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 Application
Receipt is acknowledged of the request for continued examination, amendment and response filed 7/13/2026. Claims 7,10,11,14,17,18,21,24, 25 and 29-49 are pending in the application. Claims 1-6 were canceled, claims 7,10,11,14,17,18,21,24, 25 and 29-34 were amended, and new claims 35-49 were added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/1/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim amendments render the previous rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 moot. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is maintained.
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 7,14,21 and dependent claims 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.
The claims recite methods for producing a food, methods of enhancing a mouth-coating property, foods, and seasonings , while defining the amounts of selected Group A compounds and beta-caryophyllene oxide based on the total weight of “food to be eaten.” It is unclear what constitutes the “food to be eaten”, at what stage of preparation or processing the recited concentrations are determined, and whether the concentrations represent the amounts intentionally added or the total amounts present, including amounts inherently present in food components, or generated , lost, or transformed during cooking or other processing.
Thus the relationship between the recited adding step and the required concentration in the “food to be eaten” is uncertain.
Newly added dependent claims further recite ratios of the compounds. The scope of these ratio limitations is unclear because the claims do not specify whether the ratios are based on amounts intentionally added or the total amounts present in the food, including amounts inherently present or generated during processing.
Consequently, the same food may satisfy or fail to satisfy the recited concentration and ratio limitations depending upon what amounts are used in calculation.
The ambiguity is further apparent in the newly added dependent claims , which recite that the food is a seasoning. It is unclear whether the “total weight of the food to be eaten” refers to the seasoning itself or to a food incorporating the seasoning, and therefore the concentrations and ratios cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Moreover, because the claims apply these limitations to different statutory subject matter , including a method of producing a food, a food, and a method of enhancing a mouth-coating property, it is unclear whether the claimed scope is defined by the method of adding the compounds , the resulting composition of the food, or achieving the recited mouth-coating property. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claims and their dependent claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
In view of the ambiguities regarding the scope of the claimed methods and compositions, including the basis for determining the recited concentrations and ratios, the identity and weight of the “food to be eaten” and whether naturally present or processing generated compounds are included, a meaningful comparison of the claimed subject matter with the prior art cannot be made with reasonable certainty. A definitive prior-art analysis of these limitations can therefore only be made after their scope is clarified.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights