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 .
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.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris(5232732).
Regarding claims 1,3, Harris teaches a composition for making bouillons(soup mix) comprising(col 4, line 33-65)
a)0% vegetable oil
b)10.17% sugar(crystalline disaccharide)
c)11.71% herbs, spices, and vegetables
d)0% native ungelatinized starch
e)11.05% maltodextrin with a DE of 13 to 17.0(glass carbohydrate material)
f)19.32% chicken fat
g)0.66% sodium(5.10% MSG which contains 13% sodium)(col 4, line 35-53).
Harris teaches 11.05% maltodextrin and not 15 to 50wt% as claimed. It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed 15% and that taught by Harris are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a "slight" difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not "render the claims patentable" or, alternatively, that "a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties".
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of maltodextrin depending on the texture desired in the bouillon composition.
The ratio of starch(which is assumed to be the native ungelatinized starch) to glassy carbohydrate material is 0 because the amount of native ungelatinized starch is 0.
Harris silent on the glassy carbohydrate being in the form of shards. However, the shape of the carbohydrate does not appear to have any effect on the properties of the product and could be adjusted depending on ease of making and availability of the maltodextrin.
Regarding claim 2, Harris teaches that the composition comprises 0.66% sodium(5.10% MSG which contains 13% sodium)(col 4, line 35-53), which equates to 6.6mg Na+ to 100g in the ready-to-eat bouillon.
Regarding claim 4, Harris teaches 5.10% monosodium glutamate as a seasoning component (col 4, line 33-65) and not 0 to 1wt% as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to use another commonly known sodium containing seasoning component such as NaCl to provide the desired salty flavor.
Regarding claim 5, Harris teaches that the particles in the bouillon cube has a particle size of 100% fitting through a no 5 mesh size(4000 microns). Therefore, the glassy carbohydrate has a Dv90 of less than 4000 microns, which overlaps the claimed range of 40 to 600 micrometers and renders it obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Harris teaches that the glassy carbohydrate is maltodextrin in an amount of 11.05% and not 25 to 42wt% as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of maltodextrin depending on the texture and volume desired in the bouillon composition since maltodextrin is a well-known bulking agent.
Regarding claim 16, Harris teaches a composition for making bouillons(soup mix) comprising(col 4, line 33-65)
a)0% vegetable oil
b)10% sugar(crystalline disaccharide)
c)11.71% herbs, spices, and vegetables
d)0% native ungelatinized starch
e)11.05% maltodextrin with a DE of 13 to 17.0(glass carbohydrate material)
f)19.32% chicken fat
g)0.66% sodium(5.10% MSG which contains 13% sodium)(col 4, line 35-53).
Harris teaches 11.05% maltodextrin and not 15 to 50wt% as claimed. However, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of maltodextrin depending on the texture and volume desired in the bouillon composition since maltodextrin is a well-known bulking agent.
The ratio of starch(which is assumed to be the native ungelatinized starch) to glassy carbohydrate material is 0 because the amount of native ungelatinized starch is 0.
Harris silent on the glassy carbohydrate being in the form of shards. However, the shape of the carbohydrate does not appear to have any effect on the properties of the product and could be adjusted depending on ease of making and availability of the maltodextrin.
Claim(s) 7,8,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris(5232732) in view of Haefliger(6579548).
Regarding claim 7, Harris teaches that use of chicken fat in the bouillon composition but does not specifically teach the use of palm fat. However, Haefliger teaches a granular product for bouillon which can comprise palm fat or chicken fat as the fat source(col 2, line 7-23). It would have been obvious to use palm fat instead of chicken fat as the fat in Harris since Haefliger teaches that palm fat is an acceptable alternative to chicken fat in a bouillon product.
Harris does not specifically teach that the glassy carbohydrate material is dry glucose syrup DE value ranging from 26 to 30 and/or polydextrose having a DE value ranging from 4 to 7 in an amount of 28 to 40wt%. However, it would have been obvious to adjust type and the amount of glassy carbohydrate depending on the texture desired in the bouillon composition.
Regarding claim 8, Harris teaches that use of chicken fat in the bouillon composition but does not specifically teach the use of palm fat. However, Haefliger teaches a granular product for bouillon which can comprise palm fat or chicken fat as the fat source(col 2, line 7-23). It would have been obvious to use palm fat instead of chicken fat as the fat in Harris since Haefliger teaches that palm fat is an acceptable alternative to chicken fat in a bouillon product.
