg number in the fiber suspension of 4.5 - 8.0”, and the claim also recites “advantageously of 5.0 - 7.5, particularly advantageously from 7.0 - 7.5” on page 4 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a dynamic Weissenberg number in the fiber dispersion of 5.0 - 9.0”, and the claim also recites “advantageously from 6.0 - 8.5 and particularly advantageously from 7.0 - 8.0” on page 4 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “firmness in a 4 wt% aqueous suspension of between 60 g and 240 g”, and the claim also recites “preferably of between 120 g and 200 g and particularly preferably of between 140 and 180 g” on page 4 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a viscosity of from 150 to 600 mPas”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 200 to 550 mPas, and particularly preferably from 250 to 500 mPas” on page 4 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a water binding capacity of more than 20 g/g”, and the claim also recites “preferably of more than 22 g/g, particularly preferred of more than 24 g/g, and especially preferred of between 24 and 26 g/g” on page 4 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a pH of from 3.1 to 4.75”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 3.4 to 4.2” on page 4 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a particle size in which at least 90 wt% of the particles are smaller than 450 μm”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 90 wt% of the particles are smaller than 350 μm and particularly preferably at least 90 wt% of the particles are smaller than than 250 μm” on page 4 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a lightness value of L * > 84”, and the claim also recites “preferably of L * > 86 and particularly preferably of L * > 88” on page 4 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “less than 10 wt% of water-soluble pectin” on page 3, and the claim also recites “less than 8 wt% and advantageously less than 6 wt% of water-soluble pectin” on page 4 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point I (rotation) in the fiber dispersion of 0.75 - 3.75 Pa”, and the claim also recites “a yield point I (rotation) in the fiber dispersion of 1.0 to 3.5 Pa and advantageously from 1 .25 to 3.25 Pa” on page 5 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point II (rotation) in the fiber suspension of 0.1 to 1.0 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously from 0.15 to 0. 75 Pa and particularly advantageously from 0.25 to 0.5 Pa” on page 5 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point II (cross over) in the fiber suspension of 0.1 to 1.0 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously from 0.15 to 0. 75 Pa and particularly advantageously from 0.25 to 0.5 Pa” on page 5 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point I (rotation) in the fiber dispersion of 1.0 to 3.5 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously from 1 .25 to 3.25 Pa” on page 5 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “yield point I (cross over) in the fiber dispersion of from 0.75 to 4.25 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously from 1 .5 to 4.0 Pa and particularly advantageously from 1. 75 to 3. 75 Pa” on page 5 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a dynamic Weissenberg number in the fiber suspension of from 3.0 to 7.0”, and the claim also recites “advantageously from 3.5 to 6.5 Pa and particularly advantageously from 4.5 to 6.0” on page 5 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a dynamic Weissenberg number in the fiber dispersion of 4.0 to 7.5”, and the claim also recites “advantageously from 4.5 to 7.0, and particularly advantageously from 5.0 to 6.5” on page 5 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a firmness of from 5 to 100 g”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 20 to 60 g and particularly preferred from 30 to 50 g” on page 6 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a viscosity of from 50 to 350 mPas”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 75 to 200 mPas, and particularly preferably from 100 to 150 mPas” on page 6 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a water-binding capacity of more than 19 g/g”, and the claim also recites “preferably of more than 21 g/g, particularly preferred of more than 23 g/g” on page 6 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a pH of from 3.5 to 5.0”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 4.0 to 4.6” on page 6 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a particle size in which at least 90 wt% of the particles are smaller than 450 μm,”, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 90 wt% of the particles are smaller than 350 μm and particularly preferably at least 90% by wt% of the particles are smaller than than 250 μm” on page 6 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a lightness value L * > 54”, and the claim also recites “preferably of L * > 55 and particularly preferably of L * > 56” on page 6 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “less than 10 wt% of water-soluble pectin” on page 5, and the claim also recites “less than 8 wt% and advantageously less than 6 wt% of water-soluble pectin” on page 6 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point II (rotation) in fiber suspension of more than 0.1 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously of more than 0.5 Pa, and particularly advantageously of more than 1 .0 Pa” on page 6 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point I (rotation) in the fiber dispersion of more than 5.0 Pa” on page 6, and the claim also recites “a yield point I (rotation) in the fiber dispersion of more than 6.0 Pa and advantageously of more than 7.0 Pa measured” on page 7 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point II (cross over) in fiber suspension of more than 0.1 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously of more than 0.5 Pa and particularly advantageously of more than 1 .0 Pa” on page 