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 of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed March 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-16
Withdrawn claims:
15-16
Previously canceled claims:
None
Newly canceled claims:
None
Amended claims:
1, 3-5, 14, 16
New claims:
None
Claims currently under consideration:
1-14
Currently rejected claims:
1-14
Allowed claims:
None
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 1, delete the phrase “of the class of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (US 2011/0020507 A1) in view of Cohen (Cohen, Samuel M., et al. “A Critical Review of the Toxicological Effects of Carrageenan and Processed Eucheuma Seaweed on the Gastrointestinal Tract”, Critical Reviews in Toxicology, Vol. 32(5), p. 413-444, published 2002 [accessed online September 24, 2025]).
Regarding claim 1, Yuan teaches a stabilizer system comprising a carrageenan component (i.e., a food additive; [0021]) derived from carrageenan-bearing seaweed ([0034]), where mu carrageenan is present in an amount from about 4% by weight to about 6% by weight of the carrageenan component ([0008]), which falls within the claimed range of “at least 4 wt.%”. Although Yuan does not teach that the carrageenan component (i.e., the food ingredient) is obtained from Rhodophyta, the source of the mu carrageenan does not carry patentable weight. Mu carrageenan derived from Rhodophyta vs. mu carrageenan obtained via a different method would be patentably indistinguishable. Therefore, the composition of Yuan teaches the mu carrageenan food ingredient.
Yuan does not teach wherein the weight average molecular weight of carrageenan present in the food ingredient is at least 700 kDa.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cohen teaches that food-grade carrageenan has a weight average molecular weight greater than 100,000 Da (equivalent to 100 kDa; Abstract), which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 700 kDa”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the food additive composition of Yuan to utilize carrageenan with a weight average molecular weight as taught by Cohen. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make this modification because Cohen teaches that food-grade carrageenan has a weight average molecular weight greater than 100,000 Da (Abstract).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2144.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 2-4, Yuan in view of Cohen teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Yuan also teaches that carrageenans can be derived from Kappaphycus alvarezii ([0029]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Yuan in view of Cohen teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above. Yuan also teaches where mu carrageenan is present in an amount from about 2% by weight to about 7% by weight of the carrageenan component (i.e., the food ingredient; [0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 5 wt.%” (claim 5) and “from 6 to 20 wt.%”.
Regarding claim 7, Yuan in view of Cohen teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above.
Yuan does not teach wherein the weight average molecular weight of carrageenan present in the food ingredient is at least 1200 kDa.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cohen teaches that food-grade carrageenan has a weight average molecular weight greater than 100,000 Da (equivalent to 1,000 kDa; Abstract), which overlaps with the claimed range of “1200 kDa”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the food additive composition of Yuan to utilize carrageenan with a weight average molecular weight as taught by Cohen. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make this modification because Cohen teaches that food-grade carrageenan has a weight average molecular weight greater than 100,000 Da (Abstract).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 10, Yuan in view of Cohen teaches the product of claim 1 as described above. Yuan also teaches that the milk beverage comprises the carrageenan stabilizer system and milk protein ([0008]).
Regarding claim 11, Yuan in view of Cohen teaches all elements of claim 10 as described above. Yuan also teaches that the beverage may comprise soy protein (Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Yuan in view of Cohen teaches the product of claim 1 as described above. Yuan also teaches a milk beverage (i.e., a foodstuff) comprising the carrageenan stabilizer system (Abstract).
Regarding claim 13, Yuan in view of Cohen teaches all elements of claim 12 as described above. Yuan also teaches that the carrageenan component (i.e., the food additive) is present in the beverage in an amount from 0.05% to about 0.60% by weight of the beverage ([0035]), which falls within the claimed range of “no greater than 7 wt.%”.
Regarding claim 14, Yuan in view of Cohen teaches all elements of claim 12 as described above. Yuan also teaches a milk beverage (i.e., a dairy foodstuff; Abstract) and that the carrageenan component (i.e., the food additive) is present in the beverage in an amount from 0.05% to about 0.60% by weight of the beverage ([0035]), which falls within the claimed range of “0.02 wt.% to 1 wt.%”.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (US 2011/0020507 A1) in view of Cohen (Cohen, Samuel M., et al. “A Critical Review of the Toxicological Effects of Carrageenan and Processed Eucheuma Seaweed on the Gastrointestinal Tract”, Critical Reviews in Toxicology, Vol. 32(5), p. 413-444, published 2002 [accessed online September 24, 2025]) as evidenced by Shukla (Shukla, Pushp S., et al. “Carrageenans from Red Seaweeds as Promoters of Growth and Elicitors of Defense Response in Plants”, Frontiers in Marine Science, Vol. 3, Article 81, published May 31, 2016 [accessed online April 25, 2025])(provided in previous office action) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tsai (US 7,018,635 B2).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Yuan in view of Cohen teaches all elements of claim 1 as described above.
The cited prior art does not teach wherein the food ingredient comprises acid insoluble matter in an amount of from 3 to 20 wt.% (claim 8) or from 5 to 15 wt.% (claim 9) based on the total weight of the food ingredient.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tsai teaches of a carrageenan product that comprises at least about 2% by weight of acid insoluble material (col. 3, lines 60-64), which encompasses the claimed range of “from 3 to 20 wt.%” (claim 8) or “from 5 to 15 wt.%” (claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Yuan with the addition of the amount of acid insoluble materials as taught by Tsai. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Tsai teaches the acid insoluble material comprises predominately cellulosic material (col. 8, lines 49-51) and that the carrageenan product has improved hydration while maintaining acceptable color and appearance suitable for use in food products (col. 3, lines 21-24).
Response to Arguments
Specification: Applicant has overcome the objections to the specification based on amendments to the Specification. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections: Applicant has overcome the objections to claims 4 and 14 based on amendments in the Claims. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §112(d): Applicant has overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejections of claim 5 based on amendments to the claims. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1-7 and 10-14 over Yuan and Cohen: Applicant’s arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Yuan’s examples all contain high acyl gellan gum, whereas the food ingredient of claim 1 does not comprise high acyl gellan gum (Remarks, p. 7, ¶ 5).
This argument has been considered. However, claim 1 presently recites “the food ingredient contains”. MPEP §2111.03(I) states “The transitional term ‘comprising’, which is synonymous with ‘including,’ ‘containing,’ or ‘characterized by,’ is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.” Thus, the food ingredient of claim 1 can include ingredients that not are recited, such as the high acyl gellan gum of Yuan.
Applicant further argued that 100,000 Da is 100 kDa. Thus, Cohen fails to teach or fairly suggest a carrageenan having a weight average molecular weight of at least 700 kDa (Remarks, p. 8, ¶ 1-2).
This argument has been considered. The Examiner acknowledges that an error in calculation was made converting 100,000 Da to kDa. However, regardless of the error, Cohen teaches that food-grade carrageenan has a weight average molecular weight greater than 100,000 Da (equivalent to 100 kDa; Abstract). Thus, the disclosure of Cohen overlaps with the claimed range of “at least 700 kDa”. MPEP §2144.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
The rejections of claims 1-14 have been maintained herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Generally available M-Th 8:00a-5:00p, F 8:00-2:00.
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, 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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights