Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/314,061

USE OF LIQUID SMOKE IN CONJUNCTION WITH FOOD GRADE COATINGS TO CONTROL PEST INFESTATIONS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 08, 2023
Examiner
STULII, VERA
Art Unit
1791
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Mississippi State University
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
32%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 6m
To Grant
57%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 32% of cases
32%
Career Allow Rate
275 granted / 851 resolved
-32.7% vs TC avg
Strong +25% interview lift
Without
With
+25.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 6m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
892
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
61.1%
+21.1% vs TC avg
§102
12.3%
-27.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.3%
-22.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 851 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Election/Restrictions Claims 11-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/30/2025. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 4-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DuCharme, Jr. et al (EP 1466533 A1). In regard to claim 1, DuCharme, Jr. et discloses a food-grade coating composition that comprises a mixture of liquid smoke and propylene glycol: Non fibrous casings and methods of manufacturing nonfibrous casings containing the liquid smoke composition are disclosed (Abstract). Beneficially, additional components that may be added to the shirring or application solution used on the casing include well-known ingredients such as: an antioxidant color stabilizer such as a tocopherol, ascorbate, or sodium erythorbate; glycerine, propylene glycol, or oils, such as vegetable oil, added to promote spreading of the coloring on the casing surface and enhance uniformity of color transfer to the sausage surface; surfactants such as lecithin, polysorbates including polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monolaurate, or ethoxylated monodiglycerides may be employed to facilitate uniformity, spreadability, and/or transferability of the inventive liquid smoke system from the casing to the encased foodstuff ([0051]). This example illustrates the precipitation of tars from the liquid smoke solution of the present invention when mixed with water or with a known tar stabilizer, propylene glycol ("PG") (Example 1, [0057]). DuCharme, Jr. et discloses that nonfibrous casings containing the liquid smoke composition are used for food products, such as sausages ([0001]). The recitation of “for controlling pest infestation and pest reproduction” is an intended use recitation. The instant claim is directed to the food-grade coating composition, not to the process of using such composition. In regard to claims 4 and 5-6, DuCharme, Jr. et discloses: As the term is used herein, "casings" may be planar or tubular nonfibrous films, or may be in the form of pouches or bags. The casings may be wrapped around a foodstuff by any of the well known means in the art ([0047]). Hence, in regard to claims 4, 5-6, DuCharme, Jr. et discloses a food acceptable carrier for the composition such as edible coating, wrap, pouch or bag. In regard to claim 9, DuCharme, Jr. et discloses that the food product is pork, ham, etc: The inventive process is particularly useful with small diameter casings, and even more particularly as tubular nonfibrous casings that are used for processing foodstuffs, such as sausages made of emulsified or coarsely ground meat. It is also useful in casings that are larger bags or pouches used to surround whole muscle meat products, such as hams, beef, chickens or chicken parts, veal, and pork, which are then processed in the casings ([0044]). In regard to claim 10, DuCharme, Jr. et discloses: A method of manufacturing nonfibrous casing, wherein the casing is made from a viscose solution that is extruded as a tube into a coagulation and regenerating bath, thereby producing a cellulosic tube in a gel state, which gel tube is ultimately dried, the method comprising applying to the interior of the dried casing a liquid smoke composition as claimed in any preceding claim. 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. 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. Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuCharme, Jr. et al (EP 1466533 A1). In regard to claim 2, DuCharme, Jr. et al is silent as to the relative amounts of liquid smoke and propylene glycol. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to vary the concentrations of liquid smoke and propylene glycol applied to the food casing depending on the desired flavoring and coloring effect and stabilizing effect provided by propylene glycol. In regard to claim 7, DuCharme, Jr. et al discloses: As the term is used herein, "casings" may be planar or tubular nonfibrous films, or may be in the form of pouches or bags. The casings may be wrapped around a foodstuff by any of the well known means in the art ([0047]). Hence, the casing could be wrapped around the meat product by any well known means including a net. In regard to the polymer, DuCharme, Jr. et al discloses nylon and plastic (claim 7). Claim(s) 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuCharme, Jr. et al (EP 1466533 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Haus et al (CA 2754989 A1). In regard to claim 8, DuCharme, Jr. et discloses a food acceptable carrier for the composition such as edible coating, wrap, pouch or bag. In regard to claims 3 and 8,DuCharme, Jr. et al does not disclose the presence of xanthan gum in the liquid smoke composition. Haus et al discloses liquid smoke ink applied to the meat casing (Abstract). Haus et al discloses xanthan gum as a suitable viscosity-modifying agent added to the liquid smoke composition: Optionally, the smoke ink composition of the present invention can include Food grade additives known in the art to affect at least one characteristic such as color of the meat, flavor of the meat, adhesion of the composition to the meat and viscosity of the composition. For example, the additives can include viscosity-modifying agents, surfactants, and the like. Suitable viscosity-modifying agents include cellulosics and gums, for example, cellulose, methylcellulose, hydroxypropyleellulose, starch, chitin, carrageenan, konjac, guar gum, xanthan gum, alginic acid and derivatives thereof, agar pectin, gelatin, and mixtures thereof (Page 5). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add xanthan gum as a suitable viscosity-modifying agent added to the liquid smoke composition as suggested by Haus et al. Haus et al is silent as to the relative amounts of liquid smoke and xanthan gum. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to vary the concentrations of liquid smoke and xanthan gum applied to the food casing depending on the desired flavoring and coloring effect and viscosity-modifying effect provided by xanthan gum. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERA STULII whose telephone number is (571)272-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30AM-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, 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. /VERA STULII/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 08, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 09, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595444
BEER-FLAVORED BEVERAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593860
HIGH INTENSITY SWEETENER-CONTAINING BEVERAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577513
Methods for Aging Alcohol Products Using Intelligent Ultrasonic Technology
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577512
FERMENTED BEVERAGE AND METHOD OF PRODUCING A FERMENTED BEVERAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570938
FLAVOR INFUSED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AND METHOD OF MAKING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
32%
Grant Probability
57%
With Interview (+25.0%)
4y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 851 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month