7 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point I (cross over) in the fiber dispersion of more than 5.0 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously of more than 6.0 Pa and especially advantageously of more than 7.0 Pa” on page 7 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a dynamic Weissenberg number in the fiber suspension of more than 4.0”, and the claim also recites “advantageously of more than 5.0, and particularly advantageously of more than 6.0” on page 7 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a dynamic Weissenberg number in the fiber dispersion of more than 6.5”, and the claim also recites “advantageously of more than 7.5 and particularly advantageously of more than 8.5” on page 7 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a firmness of more than 50 g”, and the claim also recites “preferably of more than 75 g and particularly preferably of more than 100 g” on page 7 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a viscosity of more than 100 mPas”, and the claim also recites “preferably of more than 200 mPas, and more preferably of greater than 350 mPas” on page 7 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a water-binding capacity of more than 20 g/g”, and the claim also recites “preferably of more than 22 g/g, particularly preferably of more than 24 g/g, and especially preferably of more than 27.0 g/g” on page 7 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a pH of from 3.5 to 5.0”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 4.0 to 4.6” on page 7 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a particle size at which at least 90 wt% of the particles are smaller than 400 μm”, and the claim also recites “preferably smaller than 350 μm and in particular smaller than 300 μm” on page 8 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a lightness value L * > 60”, and the claim also recites “preferably of L * > 61 and particularly preferably of L* > 62” on page 8 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “less than 10 wt% of water-soluble pectin” on page 6, and the claim also recites “less than 8 wt% and advantageously less than 6 wt% of water-soluble pectin” on page 8 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point II (rotation) in the fiber suspension of more than 1.5 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously of more than 2.0 Pa” on page 8 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point II (cross over) in the fiber suspension of more than 1.2 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously of more than 1.5 Pa” on page 8 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point I (rotation) in the fiber dispersion of more than 5.5 Pa”, and the claim also recites “a yield point I (rotation) in the fiber dispersion of more than 6.0 Pa” on page 8 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a yield point I (cross over) in the fiber dispersion of more than 6.0 Pa”, and the claim also recites “advantageously of more than 6.5 Pa” on page 8 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a dynamic Weissenberg number in the fiber suspension of more than 7.0”, and the claim also recites “advantageously of more than 7.5 and particularly advantageously of more than 8.0” on page 8 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a dynamic Weissenberg number in the fiber dispersion of more than 6.0”, and the claim also recites “advantageously of more than 6.5 and particularly advantageously of more than 7.0” on page 9 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a firmness in a 4 wt% aqueous suspension of of at least 150 g”, and the claim also recites “particularly advantageously of at least 220 g” on page 9 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a pH of from 3.1 to 4.75”, and the claim also recites “preferably from 3.4 to 4.2” on page 9 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a particle size in which at least 90 wt% of the particles are smaller than 250 μm”, and the claim also recites “preferably smaller than 200 μm and in particular smaller than 150 μm” on page 9 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “a lightness value L * > 90”, and the claim also recites “preferably of L * > 91 and particularly preferably of L * > 92” on page 9 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 24 also recites the broad recitation “less than 10 wt% of water-soluble pectin” on page 8, and the claim also recites “less than 8 wt% and particularly advantageously less than 6 wt% of water-soluble pectin” on page 9 which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 29 recites the broad recitation “the refining component c. is selected from herbs and/or spices”, and the claim also recites “in particular in that the refining
component c. is selected from the group consisting of anise, wild garlic, basil, fenugreek, cayenne pepper, chili, cumin, dill, tarragon, fennel, clove, ginger, chamomile, cardamom, garlic, coriander, cumin, turmeric, horseradish, lemon balm, nutmeg, paprika, parsley, bell pepper, peppermint, allspice, saffron, sage, star anise, thyme, vanilla, juniper berries, cinnamon, lemongrass and mixtures thereof” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 30 recites the broad recitation “a proportion of base component a. from 20 to 95 wt%”, and the claim also recites “in particular from 40 to 90 wt% or from 50 to 80 wt%” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Claim 31 recites the broad recitation “a content of fine texture component b. of from 5 to 80 wt%”, and the claim also recites “in particular from 10 to 60 wt% or from 20 to 50 wt%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
Claim 32 recites the broad recitation “the fine texture component has a content of from 5 to 80 wt%”, and the claim also recites “in particular from 10 to 60% by weight or from 20 to 50% by weight” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
For the purpose of this examination, all of the claims will be interpreted according to the broadest recitation.
