FOOD PRODUCT

Application No. 18/557,673

• Filed: Oct 27, 2023
• Priority: Apr 30, 2021 — GB 2106248.4
  • Apr 29, 2022 — nonprovisional of PCTUS2022027076
• Examiner: LACHICA, ERICSON M
• Art Unit: 1792
• Tech Center: 1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
• Assignee: MARS Incorporated
• OA Round: 5 (Non-Final)

Office Action

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 .

Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's claim submission filed on June 9, 2026 and subsequent Request for Continued Examination filed on June 25, 2026 have been entered.

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.

Claim 16 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “55 wt% almonds” in line 3 as well as the limitation “12 wt% fat” in line 6. Almonds naturally contain fat. It is unclear if the claimed “fat” encompasses any fat that is naturally present in the claimed almonds or if the claimed “fat” is fat that is distinct from the fat that is naturally present in the claimed almonds.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a low sugar milk chocolate” in line 21. The term “low sugar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low sugar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unknown what sugar content levels constitutes “low sugar.”
Clarification is required.

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 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 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.

Claims 1, 3-7, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain “Homemade Snickers Bars” <https://britneybreaksbread.com/homemade-snickers-bars/#wprm-recipe-container-8531> (published January 22, 2021) (herein referred to as “Chamberlain”) in view of Coleman et al. US 2007/0087084 as further evidenced by Ajmera “Are Pecans Good for You?” <https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/are-pecans-good-for-you> (published August 11, 2020) in view of Schmidt US 2004/0228951 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 27, 2023), Sekula et al. US 6,361,817, Zook et al. US 5,268,192, Weiser “How to Make Creamy Nut Butter” <https://web.archive.org/web/20160317055343/https://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-creamy-nut-butter-229499> (archived on March 17, 2016), and Kitchen Love Stories “Raw Caramel Sauce” <https://kitchenlovestories.com/raw-salted-caramel-sauce/> (published September 23, 2013) (herein referred to as “Raw Caramel Sauce”).
It is noted that there is a comment posted at the bottom of the article by Britney Chamberlain on January 22, 2021 with respect to the Chamberlain article. Therefore, the Chamberlain article was posted on or before January 22, 2021 and constitutes prior art.
Regarding Claim 1, Chamberlain discloses a food product (homemade snickers bar) (Chamberlain, Pages 1-2) comprising a nut butter composite (nougat layer) comprising nuts in the form of peanuts and added sugar (powdered sugar) (Chamberlain, Page 14), a caramel composite covering the top of the nut butter composite (Chamberlain, Page 10), and a chocolate composite enrobing the nut butter composite and the caramel composite (spoon chocolate on top ensuring the entire bar is coated (Chamberlain, Page 10).

PNG
media_image1.png
1002
1177
media_image1.png
Greyscale

Chamberlain is silent regarding the caramel composite covering all sides of the nut butter composite. Chamberlain is also silent regarding the nut butter composite comprising 1-30 wt% soluble fiber, 1-70 wt% nuts, the added or refined sugar being in an amount less than 8 wt%, and a fat in an amount greater than 0 wt% and less than 15 wt%. Chamberlain is also silent regarding the caramel composite comprising 1-70 wt% soluble fiber and 1-30 wt% fat and having one or more inclusions of a grain inclusion and/or a nut inclusion and the chocolate composite comprising 1-30 wt% soluble fiber. Chamberlain is also silent regarding the food product comprising less than 30 wt% sugar content.
Coleman et al. discloses a food product (low calorie nutrition energy snack bar 100) (‘084, Paragraphs [0001] and [0022]) comprising a nut composite (peanut protein and/or nut meats of the core component 101/201) (‘084, Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]) comprising water soluble dietary fibers (‘084, Paragraphs [0007] and [0009]), a caramel composite (high fiber caramel component 102/202) (‘084, Paragraphs [0022] and [0024]) covering the top of the nut component (peanut protein and/or nut meats of the core component 101/201), and a chocolate composite (compound coating 103/203) (‘084, Paragraphs [0022], [0024], and [0052]) enrobing the nut component (peanut protein and/or nut meats of the core component 101/201) and the caramel composite (high fiber caramel component 102/202) (‘084, FIG. 2) (‘084, Paragraph [0024]) wherein the caramel composite comprises about 25 wt% to about 30 wt% water soluble dietary fibers (‘084, Paragraphs [0008] and [0027]), which falls within the claimed soluble fiber concentration within the caramel composite of 1-70 wt% soluble fiber. Coleman et al. also discloses the chocolate composite (compound coating 103/203) (‘084, Paragraphs [0022], [0028], and [0052]) comprising about 20 wt% to about 30 wt% water soluble dietary fibers (‘084, Paragraphs [0028] and [0052]), which also falls within the claimed soluble fiber concentration with the chocolate composite of 1-30 wt% soluble fiber.
Both Chamberlain and Coleman et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food products in the form of snack bars. Both snack bars of Chamberlain and Coleman et al. contain a nut butter composite, a caramel composite, and a chocolate composite. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the snack bar of Chamberlain and incorporate added water soluble dietary fibers into the caramel composite and also incorporate added water soluble dietary fibers into the chocolate composite since where the claimed soluble fiber concentrations within the caramel composite and chocolate composite encompasses soluble fiber concentrations within the caramel composite and chocolate composite disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the dietary fiber content of the snack bar of Chamberlain by adding water soluble dietary fibers into the various components of the snack bar of Chamberlain such as the caramel composite and chocolate composite based upon the desired fiber content of the snack bar.

PNG
media_image2.png
589
1031
media_image2.png
Greyscale

Further regarding Claim 1, Coleman et al. also discloses adjusting the fiber content of the caramel and also the different components of the food bar (‘084, Paragraph [0005]) and adjusting the amounts of water soluble dietary fibers in the core composite and the caramel composite and with the compound coating makes it possible to produce a nutrition energy snack bar of desirable weight and volume having pleasing sensory properties with reduced use of high calorie ingredients (‘084, Paragraph [0006]). The nut composite (peanut protein and/or nut meats of the core component (‘084, Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]) comprises nuts (nut meats) (‘084, Paragraph [0046]). Ajmera provides evidence that it was known in the food art that nuts contain mainly insoluble fiber that doesn’t dissolve in water but also contain some soluble fiber that dissolves in water and forms a gel like material that moves through your body undigested and slows the absorption of sugar into the blood (Ajmera, Page 3). Therefore, the peanut protein and/or nut meats of the core component of Coleman et al. that is used to modify Chamberlain naturally contains some levels of soluble fibers as evidenced by Ajmera.
Further regarding Claim 1, Coleman et al. discloses the core comprising nuts (peanut protein and/or nut meats and/or peanut flour) (‘084, Paragraphs [0045]-[0047]). However, Chamberlain in view of Coleman et al. as further evidenced by Ajmera does not explicitly disclose the concentration of soluble fiber of the nut composite to have 1-30 wt% soluble fiber. Chamberlain in view of Coleman et al. as further evidenced by Ajmera also is silent regarding the caramel composite comprising a nut inclusion.
Schmidt discloses a food product comprising a nut butter composite (high protein, low carbohydrate nougat 10 including peanut butter and/or nuts) (‘951, Paragraph [0032]), a caramel composite (sugar free caramel layer 13) having one or more inclusions (nuts 14), and a chocolate composite (chocolate coating 12) (‘951, FIG. 1) (‘951, Paragraph [0045]) wherein the nut butter composite (nougat) comprising soluble dietary fiber (inulin) (‘951, Paragraph [0051]) wherein inulin is a good source of soluble dietary fiber and well suited for diabetics because they do not increase the blood sugar level or insulin level due to its indigestible nature and also mimics sugar’s viscosity, texture, humectancy, freezing point depression, and water binding activity and has a mild sweetness (‘951, Paragraph [0025]) wherein the amount of inulin can be varied depending on the desired consistency and texture of the nut butter composite (nougat) (‘951, Paragraph [0026]). Schmidt also discloses a food product comprising a nut butter composite (high protein, low carbohydrate nougat 10 including peanut butter and/or nuts) (‘951, Paragraph [0032]), a caramel composite (sugar free caramel layer 13) having one or more inclusions (nuts 14), and a chocolate composite (chocolate coating 12) (‘951, FIG. 1) (‘951, Paragraph [0045]) wherein the caramel composite (sugar free caramel layer 13) has one or more inclusions of a nut inclusion (nuts 14) (‘951, FIG. 1) (‘951, Paragraph [0045]).

