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 .
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 after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.114 has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim status
The examiner acknowledged the amendment made to the claims on 04/03/2026 and 03/03/2026. Claims filed 04/03/2026 are examined on the merits.
Claims 1-34 are pending in the application. Claims 7 and 14 are currently amended. Claims 12-13 and 19-21 are previously presented. Claims 31-34 are newly presented. Claims 1-6, 8-11, 15-18 and 22-30 are withdrawn with traverse in response to the restriction requirement. Claims 7, 12-14, 19-21 and 31-34 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 7, 13-14, 20-21 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo CN108497441 A (English translation relied upon for reference, hereinafter referred to as Luo) in view of Lin CN101288459 A (English translation relied upon for reference, hereinafter referred to as Lin).
Regarding claims 7, 13-14, 20-21 and 31-34, Luo teaches a process of preparing a preserved vegetable flavoring essence comprising heating cyclotene (e.g., methylcyclopentenolone) in a vegetable oil at a temperature of 60-100 °C or narrowly at 100 °C, followed by adding other ingredients including black pepper oil and cinnamon oil to the mixture of cyclotene and vegetable oil to obtain the preserved vegetable flavoring essence (Abstract; 0012-0017; Example 3). Further, Luo teaches including the preserved vegetable flavoring essence in a braised meat (e.g., pork) product, and the resulting braised pork has excellent preserved mustard green aroma, pork fat aroma, realism and appeal (0019; 0045; 0048). Braised meat necessarily contains oil and fat.
Further, since Luo teaches that cyclotene is first mixed with the vegetable oil, the vegetable oil per se is interpreted to read on the oil- or fat- containing composition, the total oil/fat contents of which is ~100%.
Where Luo teaches heating cyclotene in an oil- or fat- containing composition at a temperature of 100 °C which falls within the range of 80-200 °C as recited in claims 7 and 14, an in-oil-heated substance of cyclotene is necessarily produced by Luo.
Further, Luo teaches that the preserved vegetable flavoring essence comprises 0.01-0.3% cyclotene and 6.4-89.8% vegetable oil (0010), and specifically, in Example 3, 0.155% cyclotene is heated in 48.1% vegetable oil, as such, Luo teaches a cyclotene content by weight of the oil- or fat-containing composition (e.g., vegetable oil) that falls within or encompasses the range as recited in claims 7 and 14 (calculation: the proportion of cyclotene to vegetable oil in Example 3 is 0.155%/48.1% = ~3000 ppm; and the proportion of cyclotene to vegetable oil in para. [0010] is 0.01%/89.8% to 0.3%/6.4% which is about a range of 100-50,000 ppm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Luo teaches a vegetable oil as the oil base for the flavor ingredients but is silent regarding the vegetable oil being rapeseed oil, corn oil, sesame oil, rice oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, olive oil, palm oil, etc. as recited in claims 7, 14 and 31-34, however, where Luo teaches a vegetable oil as the oil base, it would have been obvious to have selected any commonly used vegetable oil such as rapeseed oil, corn oil, sesame oil, rice oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, olive oil, palm oil, etc. as the oil base for the flavor ingredients, as one of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that any commonly used vegetable oil would function effectively in oil-based flavoring essence. This is merely selecting from a group of suitable options, absent a clear showing of the criticality associated with the vegetables oils as recited in the claims.
Regardless, Lin teaches a method of making a chicken flavoring essence comprising mixing ingredients including cinnamon oil, with an oil base (e.g., soy salad oil; see abstract) (abstract; 0045; 0051; 0082). Further, Lin teaches that soy salad oil can be replaced in equal amount with other less fragrant oil such as soybean oil, sunflower oil, and palm oil (0083).
Both Luo and Lin are directed to flavoring essences that comprise a vegetable oil base and flavor ingredients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Luo by using sunflower oil or palm oil as the vegetable oil base in the flavoring essence of Luo with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that palm oil and sunflower oil are art-recognized vegetable oil suitable for use as an oil base for flavoring essence. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
The limitation “for enhancing a mouth-coating feel” as in claim 7 or claim 13, or the limitation “with an enhanced mouth-coating feel” as in claim 20 recites the purpose of the method claims, and the recited purpose does not result in a manipulative difference between the claims and prior art because Luo as modified by Lin teaches the same steps of heating cyclotene in an oil-containing composition to form an in-oil-heated substance of cyclotene and adding the in-oil-heated substance of cyclotene to a food that comprises oil/fat as the instant claims thus prior art will necessarily provide the purpose of enhancing a mouth-coating feel.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Lin as applied to claim 7 and 14 above, and further evidenced by Cavallaro US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0354471 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Cavallaro) or Manhas US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0305425 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Manhas).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Luo as recited above teaches a method of making a food (e.g., a braised meat product) comprising adding a preserved vegetable flavoring essence obtained from heating a mixture that comprises black pepper oil and cinnamon oil in an oil-containing composition. As evidenced by Cavallaro or Manhas, black pepper oil or cinnamon oil contains β-caryophyllene (0049 of Cavallaro; 0136 of Manhas). Therefore, Luo reads on the limitation about adding a heated substance of β-caryophyllene to the food.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on 04/03/2026 and 03/03/2026 with respect to pending 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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 H 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights