Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/251,706

EXTRUDED PARTICLE

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
May 03, 2023
Priority
Nov 10, 2020 — EU 20206605.6 +1 more
Examiner
JACOBSON, MICHELE LYNN
Art Unit
1793
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Firmenich S.A.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
26%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
59%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 26% of cases
26%
Career Allowance Rate
92 granted / 350 resolved
-38.7% vs TC avg
Strong +32% interview lift
Without
With
+32.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
405
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
86.2%
+46.2% vs TC avg
§102
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
§112
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 350 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-7 and 13-20 in the reply filed on 27 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 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 1-7 and 13-20 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. Claim 1 recites “an active ingredient, preferably comprising a flavor or perfume”. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made. (MPEP 2173.05(d)) Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2 and 14 recite “the carrier system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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. 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 1-7 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener CN 111803467 (machine translation placed in the file wrapper 1 July 2025, 18pgs, used herein for translation and reference). Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19, Weiner teaches a method for preparing an extruded particle comprising: Mixing a carrier material (alginate, Pg. 12), a plasticizer in the form of water present in the hydrate of an active ingredient (Pg. 7), wax (such as beeswax, carnauba wax or paraffin wax, Pg. 8) and an active ingredient (Pg. 11) Heating the mixture (Pg. 11) Extruding the mixture through a die to form an extrudate (Pg. 11) Cutting the extrudate to form an extruded particle (Pg. 11) The mixture of step a) is heated to a temperature exceeding the melting point of at least one of the waxes an extruded at a temperature above such melting point. (Pg. 11, see examples) Therefore, the disclosure of Wiener encompasses the invention recited in claims 1, 3-5, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19. Regarding claims 2 and 14, Weiner teaches that the wax material is present in an amount of 5-35 wt%. (Pg. 9) which overlaps with the proportion recited in claims 2 and 14. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Regarding claims 6, 17 and 20, Weiner discloses adding lubricant to the composition for extrusion. (Pg. 9) Regarding claims 7, 17 and 20, Weiner discloses adding carbohydrate such as sucrose, glucose, dextrose, mannitol or sorbitol to the composition for extrusion. (Pg. 11) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele L Jacobson whose telephone number is (571)272-8905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10-6. 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. /Michele L Jacobson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 03, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12677857
FLAVORING COMPOSITIONS
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12628842
METHOD OF IMPROVING THE TEXTURE AND FUNCTIONALITY OF A DRY FRACTIONATED PLANT PROTEIN CONCENTRATE BEVERAGE
3y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Patent 12600941
METHOD FOR PRODUCING BIOMASS USING HYDROGEN-OXIDIZING BACTERIA
3y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588685
Protein Ingredient and Oil Preparation from The Seeds of Macauba Fruit and Method for Preparing Same
3y 7m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12575593
TEXTURE MODIFIED FOOD PRODUCT
4y 6m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
26%
Grant Probability
59%
With Interview (+32.3%)
3y 11m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 350 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month