PNG
media_image3.png
873
1447
media_image3.png
Greyscale

Both modified Chamberlain and Schmidt are directed towards the same field of endeavor of multilayered snack bars comprising nuts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nut composite contained in the nougat layer of the food product of Chamberlain and adjust the soluble fiber content of the nut composite contained in the core nougat layer of Chamberlain since differences in the concentration of the soluble fiber of any of the components of the food bar such as the nut butter composite/nougat layer will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the soluble fiber of any particular component of the food bar is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of the soluble fibers of any particular component such as the nut composite of the nougat layer of the food bar of Coleman et al. based upon the desired weight and volume of the food snack bar with reduced use of high calorie ingredients (‘084, Paragraph [0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also adjust the concentration of soluble fibers in the form of inulin present in the nut composite of Chamberlain based upon the desired consistency and texture of the nut butter component (nougat) as taught by Schmidt (‘951, Paragraph [0026]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food bar product of modified Chamberlain and incorporate a nut inclusion into the caramel composite as taught by Schmidt since the configuration of the claimed food bar product is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence indicating that the particular configuration of the food bar was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.). Schmidt teaches that there was known utility in the food art to make food bars with a caramel composite having a nut inclusion disposed therein.
Further regarding Claim 1, Chamberlain discloses the nut butter composite (nougat layer containing creamy peanut butter) comprising an added sugar (powdered sugar) in an amount of greater than 0 wt% (Chamberlain, Page 14). Coleman et al. discloses the various components and layers of the food bar including sugar sweeteners (‘084, Paragraph [0062]) and using granulated sugar in an amount of 0.5 wt% of the food product (‘084, Table 1) (‘084, Paragraph [0082]) and reducing calories of the food bar as a whole by incorporating water soluble dietary fibers to replace conventional cores made with significant amounts of sugars (‘084, Paragraphs [0025] and [0034]). However, Chamberlain in view of Coleman et al. as further evidenced by Ajmera in further view of Schmidt et al. is silent regarding the nut butter composite itself containing an added or refined sugar in an amount less than 8 wt% and is also silent regarding the nut butter composite containing 1-70 wt% of the nuts and a fat in an amount greater than 0 wt% and less than 15 wt%. Chamberlain in view of Coleman as further evidenced by Ajmera in further view of Schmidt is also silent regarding the caramel composition comprising 1-30 wt% fat.
Sekula et al. discloses a reduced calorie nut butter composition (‘817, Column 1, lines 6-10) comprising sugar sweeteners used in an amount from about 0% to about 5% of the formula wherein the amount of sweetener employed varies depending upon the sweetness desired (‘817, Column 10, lines 38-52). The disclosure of the nut butter composite comprising sugar sweeteners in an amount of from about 0% to about 5% overlaps the claimed added or refined sugar content of greater than 0 wt% and less than 8 wt%. Sekula et al. also discloses the reduced calorie peanut butter is made using a peanut slurry by milling full fat or partially defatted peanuts, mixing the peanut slurry with defatted peanut flour, salt, sweeteners, and other additives to obtain a mixture, and milling the mixture to obtain the desired texture such as smooth or chunky and heating the mixture while agitating to form a raw nut butter product (‘817, Column 11, lines 1-22) and using inulin bulking agents for further caloric reduction (‘817, Column 10, lines 24-38) wherein the full fat peanuts are in an amount from about 40% to about 70% of the formula and defatted peanut flours having a fat content from about 0% to about 15% are employed as a peanut solids source (‘817, Column 4, lines 31-55). Sekula et al. also discloses the nuts being used to be peanuts and peanut spreads or nuts and seeds other than peanuts including cashews, almonds, walnuts, macadamia nuts, and/or brazil nuts (‘817, Column 2, lines 52-60).
Both modified Chamberlain and Sekula et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of nut based food products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nougat layer containing nuts of modified Chamberlain and incorporate an added or refined sugar in the claimed amounts as taught by Sekula et al. since where the claimed added or refined sugar concentration in the nut butter composite overlaps added or refined sugar concentration in the nut butter composite ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the concentration of added or refined sugar concentration in the nut butter composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of added or refined sugar in the nut butter composite 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would add sugar sweeteners to the nut butter composite of modified Chamberlain based upon the desired sweetness desired as taught by Sekula et al. (‘817, Column 10, lines 38-52). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nut composite of modified Chamberlain and adjust the fat content of the nut composite by using partially defatted peanuts mixed with defatted peanut flour as taught by Sekula et al. since differences in the fat content of the nut butter composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such fat content of the nut butter composite 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the fat content of the nut composite used in the nougat layer of modified Chamberlain based upon the desired reduction in calories of the nut butter compared to conventional nut butter (‘817, Column 12, lines 29-36). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the soluble fiber concentration of the nut composite of modified Chamberlain by introducing soluble fibers in the form in inulin into the nut butter since differences in the concentration of soluble fibers in the nut butter composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of soluble fibers in the nut butter composite 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the soluble fiber content of the nut butter composite of modified Chamberlain by incorporating soluble fibers in the form of inulin bulking agents as taught by Sekula et al. in order to attain further caloric reduction to the desired degree (‘817, Column 10, lines 24-37).
Further regarding Claim 1, Chamberlain in view of Coleman et al. as further evidence by Ajmera in further view of Schmidt, and Sekula et al. is silent regarding the nut butter composite comprising 1-70 wt% nuts and the fat being in an amount greater than 0 wt% and less than 15 wt%. Chamberlain in view of Coleman et al. as further evidenced by Ajmera in further view of Schmidt and Sekula et al. is also silent regarding the caramel composition comprising 1-30 wt% fat.
Zook et al. discloses a reduced calorie nut product (‘192, Column 1, lines 23-33) wherein the nut product is a nut butter product comprising partially defatted nut flour in amounts up to about 55% by weight (‘192, Column 20, lines 6-17), which overlaps the claimed amount of nuts within the nut butter component to be 1-70 wt% nuts. Zook et al. also discloses a particular embodiment wherein the partially defatted nut flour has a fat level of about 15% (‘192, Column 22, lines 5-21), which is closed to but does not overlap the claimed fat content of fat in an amount of greater than 0 wt% and less than 15 wt%. Weiser discloses that a secondary fat in addition to the fats naturally present in nuts is necessary to make a smooth and creamy nut butter (Weiser, Page 2)
Both modified Chamberlain and Zook et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of nut based food products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nut composite of modified Coleman et al. and utilize nuts in nut butter in the claimed concentrations as taught by Zook et al. since where the claimed nut content of the nut butter composite overlaps nut content of the nut butter composite disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the nut content of the nut butter composite of modified Chamberlain based upon the desired degree of nutty flavor of the food product for a particular consumer. Furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nut composite of modified Chamberlain and incorporate nuts having a fat content that is close to the claimed fat content of the nut butter composite as taught by Zook et al. since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed nut content ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close in view of Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the fat content of the nut butter composite used in modified Chamberlain based upon the desired reduced calorie content levels achieved from using partially defatted nuts and nut products (‘192, Column 2, lines 46-54) to make lower fat nut butter having the organoleptic character of full fat nut spreads without the calories (‘192, Column 3, lines 41-51). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nut butter composite of modified Chamberlain and incorporate an additional fat that is in addition to the fat naturally present in nut butter since Weiser also teaches that a secondary fat in addition to the fats naturally present in nuts is necessary to create a smooth and creamy nut butter that is spreadable (Weiser, Page 2).
Further regarding Claim 1, Chamberlain discloses the caramel composite being on top of the nut butter composite (nougat) (Chamberlain, Page 10). Although Chamberlain does not explicitly teach the configuration of the caramel composite being covered on all side of the nut butter composite, Schmidt discloses the food product (snack food) taking on many different shapes and configurations such as bars (‘951, Paragraph [0039]) and different combinations and configurations of a nut butter composite (nougat) and dressings (‘951, Paragraph [0044]). Schmidt teaches a particular configuration in which the nut butter composite (nougat 10) is covered on all sides by the caramel composite (caramel 13) (‘951, FIG. 3B) (‘951, Paragraph [0047]).

PNG
media_image4.png
966
1227
media_image4.png
Greyscale

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the configuration of the snack food bar of Chamberlain that incorporates the caramel composite as a layer on top of the nut butter composite nougat and instead have the caramel composite cover all sides of the nut butter composite nougat as taught by Schmidt since the configuration of the claimed snack food bar is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed food product was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.).
Further regarding Claim 1, Chamberlain discloses the caramel layer being made vegan/dairy free by substituting butter and heavy cream for a vegan/dairy free alternative (Chamberlain, Page 11). Raw Caramel Sauce discloses a low fat caramel made without coconut oil (Raw Caramel Sauce, Page 1) wherein the caramel sauce comprises medjool dates, vanilla beans or vanilla, and water (Raw Caramel Sauce, Page 3). The disclosure of a low fat caramel of Raw Caramel Sauce encompasses the broad low range of 1-30 wt% fat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fat content of the caramel layer of Chamberlain which already suggests substituting butter and heavy cream for a vegan/dairy free alternative such as the medjool dates disclosed by Raw Caramel Sauce, which reads on the claimed caramel composition comprising 1-30 wt% fat since where the claimed fat concentration in the caramel composite overlaps fat concentration in the caramel composite ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the concentration of fat in the caramel composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of fat in the caramel composite 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the fat content of the caramel composition of Chamberlain to be low depending on if a particular consumer desires a low fat food product.
Further regarding Claim 1, Schmidt discloses the food product being low in sugar content (‘951, Paragraph [0015]). Sekula et al. discloses sugar sweeteners being added in an amount of from about 2% to about 5% based upon the desired sweetness (‘817, Column 10, lines 39-52), which falls within the claimed food product sugar content of less than 30 wt%. Zook et al. also discloses sugar sweeteners being present in the food product in an amount between about 3% and about 20% by weight (‘192, Column 20, lines 18-34), which also falls within the claimed food product sugar content of less than 30 wt%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sugar content of the food product of Chamberlain to be less than 30 wt% sugar as taught by Sekula et al. and Zook et al. since where the claimed food product sugar content overlaps food product sugar content ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the food product sugar content will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such food product sugar content 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would add sugar sweeteners to the food product of Chamberlain based upon the desired sweetness desired as taught by Sekula et al. (‘817, Column 10, lines 38-52).
Regarding Claim 3, Coleman et al. discloses the core comprising nuts (peanut protein and/or nut meats and/or peanut flour) (‘084, Paragraphs [0045]-[0047]). However, modified Chamberlain is silent regarding the peanut protein and/or nut meats, and/or peanut flour of the core component being formed into a nut butter component. Additionally, although Chamberlain does not explicitly disclose the concentration of soluble fiber of the nut component to have 15-25 wt% soluble fiber, Schmidt discloses a food product comprising a nut butter component (high protein, low carbohydrate nougat 10 including peanut butter and/or nuts) (‘951, Paragraph [0032]) wherein the nut butter composite (nougat) comprising soluble dietary fiber (inulin) (‘951, Paragraph [0051]) wherein inulin is a good source of soluble dietary fiber and well suited for diabetics because they do not increase the blood sugar level or insulin level due to its indigestible nature and also mimics sugar’s viscosity, texture, humectancy, freezing point depression, and water binding activity and has a mild sweetness (‘951, Paragraph [0025]) wherein the amount of inulin can be varied depending on the desired consistency and texture of the nut butter component (nougat) (‘951, Paragraph [0026]). Both Chamberlain and Schmidt are directed towards the same field of endeavor of multilayered snack bars comprising nuts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and adjust the soluble fiber content of the nut component contained in the nut butter composite nougat of Chamberlain since differences in the concentration of the soluble fiber of any of the components of the food bar such as the nut butter composite of Chamberlain will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the soluble fiber of any particular component of the food bar is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of the soluble fibers of any particular component such as the nut butter composite of the food bar of Chamberlain based upon the desired weight and volume of the food snack bar with reduced use of high calorie ingredients (‘084, Paragraph [0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art would also adjust the concentration of soluble fibers in the form of inulin present in the nut butter composite of Chamberlain based upon the desired consistency and texture of the nut butter component (nougat) as taught by Schmidt (‘951, Paragraph [0026]).
Further regarding Claim 3, Coleman et al. discloses the soluble fiber comprising soluble fiber in the form of an oligofructosaccharide (oligofructose) (‘084, Paragraph [0038]). Schmidt also discloses the soluble fiber of the nut butter component (nougat) comprising soluble fiber in the form of an oligofructosaccharide (oligofructose) (‘951, Paragraphs [0025]-[0026]).
Further regarding Claim 3, since the prior art combination teaches the limitations before the phrase “or” regarding the soluble fiber comprising soluble fiber in the form of a soluble corn fiber or an oligofructosaccharide, the prior art does not need to teach the limitations before the phrase “or” since the prior art combination teaches the limitations regarding the soluble fiber comprising an oligofructosaccharide.
