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 .
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cook (US 5,482,722).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 6-11, Cook discloses a chewing gum base comprising zein (i.e., base filler component that is an insoluble protein) and an elastomer, e.g., styrene butadiene rubber, isobutylene rubber, chicle, Pontianak gum, jelutong gum or polyvinylacetate (i.e., non-filler base component (C1/L52-C2/L10, C2/L62-C3/L67, C4/L45-57, C11/L25-67/Example 5).
Given Cook discloses zein, a protein obtained from corn, inherently the protein must be purified to some extent.
While Cook discloses the chewing gum can comprise mineral filler, the reference does not require that the chewing gum base comprise mineral filler (C7/L13-17). The gum base is considered to be free of mineral filler. Note, the chewing gum base of Example 5 does not include a mineral filler (C11/L25-C12/L6).
Regarding claim 2, Cook discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Cook discloses the chewing gum base comprises 18% by weight zein (C11/L54-56/Example 5).
Regarding claim 3, Cook discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Cook discloses a chewing gum base comprising about 58 % of an elastomer, (i.e., styrene butadiene rubber or isobutylene rubber-C11/L45-56/Example 5), the reference is silent with respect to an amount of from 75% to 99.5% by weight of the chewing gum base. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust, in routine processing, the amount of elastomer in the chewing gum base to obtain a chewing gum would desired chew and texture (e.g., elastic) properties while maintaining the intended reduced stickiness.
Regarding claim 5, Cook discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Cook discloses zein (i.e., water-insoluble protein) and claim 1 only requires a filler selected from the group consisting of water-insoluble polysaccharides and derivatives thereof, water-insoluble bamboo fibers, water-insoluble proteins and combinations thereof, the limitations of claim 5 are satisfied.
Regarding claims 12, 15, 17-22, Cook discloses a chewing gum comprising a chewing gum base wherein the chewing gum base comprises zein (i.e., base filler component that is an insoluble protein) and an elastomer, e.g., styrene butadiene rubber, isobutylene rubber, chicle, Pontianak gum, jelutong gum or polyvinylacetate (i.e., non-filler base component (C1/L52-C2/L10, C2/L62-C3/L67, C4/L45-57, C11/L25-67/Example 5).
Given Cook discloses zein, a protein obtained from corn, inherently the protein must be purified to some extent.
While Cook discloses the chewing gum can comprise mineral filler, the reference does not require that the chewing gum base comprise mineral filler (C7/L13-17). The gum base is considered to be free of mineral filler. Note, the chewing gum base of Example 5 does not include a mineral filler (C11/L25-C12/L6).
Regarding claim 13, Cook discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Cook discloses the chewing gum base comprises 18% by weight zein (C11/L54-56/Example 5).
Regarding claim 14, Cook discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Cook discloses a chewing gum base comprising about 58 % of an elastomer, (i.e., styrene butadiene rubber or isobutylene rubber-C11/L45-56/Example 5), the reference is silent with respect to an amount of from 75% to 99.5% by weight of the chewing gum base. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust, in routine processing, the amount of elastomer in the chewing gum base to obtain a chewing gum would desired chew and texture (e.g., elastic) properties while maintaining the intended reduced stickiness.
Regarding claim 16, Cook discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Cook discloses zein (i.e., water-insoluble protein) and claim 1 only requires a filler selected from the group consisting of water-insoluble polysaccharides and derivatives thereof, water-insoluble bamboo fibers, water-insoluble proteins and combinations thereof, the limitations of claim 5 are satisfied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights