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 .
The amendment filed 10/24/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-12, 16-23 are pending. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 recites “the at least one natural binding agent” and should properly read “the natural binding agent”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 6-9, 10-12, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 recite an amount of honey, chicory root syrup, and date paste in the binding agent of the meal replacement bar, but does not recite an amount of binding agent to be included in the meal replacement bar. The instant Specification describes the meal replacement bar (not the binding syrup) comprising the recited amounts of honey, chicory syrup, and date paste (Page 8). There is therefore insufficient support to claim the “binding agent” comprising honey, chicory syrup, and date paste in the amounts claimed.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-12, and 16-23 depend from independent Claims 1, 6, and 10 and are therefore also rejected.
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 1-5, 6-9, 10-12, and 16-23 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 10 recite providing vitamins and minerals at a level of recommended daily intake (RDI). However, RDI is variable and would therefore encompass a different amount of vitamins and minerals depending on the target population. Since the claimed amount of vitamins and minerals is indefinite, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-12, and 16-23 depend from independent Claims 1, 6, and 10 and are therefore also rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-5, 10-12, and 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer (US 2005/0002989, January 2005) in view of DeRoode (WO 2017/078519).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Palmer teaches a meal replacement bar product [0091 and 0099]. The bar comprises ingredients such as oats [0088] (which comprise protein, carbohydrates, and fiber) and fats [0068].
Palmer teaches the use of honey [0088] and 3-15% of a humectant [0063] such as date paste [0065].
Regarding the limitation that the binding agent is “in an amount effective for the meal replacement bar to maintain a shape”, Palmer teaches that the bar is cut into bars [0094], which requires that the binding agent allow the bar to maintain a shape.
Palmer teaches that the bar comprises vitamins and minerals sufficient to provide 5-45% of RDI for vitamin and minerals [0085].
Palmer does not address an amount of honey.
However, where Palmer teaches the addition of honey, and additionally where Palmer teaches that the bar may comprise up to 50% sweetener [0081], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have utilized honey as a sweetener in an amount of up to 50%, which encompasses the claimed range of honey. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since honey is a known sweetener appropriate for use in a bar-style food product.
Palmer teaches the addition of up to 15 wt% of inulin [0079], which encompasses the claimed range of chicory root syrup, but does not address the use of chicory root syrup as the source of inulin.
DeRoode teaches a cereal bar product (Page 1, Line 1) comprising an inulin syrup (Page 3, Lines 21-27). The syrup is derived from chicory root (Page 13, Lines 5-6). DeRoode teaches that chicory is the main source of inulin in the food industry (Page 1, Lines 23-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize chicory root syrup as the inulin of Palmer. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since DeRoode teaches that chicory root is the main source of inulin in the food industry.
Note that modified Palmer does not explicitly teach that honey, date paste, and chicory root syrup are the “binding agent” of the meal replacement bar. However, given that modified Palmer teaches all the ingredients as claimed in the amounts claimed, the honey, date paste, and chicory root syrup of modified Palmer are expected to act as a binding agent in the meal replacement bar product.
Regarding Claim 2, Palmer teaches that the bar is molded and then cut into bars [0102].
Regarding Claim 3 and 16, Palmer teaches the use of soy and rice protein, which are plant proteins (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 4, Palmer teaches the use of grains [0093].
Regarding Claim 5, 18, 22, and 23, Palmer teaches that the bar has 50-250 kcals per 45-70g serving [0089], which overlaps the claimed range.
Palmer teaches that the bar may comprise, e.g. 22.4% protein (Page 6, Example 1, Bar A), which lies within the claimed range. Note that the amount of protein in the protein nuggets of Palmer is 60% * 6% + 80% * 23.5% = 22.4%.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Palmer teaches that the ingredients are mixed [0102] but does not specifically address the homogeneity of the binding agents and ingredients. However, it would be obvious to prepare a mixed meal replacement bar with well-dispersed and homogeneous ingredients. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to utilize a bar with uniform characteristics between bars.
Regarding Claim 17, Palmer teaches the addition of peanut butter [0088].
Regarding Claim 19, Palmer teaches an embodiment which does not comprise the claimed excluded ingredients (Page 6, Example 1).
Regarding Claim 20 and 21, Palmer does not address the total number of ingredients. However, one of ordinary skill would have been able to have adjusted the number of ingredients to have arrived at the number of ingredients as claimed through no more than routine experimentation. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer in view of DeRoode, and further in view of Food & Drink Business Europe (https://www.fdbusiness.com/pgp-launches-90-soy-protein-crisp/)
Regarding Claim 6, Palmer teaches a meal replacement bar product [0091 and 0099]. The bar comprises ingredients such as oats [0088], which comprises protein, carbohydrates, and fiber, and fats [0068].
Palmer teaches the use of honey [0088] and 3-15% of a humectant [0063] such as date paste [0065].
Regarding the limitation that the binding agent is “in an amount effective for the meal replacement bar to maintain a shape”, Palmer teaches that the bar is cut into bars [0094], which requires that the binding agent allow the bar to maintain a shape.
Palmer teaches that the bar comprises vitamins and minerals sufficient to provide 5-45% of RDI for vitamin and minerals [0085].
Palmer does not address an amount of honey.
However, where Palmer teaches the addition of honey, and additionally where Palmer teaches that the bar may comprise up to 50% sweetener [0081], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have utilized honey as a sweetener in an amount of up to 50%, which encompasses the claimed range of honey. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since honey is a known sweetener appropriate for use in a bar-style food product.
Palmer teaches the addition of up to 15 wt% of inulin [0079], which encompasses the claimed range of chicory root syrup, but does not address the use of chicory root syrup.
DeRoode teaches a cereal bar product (Page 1, Line 1) comprising an inulin syrup (Page 3, Lines 21-27). The syrup is derived from chicory root (Page 13, Lines 5-6). DeRoode teaches that chicory is the main source of inulin in the food industry (Page 1, Lines 23-24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize chicory root syrup as the inulin of Palmer. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since DeRoode teaches that chicory root is the main source of inulin in the food industry.
Note that modified Palmer does not explicitly teach that honey, date paste, and chicory root syrup are the “binding agent” of the meal replacement bar. However, given that modified Palmer teaches all the ingredients as claimed in the amounts claimed, the honey, date paste, and chicory root syrup of modified Palmer are expected to act as a binding agent in the meal replacement bar product.
Palmer teaches the inclusion of soy protein [0035] but does not teach the addition of a protein crisp.
Food & Drink Business Europe (F&D) teaches that protein crisps deliver an optimum amount of soy protein, and are suitable for use in protein and energy bars.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a protein crisp as taught by F&D in the meal replacement bar of Palmer. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since F&D teaches that protein crisps are suitable for such an application.
Regarding Claim 7, Palmer teaches that the bar is molded and then cut into bars [0102].
Regarding Claim 8, Palmer teaches the use of soy and rice protein, which are plant proteins (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 9, Palmer teaches the use of grains [0093].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-12 and 16-20 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
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 DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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.
/D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791