Regarding claim 25, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be interpreted requiring vegetable powder.
Claims 27, 28, and 33 are rejected by reason of dependency from claim 24.
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 24, 27, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (WO 2001017376A1; English translation relied on for citations) in view of Landers (Landers, J., “Jen In The Kitchen: I Tried Hello Fresh!”, 2019, New Dimensions, https://www.newdimensionsinc.com/jen-in-the-kitchen-i-tried-hello-fresh/).
Regarding claims 24 and 33, Fox teaches a citrus fiber component comprising dietary fibers (abstract) produced by subjecting citrus manufacturing residue such as pomace, peel, or pulp to a method comprising the same method steps used to produce the claimed activatable pectin-containing citrus fiber and the claimed activated pectin-containing citrus fiber (page 1, paragraph under “Claims”). Fox also teaches an apple fiber component comprising dietary fibers produced by subjecting apple manufacturing residue to a method comprising the same method steps used to produce the claimed activatable pectin-containing apple fiber and the claimed activated pectin-containing apple fiber (page 1, paragraph under “Claims”; page 3, 1st and 10th paragraphs). Therefore, the methods of Fox are considered to produce citrus fiber and apple fiber which encompass embodiments of activatable pectin-containing citrus fiber, activated pectin-containing citrus fiber, activatable pectin-containing apple fiber, and activated pectin-containing apple fiber as presently claimed. As such, the base component and the fine texture component recited in present claim 24 are rendered obvious.
Fox teaches that the citrus fiber and apple fiber may be used in sauce such as ketchup and mayonnaise (page 3, 16th paragraph); and discloses that ketchup and mayonnaise may comprise sugar and salt as refining ingredients (page 5, 3rd line under “6. Mayonnaise”; page 5, line beginning “7. Ketchup”).
Fox does not teach that the citrus fiber and apple fiber comprise a multi-component system for preparing a sauce wherein the system comprises a refining component and wherein the base component, fine texture component, and refining component are separate components.
However, multi-system components for making food products wherein each component is a separate component are known in the art as demonstrated by companies such as “Hello Fresh” that package the ingredients for a meal, including sauces for a meal, individually as disclosed by Landers (page 2, paragraph above 2nd photo; page 3, paragraph under 2nd photo; page 3, 1st photo).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the ingredients for the sauce of Fox to comprise separate components within a single package as taught by Landers. Since Fox discloses that its apple fiber and citrus fiber may be used to produce a sauce and discloses that refining ingredients such as sugar and salt are used to make the sauce (page 3, 16th paragraph; page 5, 3rd line under “6. Mayonnaise”; page 5, line beginning “7. Ketchup”); and since multi-component systems for producing food products wherein the system comprises the ingredients as separate components are known in the art as demonstrated by Landers (page 2, paragraph above 2nd photo; page 3, paragraph under 2nd photo; page 3, 1st photo), a skilled practitioner would have readily recognized that the ingredients to make the sauces of Fox may be contained in a multi-component system as separate components. Therefore, the claimed multi-component system for preparing a sauce and/or soup containing a base component, fine texture, component and refining component as recited in present claim 24 is rendered obvious. The claimed use of the multi-component system for the preparation of a sauce as recited in present claim 33 is also rendered obvious by the combination of Fox and Landers.
