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 in the reply filed on 12/2/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
When there are drawings, there shall be a “brief description of the several views of the drawings” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.74.).
The section heading “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S)” is missing.
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 16-19 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 the limitation "each" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider precisely stating what “each” is referring to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the total weight of solids" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “total weight of solids”.
The abbreviation “BET” in Claim 1, line 7 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear what is the abbreviation is for. Please set for the unabbreviated text.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the BET surface area" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “BET surface area”.
Clarification and/or correction required.
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 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funaki et al. (US 2011/0054043) in view of Zyck et al. (US 6,569,472).
Regarding Claim 1, Funaki (‘043) teaches an edible coating composition comprising from about 18 wt. % to about 58 wt. % of a filmogenic polymer; from about 0 wt. % to about 30 wt. % of one or more additives; from about 42 wt. % to about 82 wt. % of precipitated calcium carbonate (PCC) particulate material, each based on the total weight of solids in the edible coating composition, (See Abs., paras. 11, 25, 33-41, Claims 1-3, 13-17, 20-22, 24-27.), however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the BET surface area of the precipitated calcium carbonate particulate material is about 15 m2/g or less.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one surface density over another. The claimed ratio is very broad and includes virtually every conceivable ratio.
Zyck (‘472) teaches a composition, similar to Funaki (‘043), including an antacid and precipitated calcium carbonate particulate wherein material area of the precipitated calcium carbonate particulate material is about 15 m2/g or less to provide a composition that delivers an antacid that provides long lasting relief to a consumer (See col. 1, ll. 5-12, col. 2, l. 52 to col. 3, l. 17, col. 4, ll. 7-56, 2.0 or 2.2 or 3.0 m2/g.).
The selection of surface area density would have been within the skillset of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a material that is processable using equipment known in the art and is consumable for the desired relief.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide Funaki’s (‘043) antacid precipitated calcium carbonate containing composition with precipitated calcium carbonate particulate material of the surface area as taught by Zyck (‘472) that delivers an antacid that provides long lasting relief to a consumer.
Regarding Claim 3, Funaki (‘043) teaches the composition discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the precipitated calcium carbonate particulate material has an oil absorption of at least about 50 ml/100 g, determined according to ISO 787-5.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that Funaki’s (‘043) precipitated calcium carbonate particulate material in view of Zyck (‘472) would have the same oil absorption properties as precipitated calcium carbonate has the same surface area.
Regarding Claim 4, Funaki (‘043) teaches wherein the filmogenic polymer is homopolymers and copolymers of vinyl alcohols, homopolymer and copolymers of maleic acid, gelatin, alginates, starches (See Claims 1-3, 10.).
Regarding Claim 5, Funaki (‘043) teaches comprising less than about 10 wt. % of TiO2 (See Abs., paras. 11, 25, 33-41, Claims 1-3, 13-17, 20-22, 24-27 where TiO2 is not a listed ingredient.).
Regarding Claim 6, Funaki (‘043) teaches being essentially free of TiO2 (See Abs., paras. 11, 25, 33-41, Claims 1-3, 13-17, 20-22, 24-27 where TiO2 is not a listed ingredient.).
Regarding Claim 7, Funaki (‘043) teaches wherein the edible coating composition is an edible pharmaceutical coating composition (See Abs., paras. 11, 25, 33-41.).
Claim(s) 2, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funaki et al. (US 2011/0054043) in view of Zyck et al. (US 6,569,472) and Wenk et al. (US 2015/0056124).
Regarding Claim 2, Funaki (‘043) teaches the composition discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the precipitated calcium carbonate particulate material comprises scalenohedral calcium carbonate particles.
Wenk (‘124) teaches using precipitated calcium carbonate particulate material comprises scalenohedral calcium carbonate particles for foodstuffs and pharmaceuticals that have stronger resistance to forming clusters/crystals during processing (See Abs., paras. 1, 2, 12, 13, 15.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide select scalenohedral calcium carbonate particles for Funaki’s (‘043) precipitated calcium carbonate particulate material in view of Wenk (‘124) to provide precipitated calcium carbonate that is stronger and does not form clusters during processing.
Regarding Claim 16, Funaki (‘043) teaches the composition discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the precipitated calcium carbonate particulate material has an oil absorption of at least about 50 ml/100 g, determined according to ISO 787-5.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that Funaki’s (‘043) precipitated calcium carbonate particulate material in view of Zyck (‘472) and Wenk (‘124) would have the same oil absorption properties as precipitated calcium carbonate has the same surface area.
Regarding Claim 17, Funaki (‘043) teaches wherein the filmogenic polymer is homopolymers and copolymers of vinyl alcohols, homopolymer and copolymers of maleic acid, gelatin, alginates, starches (See Claims 1-3, 10.).
Regarding Claim 18, Funaki (‘043) teaches comprising less than about 10 wt. % of TiO2 (See Abs., paras. 11, 25, 33-41, Claims 1-3, 13-17, 20-22, 24-27 where TiO2 is not a listed ingredient.).
Regarding Claim 19, Funaki (‘043) teaches wherein the edible coating composition is an edible pharmaceutical coating composition (See Abs., paras. 11, 25, 33-41.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 December 2, 2025
Prosecution Insights