Regarding Claim 4, Coleman et al. discloses the food product (bar) having reduced use of high calorie sugar ingredients (‘084, Paragraph [0006]) wherein component layers such as the high fiber caramel composition incorporate water soluble dietary fibers to replace higher calorie sugar ingredients (‘084, Paragraphs [0007], [0025], and [0034]) wherein the sugar ingredients includes sucrose (‘084, Paragraphs [0050]) and [0062]). The caramel composite is made from sugar and soluble fiber content (‘084, Paragraph [0042]). Although modified Chamberlain does not explicitly state the amount of added sucrose sugar to the caramel component to be greater than 0 wt% and less than 30 wt%, Coleman et al. establishes using water soluble dietary fibers to replace higher calorie sugar ingredients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of added sucrose sugar added to the caramel composite of Chamberlain since differences in the concentration of the amount of sucrose sugar added to the caramel composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the amount of sucrose sugar added to the caramel composite is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would limit the amount of sucrose sugar added to the caramel composite and replace substantial amounts of sucrose sugar with soluble dietary fibers to limit the calories of the snack bar to the desired low caloric levels.
Regarding Claim 5, Coleman et al. discloses the food product (bar) having reduced use of high calorie sugar ingredients (‘084, Paragraph [0006]) wherein the core component incorporates water soluble dietary fibers to replace higher calorie sugar ingredients (‘084, Paragraphs [0007], [0025], and [0034]) wherein the sugar ingredients includes sucrose (‘084, Paragraphs [0050]) and [0062].. The core component is made from sugar syrup/sucrose syrup binder and soluble fiber content (‘084, Paragraphs [0050])-[0051]. Although modified Chamberlain does not explicitly state the amount of added sucrose sugar to the nut butter/core component to be less than 8 wt%, Coleman et al. establishes using water soluble dietary fibers to replace higher calorie sugar ingredients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of added sucrose sugar added to the nut butter composite nougat of Chamberlain since differences in the concentration of the amount of sucrose sugar added to the nut butter composite nougat will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the amount of sucrose sugar added to the nut butter composite nougat is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would limit the amount of sucrose sugar added to the nut butter composite nougat of Chamberlain and replace substantial amounts of sucrose sugar with soluble dietary fibers to limit the calories of the snack bar to the desired low caloric levels.
Regarding Claim 6, Coleman et al. discloses incorporating the one or more inclusions to provide a crunchy textural feel wherein the inclusions includes nut meats and/or peanut flour and/or grain flour pieces (‘084, Paragraph [0064]). The claims do not specify any particular form factor of the inclusions other than that the inclusions are generic grain and/or nut inclusions. Although modified Chamberlain does not explicitly state that the one or more inclusions are present in the caramel composite in an amount of from 5-50 wt%, differences in the amount of inclusion provided in the caramel composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such amount of inclusion provided in the caramel composite is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the amount of inclusions provided in the caramel composite based upon the desired crunchiness/textural feel of the food product.
Regarding Claim 7, Coleman et al. discloses the caramel composite comprises about 25 wt% to about 30 wt% water soluble dietary fibers (‘084, Paragraphs [0008] and [0027]), which falls within the claimed soluble fiber concentration within the caramel component of 1-50 wt% soluble fiber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food product of Chamberlain and incorporate water soluble dietary fibers into the caramel composite in the claimed amount as taught by Coleman et al. since where the claimed soluble fiber concentrations within the caramel composite encompasses soluble fiber concentrations within the caramel composite disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Coleman et al. discloses adjusting the fiber content of the caramel and also the different components of the food bar (‘084, Paragraph [0005]) and adjusting the amounts of water soluble dietary fibers in the caramel composite makes it possible to produce a nutrition energy snack bar of desirable weight and volume having pleasing sensory properties with reduced use of high calorie ingredients (‘084, Paragraph [0006]). Coleman et al. also discloses the caramel composite comprising soluble fiber in the form of a fructooligosaccharide (‘084, Paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claim 10, Chamberlain discloses the food product being in the form of a bar comprising a layer of the nut butter composite (nougat) and a layer of the caramel composite (Chamberlain, Page 15). Coleman et al. also discloses the food product being in the form of a bar (low calorie nutritional energy snack bar 100) comprising a layer of the nut butter component (core component 101 containing peanut butter) and a layer of the caramel component (high fiber caramel component 102) (‘084, FIG. 1) (‘084, Paragraphs [0022] and [0086]). Schmidt also discloses the food product being in the form of a bar (snack bar 15) comprising a layer of the nut butter component (nougat 10 containing peanut butter and/or nuts) (‘951, Paragraph [0032]) and a layer of the caramel component (caramel layer 13) (‘951, FIG. 1) (‘951, Paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 12, Coleman et al. discloses the food product (bar) having reduced use of high calorie sugar ingredients (‘084, Paragraph [0006]) wherein the core component incorporates water soluble dietary fibers to replace higher calorie sugar ingredients (‘084, Paragraphs [0007], [0025], and [0034]) wherein the sugar ingredients includes sucrose (‘084, Paragraphs [0050]) and [0062]). The chocolate composite (chocolate coating) is milk chocolate (‘084, Paragraph [0052]) and includes sugar flavorings (‘084, Paragraph [0060]) comprising from sugar syrup/sucrose syrup binder and soluble fiber content (‘084, Paragraphs [0050])-[0051]. Although modified Chamberlain does not explicitly state the amount of added sucrose sugar to the milk chocolate coating component to be greater than 0 wt% and less than 30 wt%, Coleman et al. establishes using water soluble dietary fibers to replace higher calorie sugar ingredients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of added sucrose sugar added to the milk chocolate coating composite of Chamberlain since differences in the concentration of the amount of sucrose sugar added to the chocolate coating composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the amount of sucrose sugar added to the milk chocolate coating composite is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would limit the amount of sucrose sugar added to the milk chocolate coating composite of Chamberlain and replace substantial amounts of sucrose sugar with soluble dietary fibers to limit the calories of the snack bar to the desired low caloric levels.
Regarding Claim 13, Schmidt discloses the chocolate component (chocolate coating 12) (‘951, FIG. 1) (‘951, Paragraph [0045]) comprising a low sugar (reduced caloric density of coatings using inulin) milk chocolate wherein the one or more soluble fiber is inulin (‘951, Paragraph [0039]). Coleman et al. discloses the chocolate composite (chocolate coating) is milk chocolate (‘084, Paragraph [0052]) and includes sugar flavorings (‘084, Paragraph [0060]) comprising from sugar syrup/sucrose syrup binder and soluble fiber content (‘084, Paragraphs [0050])-[0051]. Although modified Chamberlain does not explicitly state the amount of added sucrose sugar to the milk chocolate coating component to be greater than 0 wt% and less than 30 wt%, Coleman et al. establishes using water soluble dietary fibers to replace higher calorie sugar ingredients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of added sucrose sugar added to the milk chocolate coating composite of modified Chamberlain since differences in the concentration of the amount of sucrose sugar added to the chocolate coating composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the amount of sucrose sugar added to the milk chocolate coating composite is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would limit the amount of sucrose sugar added to the milk chocolate coating composite of modified Chamberlain and replace substantial amounts of sucrose sugar with soluble dietary fibers to limit the calories of the snack bar to the desired low caloric levels.
Regarding Claim 14, Coleman et al. discloses the thickness of the core component varies depending on its shape and the overall food bar product size and the amount of sensory contribution desired from this component in a particular food bar (‘084, Paragraph [0032]). Although modified Chamberlain does not explicitly state that the food product comprises 1-60 wt% nut butter component, 1-60 wt% caramel component, or 1-60 wt% chocolate component, differences in the concentration of nut butter composite, caramel composite, and chocolate composite of the food product will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of nut butter composite, caramel composite, and chocolate composite of the food product is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentrations of nut butter composite, caramel composite, and chocolate composite of modified Chamberlain based upon the desired flavor profile imparted by the synergy of these components that constitute these composites. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the nut butter, caramel, and/or chocolate composite to be at a higher concentration in the food product if more flavor of that particular component composite is desired. Conversely, one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the nut butter, caramel, and/or chocolate component to be at a lower concentration in the food product if less flavor of that particular component is desired.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain “Homemade Snickers Bars” <https://britneybreaksbread.com/homemade-snickers-bars/#wprm-recipe-container-8531> (published January 22, 2021) (herein referred to as “Chamberlain”) in view of Coleman et al. US 2007/0087084 as further evidenced by Ajmera “Are Pecans Good for You?” <https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/are-pecans-good-for-you> (published August 11, 2020) in view of Schmidt US 2004/0228951 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 27, 2023), Sekula et al. US 6,361,817, Zook et al. US 5,268,192, Weiser “How to Make Creamy Nut Butter” <https://web.archive.org/web/20160317055343/https://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-creamy-nut-butter-229499> (archived on March 17, 2016), and Kitchen Love Stories “Raw Caramel Sauce” <https://kitchenlovestories.com/raw-salted-caramel-sauce/> (published September 23, 2013) (herein referred to as “Raw Caramel Sauce”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Chevaux et al. US 2004/0166142.
Regarding Claim 2, Schmidt discloses the nut butter composite being an almond nut butter formed from roasted nuts (‘951, Paragraphs [0032] and [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nut butter composite of modified Chamberlain and instead use an almond nut butter formed from roasted almonds as taught by Schmidt based upon the desired flavor profile by a particular consumer.
Further regarding Claim 2, Chamberlain in view of Coleman et al. as further evidenced by Ajmer in further view of Schmidt, Sekula et al., Zook et al., Weiser, and Raw Caramel Sauce is silent regarding the almond nut butter being formed from whole almonds.
Chevaux et al. discloses a food product comprising at least one polyphenol, i.e. cocoa and/or nut procyanidin, and L-arginine in a combined amount effective to induce a physiological increase in nitric oxide production in a mammal after ingesting the food product wherein the polyphenol containing component is a nut skin ingredient (‘142, Paragraph [0018]) wherein the food product contains polyphenols found in the skins of nuts such as peanut skins and almond skins and the nut skins are used in the nougat of a chocolate candy food product (‘142, Paragraph [0028]) wherein the nut meats are whole nuts (‘142, Paragraph [0066]) and the food product is a chocolate confectionery containing peanuts or almonds in any form such as whole nuts, chopped nuts, or nut pastes (‘142, Paragraph [0066]).
