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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-15 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-5 and 13-15 are withdrawn from consideration (see discussion, below).
Claims 6-12 are examined in the current application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 6-12 in the reply filed on December 4th 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 December 4th 2025.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Zhao et al., “Rheological properties and microstructure of a novel starch-based emulsion gel produced by one-step emulsion gelation: Effect of oil content” (from Carbohydrate Polymers 281 (2022) 119061) in view of NPL Lu et al., “Nanostarch: Preparation, Modification, and Application in Pickering Emulsions” (from Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2021, 6929-6942), NPL Ge et al., “Characterizations of Pickering emulsions stabilized by starch nanoparticles: Influence of starch variety and particle size” (from Food Chemistry 234 (2017) 339-347) and Ren et al., “Pickering emulsion: A multi-scale stabilization mechanism based on modified lotus root starch/xanthan gum nanoparticles” (from International Journal of Biological Macromolecules 233 (2023) 123459).
Regarding claim 6-12: Zhao discloses a method of making a o/w pickering emulsion gel where a water starch suspension is homogenized with oil (e.g., corn oil) (see Zhao sections 2.2-2.6). Since a water suspension of an immiscible substance (e.g., starch) is formed through vigorous mixing/homogenization, Zhao meets the claimed two homogenization steps. Furthermore, Zhao discloses homogenizing the water starch suspension with the oil (i.e., the second homogenization step) at a rotational speed of 13,400 rpm for 2 minutes followed by a heating at 80°C for 50 minutes (i.e., gelation) (see Zhao sections 2.2-2.6). Zhao also discloses that the o/w pickering emulsions with internal-phase (i.e., oil phase) ranging from 20-70%, provided improved gel (see Zhao abstract). Since the oil content in Zhao overlaps the oil content in claim 6, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP §2144.05).
While Zhao discloses using starch as the polysaccharide, with particles size smaller than 150µm (see Zhao sections 2.3-2.4), Zhao fails to discloses nano starch particles at the claimed content and the claimed gelation temperature; However, Lu and Ge disclose using about 2.5 g/L to 20g/L nano starch particles (i.e., particle size 100nm to 220nm) in o/w pickering emulsion gel comprising 25%-50% internal phase (i.e., oil), provided a shelf-stable gel (see Lu Ge, abstract; section 3.6; Lu sections 5.1 and 5.2.2). Therefore it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to modify Zhao and to substitute the starch with nano starch particles comprising the claimed particle size and relative content in order to attain a shelf stable gel, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
As to the hydrocolloid (i.e., curdlan) in claims 6 and 11: Neither, Zhao, Lu, nor Ge, disclose a curdlan; However, Ren discloses that adding about 2g/L to about 10g/L of xanthan gum to o/w pickering emulsions, forms a starch/xanthan network with increased gel’s strength (see Ren abstract; section 2.2, 2.3, 2.5, 2.6.1); Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to further modify Zhao and to have added a Gallen (e.g., xanthan) at the claimed content, in order to attain an o/w pickering emulsion gel with increased gel strength, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 on (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.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792