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 of Group II, claims 3-5 in the reply filed on November 11, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 190 (instant specification page 4 line 2); and 310, 320, 330, 340, and 350 (see instant specification page 4 lines 12-16 and page 7 lines 19-24. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 210, 220, 230, 240, and 250 have been used to designate both primary oxidation products in Figures 2A-D and Secondary oxidation products shown in Figures 3A-D. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 3-5 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 3 recites “A method of extending the shelf-life of food products”, plural, and also recites in the body of the claim that “a (singular) food product” is treated. Thus, it is unclear as to if the method as claimed requires one or more food products for treatment, a singular product, or a plurality of products.
Claims 4 and 5 are unclear as they depend from claim 1 which has been canceled. It is unclear as to if the claims should also be canceled with claim 1, should be written in an independent form, or depend from another claim, such as claim 3.
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajal et al (IN 2064/CHE/2010 A) in view of Hosseini et al (“Chitosan/sodium tripolyphosphate nanoparticles as efficient vehicles for antioxidant peptidic fraction common kilka) and Cheng et al (CN 106172892 machine translation) and Comer et al (WO 95/05747).
Kajal et al (Kajal) teaches a process of preparing a food supplement, i.e. a material to be added to food, comprising extraction from Jania rubens, of polyphenols which are antioxidants and phytochemicals (abstract, page 10 24-25, page 11 paragraph 1, page 14 Seaweed collection, Example 7, page 40 2nd and 3rd paragraph, and claims 1 and 11).
Kajal is silent to the polyphenols as nano-encapsulated in chitosan-tripolyphosphate (TPP), and to the addition of the polyphenols to the food as extending the shelf life of the food as recited in claim 3.
Hosseini et al (Hosseini) teaches practical uses of antioxidants have limitations and that encapsulation with chitosan nanoparticles, including chitosan tripolyphosphate could overcome them (abstract).
Cheng et al (Cheng) teaches stabilizing olive oil with tea- polyphenol rich antioxidants encapsulated in chitosan TPP. Cheng teaches that the stability of the product is higher, the shelf life prolonged, bioavailability is higher, and antioxidant activity is higher; and the process is simple, has high efficiency, low raw material price, widely used raw materials, and good application prospects. Refer to abstract, page 1 lines 39-46, and page 2 lines 12-19. Cheng teaches that chitosan is an ideal raw material for the preparation of food nanomaterials, has been widely used as a carrier, and has good biocompatibility and biodegradability (page 1 lines 39-46). Cheng teaches that the chitosan nanoparticles are formed with sodium TPP (page 2 steps 3 and 4).
Comer et al (Comer) teaches using natural antioxidants to reduce or eliminate oxidative deterioration of fats and oils. Comer teaches that free radical scavengers reduce the rate of oxidation that was known to occur in fats and oils and thus improve shelf life. Refer to abstract, page 2 lines 10-21, and page 3 lines 3-6. Comer teaches that there is a growing trend to use natural antioxidants for consumers (page 3 lines 11-15)
Regarding the polyphenols as nano-encapsulated in chitosan-tripolyphosphate (TPP) as recited in claim 3, as discussed above, Kajal teaches preparing a food supplement, i.e. a material to be added to food, comprising polyphenols which are antioxidants and phytochemicals. It would have been obvious for the extracted polyphenol/antioxidant/phytochemical composition of Kajal to be nano-encapsulated with chitosan-TPP to overcome the limitations for practical use applications in view of Hosseini and/or to increase bioavailability, and/or stability, and/or shelf life through a method which uses an ideal material, is simple, has high efficiency, low cost and widely used raw materials, and good application prospects in view of Cheng. Thus, the method of the prior art would result in having nanoparticles having extracted phytochemicals or anti-oxidants from Jania Rubens nano encapsulated with chitosan TPP (step a) added to a food product (step b) as claimed.
Regarding the addition of the polyphenols to the food as extending the shelf life of the food as recited in claim 3, as discussed above, the teachings of the prior art make obvious the method steps a and b as claimed. The recited limitation is in the preamble, and thus is only considered as it breathes life into the claims. In the instant case, as the prior art discloses the same active method steps as claimed, the method of the prior would produce the same result as claimed, i.e. a method of extending the shelf life of the food products. This position is further supported as Comer teaches using natural antioxidants, such as those in the composition of Kajal, reduce or eliminate oxidative deterioration of fats and oils; and/or as Kajal teaches that the composition reduces lipid peroxidation ability and thus would be reduce lipid oxidation in the food to which it was add and/or as Kajal teaches that the food has free radical scavenging activity and Comer teaches that free radical scavengers reduce the rate of oxidation that was known to occur in fats and oils and thus improves shelf life. Furthermore, it is noted that the active method step in the body of the claim only requires that the ingredient be added to a food product. The claim does not limit or require any specific shelf life be achieved, nor does it limit the food product type. The claim only requires that some extension of shelf life be achieved. As the method of the prior art makes obvious adding the same active ingredient to food products, the same result would be expected.
Alternatively, as antioxidants were known to improve the stability and thus shelf life of fats as taught by Comer and/or Cheng, to use the product as Kajal to improve the shelf life of edible fats and oils would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. As Kajal teaches of using the product in foods, and that the product reduces lipid peroxidation ability, to do so is an obvious suggestion of the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gokas et al (“Recent Advances in Nanoencapsulation of Phytochemicals to Combat Obesity and Its Comorbidities” Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry July 2020 pages 1-40) teaches nanoencapsulation of phytochemicals increases stability and prevents premature degradation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY BEKKER whose telephone number is (571)272-2739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-3:30pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
KELLY BEKKER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1792
/KELLY J BEKKER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792