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 .
Status of the Application
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-20
Withdrawn claims: 1-8 and 14-20
Previously canceled claims: None
Newly canceled claims: None
Amended claims: 9
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 9-13
Currently rejected claims: 9-13
Allowed claims: None
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 9-13, in the reply filed on 05/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strobel et al. (U.S. 2020/0046661 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Strobel et al. discloses a method of reducing microbial contamination of raw animal tissue during meat processing for preparation of food products, the method comprising administering an effective amount of a composition to the raw animal tissue ([0079], where treatment of meats “in which contamination is commonly a problem” with the composition functioning as an antimicrobial spray is considered to anticipate the claimed method steps; [0347]-[0348]), the composition comprising an organic acid component (i.e. propanoic acid, a.k.a., propionic acid) ([0007]), isoamyl hexanoates ([0007]), and lecithin ([0141], [0146]).
As for claim 12, Strobel et al. discloses the microbial contamination that is reduced is Salmonella contamination ([0347]-[0348]).
As for claim 13, Strobel et al. discloses the raw animal tissue is from chicken (i.e., poultry) ([0348]).
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strobel et al. (U.S. 2020/0046661 A1).
As for claim 11, Strobel et al. discloses the composition comprises a mixture of the propionic acid and the isoamyl hexanoates at a volume ratio of 7:2 ([0009]).
Strobel et al. does not disclose the volume percent of the mixture in a composition as being in the range of 1.25-2.5% or the volume percent of lecithin as being 0.02%.
However, Strobel et al. discloses an embodiment comprising 1% of the composition ([0243]) and further discloses that “it is typically edible in dilute solutions” ([0347]), which suggests low concentrations of the mixture are suited for use in the treatment of meat. MPEP 2144.05 I states: “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close”. The disclosed concentration of 1% and the generalized suggestion of using dilute solutions are considered adequate to render a concentration of 1.25% obvious, which likewise renders the claimed range of 1.25-2.5% obvious to a skilled practitioner.
As for the lecithin concentration, Strobel et al. indicates it may be used as an optional coating ([0141]) or as a dispersing agent or emulsifying agent ([0146]), which renders obvious a range of values of from 0% to amounts larger than 0%. A skilled practitioner would recognize that the lecithin may be added at a concentration that achieves the desired effects related to its disclosed uses, thus rendering its concentration a result-effective variable. MPEP 2144.05 II B. The claimed concentration of 0.02% lecithin is thus considered obvious to a skilled practitioner due the relatively low amount being in a range that would be characteristic of an ingredient added as a coating or emulsifying agent and the lecithin concentration being a result-effective variable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG whose telephone number is (571)270-5272. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights