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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-25 in the reply filed on January 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 26-34 have subsequently been cancelled by the Applicant in response to the restriction election.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-25, 35-40
Withdrawn claims:
None
Previously canceled claims:
None
Newly canceled claims:
26-34
Amended claims:
1-3, 10-11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 23-25
New claims:
35-40
Claims currently under consideration:
1-25, 35-40
Currently rejected claims:
1-25, 35-40
Allowed claims:
None
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 19, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8, add “[Symbol font/0xB0]C” after “204.444”;
Claim 19, amend “serial” to “cereal”;
Claim 25, line 11, amend “encapsulated” to “encapsulate”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 3, 14, 18-20 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 2 and 3 recite the limitation “a tastant”. It is unclear if this recitation is referring to the tastant added in claim 1 or if it refers to a different tastant. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that claims 2 and 3 recite “the tastant” as introduced in claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "gelatinization" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that claim 14 depends from claim 13.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the banana-pseudostem additive contains from about 0.1% to 99% by weight as a taste enhancer or texture modifier or additive in a food product”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite because one of ordinary skill would not be appraised to the scope of the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the banana-pseudostem additive is included in a food product in an amount of 0.1% to 99% by weight.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected due to dependency on claim 18.
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.
Claims 1, 4-12, 15-17, 22, and 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajakaruna (US 20160249663 A1) in view of Cecci (Cecci, Ricardo Rodrigo Ramos, et al. “Banana pseudostem fibers characterization and comparison with reported data on jute and sisal fibers”, Springer Nature Applied Sciences, Vol. 2, article no. 20, published December 4, 2019 [accessed online May 14, 2026]).
Regarding claim 1, Rajakaruna teaches a method of preparing a food additive from the inner core of a banana plant stem (i.e., banana pseudostem; Abstract), the method comprising:
Removing the outer layers of a banana plant stem to expose the inner core (i.e., pseudostem; [0008]);
Soaking the inner core (i.e., pseudostem) in an aqueous medium having a pH from about 4 to about 7 (i.e., an acid treatment) ([0008]);
Cutting the inner core to an appropriate size prior to soaking the inner core ([0015]; claim 55);
Boiling the inner core (i.e., pseudostem; [0008]);
Drying (i.e., reducing water) the inner core (i.e., psuedostem)([0008]) to a water content of about 2 wt% to about 50 wt% ([0026]), which lies within the claimed range of “from about 2% to about 95% by weight”;
Using the food additive as a carrier for flavors ([0044]). It necessarily follows that for the food additive to be a carrier of a flavor, said flavor (i.e., tastant) must be added in an effective amount to the food additive.
Although Rajakaruna does not teach that the pseudostem particles are broken up such that greater than or equal to 60% of the banana pseudostem particles have a size that is greater than or equal to 1 mm3 and less than or equal to 16,387 mm3, Rajakaruna teaches cutting the inner core to an appropriate size prior to soaking the inner core ([0015]; claim 55). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the size of the banana pseudostem during routine optimization to find the particle size that results in the appropriate particle size for soaking the core. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed range would thus be obvious.
Rajakaruna does not teach breaking up the banana pseudostem such that the particles provide hemicellulose and cellulose tubing structures.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Cecci discloses that banana stems have tube-like structures composed of cellulose and hemicellulose (p. 3, col. 1, ¶ 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Rajakaruna to cut the inner core to keep the tube-like cellulose and hemicellulose structures taught by Cecci intact. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Cecci teaches that the tube-like structures contribute to the transportation of water and nutrients in the stem (p. 3, col. 1, ¶ 3). One of ordinary skill would recognize that the tube-like structures would retain water from the boiling step or flavors added.
The preamble recitation “configured for modifying taste or texture in a food product” is interpreted as the intended use of the product produced by the claim method. This intended use does not result in a manipulative difference to the method as claimed. MPEP §2111.02(II) states if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Thus, the recitation “configured for modifying taste or texture in a food product” does not carry patentable weight.
Regarding claims 4-6 and 36-38, although Rajakaruna does not teach that the size distribution of the banana pseudostem particles, Rajakaruna teaches cutting the inner core to an appropriate size prior to soaking the inner core ([0015]; claim 55). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the size of the banana pseudostem during routine optimization to find the particle size that results in the appropriate particle size for soaking the core. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed ranges would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Rajakaruna teaches that the drying step (i.e., the step after boiling) is performed using an oven ([0024]), which is known in the art to be high heat.
Regarding claim 8, Rajakaruna teaches an embodiment where the processed banana stem (i.e., after boiling) is included in a muffin product that is baked at 400[Symbol font/0xB0]F ([0058]), which falls within the claimed range of “greater than or equal to 400[Symbol font/0xB0]F”.
Regarding claim 9, Rajakaruna also teaches reducing the size of the inner core (i.e., fragmenting the pseudostem) after drying ([0027]). Rajakaruna teaches that the drying step (i.e., the step after boiling) is performed using an oven ([0024]), which is known in the art to be high heat.
Regarding claim 10, Rajakaruna teaches an embodiment where the processed banana stem inner core is mixed with brown sugar (i.e., an ingredient having a sweet taste; [0056], Table 1).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Rajakaruna teaches adding an enzyme deactivating (i.e., enzyme-reaction inhibitor) amount of calcium chloride, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, or potassium carbonate (all known salts) during the boiling step (claim 53).
Regarding claim 15, Rajakaruna teaches that the soaking step is done at a pH of from about 4 to about 7 ([0008]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to 6.5”.
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2144.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 16, Rajakaruna teaches cutting (i.e., breaking up) the inner core prior to soaking in the aqueous medium ([0015]) which occurs before the boiling step ([0008]).
The recitation “allowing for effective enzyme deactivation process” is interpreted as a necessary result of performing the method step as claimed. Because Rajakaruna teaches the method step of claim 16, the process of Rajakaruna would necessarily allow for effective enzyme deactivation process.
Regarding claim 17, Rajakaruna teaches of a composition comprising the processed banana stem inner core and brown sugar that is added after the boiling step (i.e., a sweetener; [0056], Table 1).
Regarding claim 22, the recitation “wherein the banana-pseudostem food additive functions as one or more of a flavor enhancer, a texture modifier, and a slow taste-releasing agent” is interpreted as the intended use of the food additive produced by the process of claim 1 because it does not result in a manipulative difference to the method as claimed. Because the cited prior art teaches the method of claim 1, the food product resulting from the prior art method would be capable of performing the intended use of claim 22.
Regarding claim 39, although the cited prior art does not teach wherein the food product comprises 5% to 30% less of the one or more tastants than an equivalent food product has of the one of more tastants, Rajakaruna teaches that the banana food additive may replace a carbohydrate such as sugar ([0043]), which is a known tastant. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount of sugar (i.e., tastant) replaced in the food product during routine optimization to find the amount of food additive that provides the desired decrease in calories. MPEP §2144.05(II) states generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed range would thus be obvious.
Claims 2, 3, 13, 14, 23-25, 35, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajakaruna (US 20160249663 A1) in view of Cecci (Cecci, Ricardo Rodrigo Ramos, et al. “Banana pseudostem fibers characterization and comparison with reported data on jute and sisal fibers”, Springer Nature Applied Sciences, Vol. 2, article no. 20, published December 4, 2019 [accessed online May 14, 2026]) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heitfeld (Heitfeld, Kevin A. “Hydroxypropyl Cellulose for Flavor Encapsulation”, Master’s Thesis, University of Cincinnati, Department of Chemical and Materials Engineer of the College of Engineering, 2006 [accessed online May 14, 2026]).
Regarding claims 2, 3, 35, and 40 Rajakaruna and Cecci do not teach wherein greater than or equal to 1% (claim 40), 10% (claim 2), 20% (claim 35), or 50% (claim 3) of the hemicellulose and cellulose tubing structures encapsulate a tastant.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Heitfeld teaches of hydroxypropyl cellulose for flavor encapsulation (p. 44, ¶ 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Rajakaruna in view of Cecci to encapsulate the flavoring ingredient with hemicellulose and cellulose. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Heitfeld teaches that flavorings are vulnerable to premature release in the absence of encapsulation (p. 1, ¶ 1).
Although the cited prior art does not teach the amount of the flavoring (i.e., tastant) encapsulated by the hemicellulose and cellulose, Heitfeld teaches that flavorings are vulnerable to premature release in the absence of encapsulation (p. 1, ¶ 1). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount of flavor encapsulation during routine optimization to arrive at a product with the desired control over flavor release. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed range would thus be obvious.
Regarding claims 13, 14, and 23 Rajakaruna and Cecci do not teach encapsulating the one or more tastants within the particles by gelatinization (claim 13) or wherein gelatinization employs the addition of starch or gelatin (claims 14 and 23).
However, in the same field of endeavor of flavor encapsulation, Heitfeld teaches that the flavor industry uses physical gels (i.e., gelatinization) to encapsulate flavors (p. 3, ¶ 3) and that one prevalent gel utilized includes gelatin (p. 4, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Rajakaruna to utilize gelatin and gelatinization as a form of flavor encapsulation as taught by Heitfeld. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Heitfeld teaches that flavorings are vulnerable to premature release in the absence of encapsulation (p. 1, ¶ 1) and one prevalent gel utilized for encapsulation includes gelatin (p. 4, ¶ 2).
Regarding claim 24, Rajakaruna and Cecci do not teach wherein the one or more tastants are encapsulated within the banana-pseudostem particles by gelatinization by adding an effective amount of one or more of starch, gelatin, oil, or a processing aid to provide a gelatinized pseudostem-tastant mixture, wherein the gelatinized pseudostem-tastant mixture is heated and its moisture content is further reduced.
However, in the same field of endeavor of flavor encapsulation, Heitfeld teaches that the flavor industry uses physical gels (i.e., gelatinization) to encapsulate flavors (p. 3, ¶ 3) and that one prevalent gel utilized includes gelatin (p. 4, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Rajakaruna to utilize gelatin and gelatinization as a form of flavor encapsulation as taught by Heitfeld. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Heitfeld teaches that flavorings are vulnerable to premature release in the absence of encapsulation (p. 1, ¶ 1) and one prevalent gel utilized for encapsulation includes gelatin (p. 4, ¶ 2).
Although the cited prior art does not explicitly teach wherein the gelatinized pseudostem-tastant is heated and its moisture content is further reduced, Rajakaruna teaches that the drying step (i.e., the step after boiling where water content is reduced) is performed using an oven ([0024]), which is known in the art to be high heat. MPEP §2144.04((IV)(C) states "selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results", In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Thus, it would have been obvious to perform the drying step after the gelatinization step absent a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 25, Rajakaruna teaches:
Soaking the inner core (i.e., pseudostem) in an aqueous medium ([0008]);
Boiling the inner core for 60 to 120 minutes (which falls within the claimed range of “longer than or equal to 2 minutes”; [0014]) at a temperature of from about 220[Symbol font/0xB0]F to about 230[Symbol font/0xB0]F (which falls within the claimed range of “greater than or equal to 220 [Symbol font/0xB0]F”; [0020]);
An embodiment where the processed banana stem inner core is mixed with brown sugar (i.e., an ingredient having a sweet taste; [0056], Table 1); and
Drying (i.e., reducing water) the inner core (i.e., psuedostem)([0008]) to a water content of about 2 wt% to about 50 wt% ([0026]), which lies within the claimed range of “from about 5% to about 95% by weight”;
Although Rajakaruna does not teach that the pseudostem particles are broken up such that greater than or equal to 60% of the banana pseudostem particles have a size that is greater than or equal to 8 mm3 and less than or equal to 2048 mm3, Rajakaruna teaches cutting the inner core to an appropriate size prior to soaking the inner core ([0015]; claim 55). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the size of the banana pseudostem during routine optimization to find the particle size that results in the appropriate particle size for soaking the core. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed range would thus be obvious.