Harris teaches 11.05% maltodextrin with a DE of 13 to 17 and not 28 to 40wt% as claimed. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of maltodextrin depending on the texture desired in the bouillon composition.
Harris teaches that the particles in the bouillon cube has a particle size of 100% fitting through a no 5 mesh size(4000 microns). Therefore, the glassy carbohydrate has a Dv90 of less than 4000 microns, which overlaps the claimed range of 50 to 100 micrometers and renders it obvious.
Regarding claim 10, Harris teaches a composition for making bouillons(soup mix) comprising(col 4, line 33-65)
a)0% vegetable oil
b)10.17% sugar(crystalline disaccharide)
c)11.71% herbs, spices, and vegetables
d)0% native ungelatinized starch
e)11.05% maltodextrin with a DE of 13 to 17.0(glass carbohydrate material)
f)19.32% chicken fat
g)0.66% sodium(5.10% MSG which contains 13% sodium)(col 4, line 35-53).
Harris teaches that the particles in the bouillon cube has a particle size of 100% fitting through a no 5 mesh size(4000 microns). Therefore, the glassy carbohydrate has a Dv90 of less than 4000 microns, which overlaps the claimed range of 70 to 400 micrometers and renders it obvious.
Harris teaches that use of chicken fat in the bouillon composition but does not specifically teach the use of palm fat. However, Haefliger teaches a granular product for bouillon which can comprise palm fat or chicken fat as the fat source(col 2, line 7-23). It would have been obvious to use palm fat instead of chicken fat as the fat in Harris since Haefliger teaches that palm fat is an acceptable alternative to chicken fat in a bouillon product.
It would have been obvious to make the bouillon composition into a pasty tablet in the size of 8 to 12 grams depending on the nature of the intended product and amount of soup desired.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris(5232732) in view of Bobe(US2020/0120963).
Regarding claim 9, Harris teaches a composition for making bouillons(soup mix) comprising(col 4, line 33-65)
a)0% vegetable oil
b)10.17% sugar(crystalline disaccharide)
c)11.71% herbs, spices, and vegetables
d)0% native ungelatinized starch
e)11.05% maltodextrin with a DE of 13 to 17.0(glass carbohydrate material)
f)19.32% chicken fat
g)0.66% sodium(5.10% MSG which contains 13% sodium)(col 4, line 35-53).
The ratio of starch(which is assumed to be the native ungelatinized starch) to glassy carbohydrate material is 0 because the amount of native ungelatinized starch is 0.
Harris does not specifically teach that the fat is shea fat. However, Bobe teaches a bouillon cube comprising a fat composition in the form of pam fat(para 30). It would have been obvious to use shea fat as the fat in Harris since Bobe teaches that shea fat can form an acceptable bouillon tablet or cube with good flavor.
Harris does not specifically teach that the glassy carbohydrate material is present in an amount of 30 to 40% and is dry glucose syrup DE value ranging from 26 to 30 or polydextrose. However, it would have been obvious to adjust type and the amount of glassy carbohydrate depending on the texture desired in the bouillon composition.
Harris teaches that the particles in the bouillon cube has a particle size of 100% fitting through a no 5 mesh size(4000 microns). Therefore, the glassy carbohydrate has a Dv90 of less than 4000 microns, which overlaps the claimed range of 50 to 100 micrometers and renders it obvious.
It would have been obvious to make the bouillon composition into a pasty tablet in the size of 8 to 12 grams depending on the nature of the intended product and amount of soup desired.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Harris teaches 11.05% glassy carbohydrate material(maltodextrin) and not 15 to 50wt% as required in claim 1 and 25 to 42wt% in claim 6, and 20 to 50wt% as required in claim 16. However, maltodextrin is a well-known bulking agent that merely changes the volume and texture of the product and does not effect the flavor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of maltodextrin bulking agent depending on the volume and texture desired in the product.
The applicant argues that Harris silent on the glassy carbohydrate being in the form of shards. However, the shape of the carbohydrate does not appear to have any effect on the properties of the product and could be adjusted depending on ease of making and availability of the maltodextrin.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CA2308929
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KATHERINE D LEBLANC whose telephone number is (571)270-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM EST M-F.
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.
/KATHERINE D LEBLANC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