Regarding claim 27, Fox teaches the invention as described above in claim 24, including the fine texture component may be citrus fiber or apple fiber (page 1, paragraph under “Claims”). Fox also teaches that fruit fiber has a taste (page 2, 2nd paragraph under 4th table). Therefore, the citrus fiber or apple fiber of the fine texture component may be considered as a flavoring agent as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 34, modified Fox teaches the invention as described above in claim 24, including that the methods of Fox are considered to produce citrus fiber and apple fiber which encompass embodiments of activatable pectin-containing citrus fiber, activated pectin-containing citrus fiber, activatable pectin-containing apple fiber, and activated pectin-containing apple fiber as presently claimed. As such, the base component and the fine texture component recited in present claim 24 are rendered obvious. Fox teaches that the citrus fiber and apple fiber may be used in sauce such as ketchup and mayonnaise (page 3, 16th paragraph); and discloses that ketchup and mayonnaise may comprise sugar and salt as refining ingredients. As such, Fox renders the step of (1) providing a base component, a fine texture component, and a refining component as defined in present claim 24 obvious.
Fox further teaches that in order to prepare a sauce, the ingredients are combined with water (page 5, 10th-13th lines under “6. Mayonnaise”; page 5, 2nd-4th lines under “7. Ketchup”). Therefore, Fox renders a step of (2) placing the components of step (1) in water and mixing to obtain a mixture. Fox teaches that the mixture may then be heated (page 5, 6th line under “7. Ketchup”), thereby rendering a step (3) of optionally heating the mixture obtained in step (2) obvious.
Claims 25 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (WO 2001017376A1; English translation relied on for citations) in view of Landers (Landers, J., “Jen In The Kitchen: I Tried Hello Fresh!”, 2019, New Dimensions, https://www.newdimensionsinc.com/jen-in-the-kitchen-i-tried-hello-fresh/) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Andrea (Andrea, “Homemade Ketchup in Just 5 Minutes!”, 2019, The Petite Cook, https://web.archive.org/web/20191207221912/https://www.thepetitecook.com/).
Regarding claims 25 and 29, Fox teaches the invention as described above in claim 24, including the sauce may be ketchup (page 3, 16th paragraph); and that ketchup may comprise sugar, salt, tomato paste, and vinegar (page 5, line beginning “7. Ketchup”). The prior art does not teach that the base component further comprises a vegetable powder as recited in present claim 25; or that the refining component is herbs and/or spices as recited in present claim 29.
However, Andrea teaches that ketchup may further comprise various spices in addition to sugar, salt, vinegar, and tomato paste (page 2, 3rd paragraph under “Homemade Ketchup vs Store-bought”; pages 7-8, bullet points under “Ingredients”). Andrea teaches that the spices may comprise onion powder, garlic powder, cinnamon powder, black pepper powder, nutmeg, and chili powder (pages 7-8, bullet points under “Ingredients”), wherein the spices are added to the ketchup for taste purposes (page 4, 2nd to last sentence on page; page 5, 1st sentence). Therefore, Andrea teaches that the ketchup may further comprise vegetable powder.
It would have been obvious for person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the sauce of modified Fox to further comprise vegetable powder as taught by Andrea. Since Fox teaches that the sauce may be ketchup (page 3, 16th paragraph); and that ketchup may comprise sugar, salt, tomato paste, and vinegar (page 5, line beginning “7. Ketchup”) and Andrea teaches that ketchup may further comprise various spices in the form of vegetable powders for taste purposes (page 2, 3rd paragraph under “Homemade Ketchup vs Store-bought”; pages 7-8, bullet points under “Ingredients”; page 4, 2nd to last sentence on page; page 5, 1st sentence; pages 7-8, bullet points under “Ingredients”), a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to use vegetable powders in the sauce of Fox.