Rajakaruna does not teach wherein a gelatinizing agent is employed to encapsulate the one or more tastants within the banana-pseudostem particles by gelatinization, wherein the gelatinizing agent comprises one or more of starch or gelatin.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Heitfeld teaches that the flavor industry uses physical gels (i.e., gelatinization) to encapsulate flavors (p. 3, ¶ 3) and that one prevalent gel utilized includes gelatin (p. 4, ¶ 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Rajakaruna to utilize gelatin and gelatinization as a form of flavor encapsulation as taught by Heitfeld. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Heitfeld teaches that flavorings are vulnerable to premature release in the absence of encapsulation (p. 1, ¶ 1) and one prevalent gel utilized for encapsulation includes gelatin (p. 4, ¶ 2).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajakaruna (US 20160249663 A1) in view of Cecci (Cecci, Ricardo Rodrigo Ramos, et al. “Banana pseudostem fibers characterization and comparison with reported data on jute and sisal fibers”, Springer Nature Applied Sciences, Vol. 2, article no. 20, published December 4, 2019 [accessed online May 14, 2026]) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rhodes (WO 2004/069143 A2)(IDS Reference filed 10/12/2023).
Regarding claim 18, Rajakaruna teaches that the food additive comprises 0.1 wt% to about 75 wt% of the food product ([0040]).
Rajakaruna does not teach wherein the banana-pseudostem additive delivers the taste of sweet, bitter, salty, sour, savory, spicy, umami, creamy, or combination of such tastes to the food product.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Rhodes teaches of a composition comprising fiber from bananas (Abstract) and that the composition may be mixed with sweeteners for later reconstitution as a law calorie sweetened drink (p. 11, ¶ 3-5). Thus, it logically follows that when combined with a sweetener, the composition delivers the taste of sweet to the reconstituted drink (i.e., food product).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the product of Rajakaruna with the addition of a sweetener to the food additive as taught by Rhodes. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Rhodes teaches that this increases the palatability of the composition (p. 11, ¶ 4).
Regarding claim 19, Rajakaruna teaches that the food product is a pastry, pasta, a bread product, a sweet or savory filling, a sweet or savory topping, a potato product, a granola bar, a cereal bar, chili paste, pickle, soup, juice, a sauce, a chutney, a dairy product, a gravy, a pet food, a laxative, a stool softener, a batter, a coating, and a meat product ([0034]).
Regarding claim 20, Rajakaruna teaches that the food product can be a meat product ([0034]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajakaruna (US 20160249663 A1) in view of Cecci (Cecci, Ricardo Rodrigo Ramos, et al. “Banana pseudostem fibers characterization and comparison with reported data on jute and sisal fibers”, Springer Nature Applied Sciences, Vol. 2, article no. 20, published December 4, 2019 [accessed online May 14, 2026]) as evidenced by Keast (Keast, Russell S.J., et al. “The Influence of Sodium Salts on Binary Mixtures of Bitter-tasting Compounds”, Chemical Senses, vol. 29, no. 5, p. 431-439, published 2004 [accessed online May 15, 2026]).
Regarding claim 21, Rajakaruna teaches adding an enzyme deactivating (i.e., enzyme-reaction inhibitor) amount of sodium chloride, sodium carbonate, or sodium bicarbonate during the boiling step (claim 53), which are all known bitter-taste deterring enzyme reaction inhibitors that permit discoloration. Rajakaruna also teaches boiling the inner core for 60 to 120 minutes (which falls within the claimed range of “greater than or equal to 10 minutes”; [0014]) at a temperature of from about 220[Symbol font/0xB0]F to about 230[Symbol font/0xB0]F (which falls within the claimed range of “greater than or equal to 220 [Symbol font/0xB0]F”; [0020]). Rajakaruna also teaches drying the composition to a moisture content of 0.01 wt% to about 95 wt% ([0026]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “greater than or equal to 10% by weight to about 95% by weight”. Rajakaruna also teaches a food product comprising 1-50 wt% of the processed inner core of the banana (which falls within the claimed range of “0.1% to 50% by weight”; [0063], Table 4).
Evidence to support that sodium chloride, sodium carbonate, or sodium bicarbonate are all known bitter-taste deterring enzyme reaction inhibitor is provided by Keast. Keast discloses that sodium salts suppressed the bitterness of compounds (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00a-4:00p, F 8:00a-1:00p ET.
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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights