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 Claims 15-20 in the reply filed on October 7, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ 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 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. 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 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nickerson et al. (WO 2014064591 A1) . With respect to Claim 15, Nickerson et al. teaches a microcapsule that has a core material and a shell, wherein the core material is an oil such as a flavor oil and the shell comprises a legume protein. [0010] Nickerson et al. teaches that the legume protein may be a faba bean protein. [0011] The invention taught by Nickerson et al. reads on a microcapsule comprising an active and a shell, wherein the active comprises a flavor and the shell comprises a faba bean protein. Additionally, Nickerson et al. teaches a method for preparing microcapsule s compris ing mixing the legume protein, a carbohydrate, and a material to be encapsulated, adjusting the pH of a solution comprising the legume protein isolate and the material to be encapsulated to between 3-7 pH , [0032] mixing the solution to form an emulsion, [0033] and processing the emulsion in order to form microcapsules. [0034] Nickerson et al. provides an example of an acidulant in the form of 0.1M HCl. [0066] This reads on a method for producing a microcapsule, and reads on providing an acidulant for lowering the pH of the solution as in the method of claim 1 . The recitation of “A microcapsule comprising an active and a shell obtainable by the method of claim 1” amounts to a product by process limitation. According to MPEP 2113 I, “ [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself ”. Nickerson et al. teach es a microcapsule comprising a core and a shell, wherein the core comprises a flavor and the shell comprises a faba bean protein. Nickerson et al. is silent to the volatile retention of the microcapsule. The embodiment of a microcapsule according to the teaching of Nickerson et al. teaches a microcapsule that is substantially identical to the claimed composition. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “ Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) ”. Despite the silence to the volatile retention of the capsule, MPEP 2112 I states “ [T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer ”. Therefore, the invention taught by Nickerson et al. would possess the same properties of the claimed invention, such as volatile retention. With respect to Claim 16, Nickerson et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 15, as described above. Additionally, Nickerson et al. teaches the amount of material encapsulated in the microcapsule comprises between 10-20%. [0038] This value lies within the range recited in claim 16. With respect to Claim 17, Nickerson et al. teaches a microcapsule that has a core material and a shell, wherein the core material is an oil such as a flavor oil and the shell comprises a legume protein. [0010] Nickerson et al. teaches that the legume protein may be a faba bean protein. [0011] The invention taught by Nickerson et al. reads on a microcapsule comprising an active and a shell, wherein the active comprises a flavor and the shell comprises a faba bean protein. Nickerson et al. also teaches a product comprising the microcapsule in the form of food products , wherein the product base is a dairy product . [0039] Additionally, Nickerson et al. teaches a method for preparing microcapsules comprising mixing the legume protein, a carbohydrate, and a material to be encapsulated, adjusting the pH of a solution comprising the legume protein isolate and the material to be encapsulated to between 3-7 pH, [0032] mixing the solution to form an emulsion, [0033] and processing the emulsion in order to form microcapsules. [0034] Nickerson et al. provides an example of an acidulant in the form of 0.1M HCl. [0066] This reads on a method for producing a microcapsule, and reads on providing an acidulant for lowering the pH of the solution as in the method of claim 1. The recitation of “A microcapsule comprising an active and a shell obtainable by the method of claim 1” amounts to a product by process limitation. According to MPEP 2113 I, “ [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself ”. Nickerson et al. teach es a food product comprising a product base and a microcapsule comprising a core and a shell, wherein the core comprises a flavor and the shell comprises a faba bean protein. Nickerson et al. is silent to the volatile retention of the microcapsule. The embodiment of a microcapsule according to the teaching of Nickerson et al. teaches a microcapsule that is substantially identical to the claimed composition. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “ Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) ”. Despite the silence to the volatile retention of the capsule, MPEP 2112 I states “ [T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer ”. Therefore, the invention taught by Nickerson et al. would possess the same properties of the claimed invention, including volatile retention. With respect to Claim 18, Nickerson et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 17, as described above. Nickerson et al. is silent to the flavor intensity scores of the microcapsule composition as compared to an iso-active flavored product without the microcapsule. According to MPEP 2112.01 I, “ Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) ”. Despite the silence to the flavor intensity score of the capsule, MPEP 2112 I states “ [T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer ”. Therefore, the invention taught by Lei et al. in view of Nickerson et al. would possess the same properties of the claimed invention , including flavor intensity with respect to a flavored produce without the microcapsule. With respect to Claim 19, Nickerson et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 17, as described above. Additionally, Nickerson et al. teaches the amount of material encapsulated in the microcapsule comprises between 10-20%. [0038] This value lies within the range recited in claim 19. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nickerson et al. (WO 2014064591 A1). With respect to Claim 20, Nickerson et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 17, as described above. Nickerson et al. teaches the material in the microcapsule can be incorporated in a food product at less than 10% or greater than 30%. [0041] This amount overlaps with the range recited in claim 20. According to MPEP 2144.05 I, “ In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists ”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Nickerson et al. to produce a food product comprising a microcapsule as described in claim 17, wherein the microcapsule is incorporated into the food product in an amount between 0.1 and 10% by weight, thereby rendering claim 20 obvious . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2017/189283 A1 , Sasaki et al., Compositions containing microcapsules coated with deposition proteins; US 2019/321279 A1 , Lei et al., Hydrogel capsules and process for preparing the same ; US 20140106032 A1 , Dardelle et al., Core-shell Capsules; US 12383477 B2 , Gruijthuijsen et al., Composite microcapsules; US 11344054 B2 , Dardelle et al., Process for drying a suspension of hydrogel microcapsules; US 20160303006 A1 , Popplewell et al. , Dispersed capsules in lyotropic or lyotropic liquid crystal surfactant phases for enhanced capsule deposition ; US 20240375074 A9 , Berthier et al., Polyamide microcapsules ; US 20130071455 A1 , Dardelle, Solid core coacervated capsules . All references reported here are present in the ISR. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSEPH CULLEN MERCHLINSKY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2260 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00am - 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nikki Dees can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /J.C.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791 /Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791