Regarding the vegetable powder being a part of the base component as recited in present claim 25, combining separate ingredients of the sauce of Fox into a single ingredient is rendered obvious since making separate parts integral is rendered obvious. MPEP 2144.04.V.B.
Regarding the refining component being selected from herbs and/or spices, the vegetable powders of Andrea are considered to be refining components. As described above in the rejection of claim 24, the separate packaging of ingredients for food products is known in the art (Landers, page 2, paragraph above 2nd photo; page 3, paragraph under 2nd photo; page 3, 1st photo). Therefore, vegetable powders of Andrea render claim 29 obvious.
Claims 26, 28, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (WO 2001017376A1; English translation relied on for citations) in view of Landers (Landers, J., “Jen In The Kitchen: I Tried Hello Fresh!”, 2019, New Dimensions, https://www.newdimensionsinc.com/jen-in-the-kitchen-i-tried-hello-fresh/) as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Mazoyer (US 2018/0213836).
Regarding claims 26, 28, 30, 31, and 32, modified Fox teaches the invention as described above in claim 24, including that the methods of Fox are considered to produce citrus fiber and apple fiber which encompass embodiments of activatable pectin-containing citrus fiber, activated pectin-containing citrus fiber, activatable pectin-containing apple fiber, and activated pectin-containing apple fiber as presently claimed. As such, the base component and the fine texture component recited in present claim 24 are rendered obvious. Also as described above in the rejection of claim 24, since Fox discloses that its apple fiber and citrus fiber may be used to produce a sauce (page 3, 16th paragraph; page 5, 3rd line under “6. Mayonnaise”; page 5, line beginning “7. Ketchup”); and since multi-component systems for producing food products wherein the system comprises the ingredients as separate components are known in the art as demonstrated by Landers (page 2, paragraph above 2nd photo; page 3, paragraph under 2nd photo; page 3, 1st photo), a skilled practitioner would have readily recognized that the ingredients to make the sauces of Fox may be contained in a multi-component system as separate components. Fox also discloses that the fiber components may be dried and ground (page 4, 1st paragraph), thereby rendering a powder form of fiber obvious.
The prior art does not teach that the base component is in powder form as recited in present claims 26 and 32; that the fine texture component is in paste form as recited in present claims 28 and 32; that the multi-component system comprises 20-95 wt.% of base component and 5-80 wt.% of fine texture component based upon the combined weight of the base component and the fine texture component as recited in present claims 30, 31, and 32.
However, Mazoyer teaches citrus fibers are known in the art as texturizing agents and that they may be used to thicken and create optimum textures in food products [0002]-[003]. Mazoyer teaches that it is known in the art that citrus fibers may be used in dry form or dispersed in an aqueous medium [0002]. Since fibers are known to thicken an aqueous medium, the form of fiber dispersed in aqueous medium is considered to render a paste form of the fiber obvious.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the fibers of modified Fox to be in a paste form or powder form as taught by Mazoyer. Since paste forms and powder forms of fiber are known in the art as disclosed by Mazoyer [0002], a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that fiber forming the base component may be in powder form and the fiber forming the fine texture component maybe in paste form, thereby rendering the powder form and paste form in claims 26, 28, and 32 obvious.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the proportions of base component and fine texture component in the multi-component system for a sauce of modified Fox in order to provide the desired thickening and texture in the sauce as taught by Mazoyer. Since it is known in the art that fiber is used to provide thickening and texture to food products as disclosed by Mazoyer [0002], a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that modifying the amounts of fibers in the multi-component system would provide different thickening degrees and textures in the produced food product. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the practitioner to have modified the amount of base component and the amount of fine texture component in the multi-component system to each be greater than 0 wt.% to an amount of less than 100 wt.% based total combined weight of the base component and the fine texture component, thereby producing amounts of base component and fine texture component which encompass the claimed amounts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I. Therefore, the amounts of base component and fine texture component recited in present claims 30, 31, and 32 are rendered obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791