Both modified Chamberlain and Chevaux et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food product chocolate confectionery bars comprising nuts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food product chocolate confectionery bar of modified Chamberlain and use almond nut butter formed from whole almonds since Chevaux et al. teaches that the nuts can be in any form such as derived from whole almonds.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain “Homemade Snickers Bars” <https://britneybreaksbread.com/homemade-snickers-bars/#wprm-recipe-container-8531> (published January 22, 2021) (herein referred to as “Chamberlain”) in view of Coleman et al. US 2007/0087084 as further evidenced by Ajmera “Are Pecans Good for You?” <https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/are-pecans-good-for-you> (published August 11, 2020) in view of Schmidt US 2004/0228951 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 27, 2023), Sekula et al. US 6,361,817, Zook et al. US 5,268,192, Weiser “How to Make Creamy Nut Butter” <https://web.archive.org/web/20160317055343/https://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-creamy-nut-butter-229499> (archived on March 17, 2016), and Kitchen Love Stories “Raw Caramel Sauce” <https://kitchenlovestories.com/raw-salted-caramel-sauce/> (published September 23, 2013) (herein referred to as “Raw Caramel Sauce”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Yeh “Homemade Snickers.” <https://mynameisyeh.com/blog/2019/9/homemade-snickers> (published September 4, 2019) (previously furnished with the Office Action mailed October 22, 2025).
Regarding Claim 2, Schmidt discloses the nut butter component being an almond nut butter formed from roasted nuts (‘951, Paragraphs [0032] and [0043]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nut butter composite of modified Chamberlain and instead use an almond nut butter formed from roasted almonds as taught by Schmidt based upon the desired flavor profile by a particular consumer.
Further regarding Claim 2, Chamberlain in view of Coleman et al. as further evidenced by Ajmer in further view of Schmidt, Sekula et al., Zook et al., Weiser, and Raw Caramel Sauce is silent regarding the almond nut butter being formed from whole almonds.
Yeh discloses homemade snickers comprising a nougat using any nut or seed butter you want such as tahini snickers made with pistachios or almond butter snickers with macadamia nuts or peanut butter (Yeh, Page 3).
Both modified Chamberlain and Yeh are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food product chocolate confectionery bars comprising nuts. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food product chocolate confectionery bar of modified Chamberlain and use almond nut butter formed from almond paste since Yeh teaches that the nuts of the nougat nut butter component can be in any form such as almond butter.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain “Homemade Snickers Bars” <https://britneybreaksbread.com/homemade-snickers-bars/#wprm-recipe-container-8531> (published January 22, 2021) (herein referred to as “Chamberlain”) in view of Coleman et al. US 2007/0087084 as further evidenced by Ajmera “Are Pecans Good for You?” <https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/are-pecans-good-for-you> (published August 11, 2020) in view of Schmidt US 2004/0228951 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 27, 2023), Sekula et al. US 6,361,817, Zook et al. US 5,268,192, Weiser “How to Make Creamy Nut Butter” <https://web.archive.org/web/20160317055343/https://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-creamy-nut-butter-229499> (archived on March 17, 2016), and Kitchen Love Stories “Raw Caramel Sauce” <https://kitchenlovestories.com/raw-salted-caramel-sauce/> (published September 23, 2013) (herein referred to as “Raw Caramel Sauce”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Eastick “How Caramel is Made – Caramel as a Sweet Confectionery” <https://www.ragus.co.uk/how-caramel-is-made-caramel-as-a-sweet-confectionery-part-2-of-2/> (published March 1, 2019).
Regarding Claim 8, Coleman et al. discloses the caramel composite comprising sugar and soluble fiber content (‘084, Paragraph [0042]) and a sugar syrup binder of liquid sucrose (‘084, Paragraph [0050]) or one or more sugar sweeteners including substantially all sugars (‘084, Paragraph [0062]). However, Chamberlain in view of Coleman et al. as further evidenced by Ajmera in further view of Schmidt, Sekula et al., Zook et al., Weiser, and Raw Caramel Sauce is silent regarding the caramel composite comprising 1-50 wt% invert sugar syrup.
Eastick discloses a chocolate or candy bar comprising caramel (Eastick, Page 2) comprising sugar, invert/glucose syrup, milk or cream, and butter which are added together and cooked and undergoes a Maillard reaction leading to brown color and flavor compounds (Eastick, Page 2) wherein the type of confectionery, amount of butter, type of milk and type of sugar creates differences in flavor in a caramel confection (Eastick, Page 1).
Both modified Chamberlain and Eastick are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food bars comprising a nut butter composite, a caramel composite, and a chocolate composite wherein the food bar is sweetened with sugar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food bar of modified Chamberlain and incorporate invert sugar syrup as a sweetener in the caramel component as taught by Eastick et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Eastick teaches that there was known utility in the food art to make food bars having a caramel component made using invert syrup to impart sweetness to the caramel component.
Further regarding Claim 8, although modified Chamberlain does not explicitly state that the caramel component comprises 1-50 wt% invert sugar syrup, Coleman et al. discloses the food product (bar) having reduced use of high calorie sugar ingredients (‘084, Paragraph [0006]) wherein component layers such as the high fiber caramel composition incorporate water soluble dietary fibers to replace higher calorie sugar ingredients (‘084, Paragraphs [0007], [0025], and [0034]) wherein the sugar ingredients includes sucrose (‘084, Paragraphs [0050]) and [0062].. The caramel composite is made from sugar and soluble fiber content (‘084, Paragraph [0042]). Coleman et al. establishes using water soluble dietary fibers to replace higher calorie sugar ingredients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of invert sugar syrup of the caramel composite of modified Chamberlain since differences in the concentration of the amount of invert sugar syrup of the caramel composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the amount of invert sugar syrup of the caramel composite is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would limit the amount of invert sugar syrup added to the caramel composite and replace substantial amounts of sucrose sugar with soluble dietary fibers to limit the calories of the snack bar to the desired low caloric levels. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the amount of invert sugar added to the food product of modified Chamberlain based upon the desired retention and preservation of the moisture of the food product (Eastick, Page 2).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chamberlain “Homemade Snickers Bars” <https://britneybreaksbread.com/homemade-snickers-bars/#wprm-recipe-container-8531> (published January 22, 2021) (herein referred to as “Chamberlain”) in view of Coleman et al. US 2007/0087084 as further evidenced by Ajmera “Are Pecans Good for You?” <https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/are-pecans-good-for-you> (published August 11, 2020) in view of Schmidt US 2004/0228951 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 27, 2023), Sekula et al. US 6,361,817, Zook et al. US 5,268,192, Weiser “How to Make Creamy Nut Butter” <https://web.archive.org/web/20160317055343/https://www.thekitchn.com/how-to-make-creamy-nut-butter-229499> (archived on March 17, 2016), and Kitchen Love Stories “Raw Caramel Sauce” <https://kitchenlovestories.com/raw-salted-caramel-sauce/> (published September 23, 2013) (herein referred to as “Raw Caramel Sauce”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Couttenye et al. US 2013/0287920 and Turpin et al. US 2021/0378273.
Regarding Claim 9, Chamberlain discloses the food bar containing chopped nuts (peanuts) (Chamberlain, Page 2) Schmidt discloses the inclusion (nuts 14) in the caramel composite (sugar free caramel layer 13) being any type of nuts (‘951, Paragraph [0043]) wherein the nut inclusions in the caramel composite (sugar free caramel layer 13) being pistachios, almonds, peanuts, or walnuts (‘951, Paragraph [0043]).
Further regarding Claim 9, Schmidt discloses the caramel component (caramel layer 13) comprising nuts and grains (‘951, Paragraph [0047]). However, Chamberlain in view of Coleman et al. as further evidenced by Ajmera in further view of Schmidt, Sekula et al., Zook et al., Weiser, and Raw Caramel Sauce is silent regarding the grain inclusion in the caramel composite comprising rolled oats.
Couttenye et al. discloses a food product (soft baked foodstuff 210) comprising one or more inclusions (inclusions 218) comprising whole nuts or nut pieces, caramel, and oat flake pieces (‘920, Paragraph [0047]), which reads on the claimed rolled oats. Turpin et al. also discloses a food product (food product bar 10) comprising one or more inclusions comprising rolled oats (rolled oats 22a) (‘273, FIG. 1) (‘273, Paragraph [0039]).
Modified Chamberlain, Couttenye et al., and Turpin et al. are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of food products comprising nut and grain inclusions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the inclusions of the food product of modified Chamberlain and incorporate rolled oats as a grain inclusion as taught by Couttenye et al. and Turpin et al. based upon the desired ingredients and flavors for a particular consumer.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valentina “homemade almond snickers bars” <https://www.thebakingfairy.net/2012/02/homemade-almond-snickers-bars/> (published February 14, 2012) (herein referred to as “Valentina”) in view of Coleman et al. US 2007/0087084, Sekula et al. US 6,361,817, Toksoz et al. US 2018/0213832, Strecker et al. US 2017/0339992, Eastick “How Caramel is Made – Caramel as a Sweet Confectionery” <https://www.ragus.co.uk/how-caramel-is-made-caramel-as-a-sweet-confectionery-part-2-of-2/> (published March 1, 2019) (previously furnished with the Office Action mailed October 22, 2025), Van Damme “Invert Sugar” <https://chefeddy.com/2009/11/invert-sugar/> (published November 1, 2009) (herein referred to as “Van Damme”), Ervin et al. US 2011/0288182, and Helena “Healthy Snickers Gluten Free” <https://thedeliciousplate.com/healthy-snickers-bars/> (published August 24, 2019) (herein referred to as “Helena”).
Regarding Claim 16, Valentina discloses a food product in the form of a bar (homemade almond snickers bar). The bar (homemade almond snickers bar) comprises a nut butter composite (nougat layer) comprising more than 50 wt% almonds (1 cup chopped almonds and 2 tablespoon almond butter), sugar, fat (from unsalted butter, evaporated milk, and almonds), and lactose (evaporated milk). The nut butter composite (nougat layer) is in the form of a paste (smooth mixture of sugar, milk, marshmallow fluff, almond butter, and vanilla). A caramel composite covers the top of the almonds. The caramel composite comprises milk and sugar (heavy cream). A chocolate composite is disposed below the nut butter composite (nougat layer) and above the caramel composite wherein the chocolate composite comprises milk chocolate (Valentina, Pages 3-4).
Valentina discloses the nut butter composite (nougat layer) comprises more than 50 wt% almonds (1 cup chopped almonds and 2 tablespoons almond butter) (Valentina, Page 4). Although Valentina does not explicitly disclose the nut butter composite nougat layer comprising 55 wt% almonds, differences in the concentration of almonds in the nut butter composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of almonds in the nut butter composite 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would adjust the concentration of almonds in the nut butter composite nougat layer based upon the desired degree of almond flavor desired by a particular consumer in the food bar.
Valentina is silent regarding the nut butter composite comprising soluble fiber and the caramel composite comprising soluble fiber.
Coleman et al. discloses a food product in the form of a bar (‘084, Paragraph [0001]) comprising a nut butter composite (core component 201), a caramel composite (high fiber caramel component 202), and a chocolate composite (compound coating 203) comprising milk chocolate comprising water soluble dietary fibers (‘084, Paragraph [0052]) (‘084, FIG. 2) (‘084, Paragraphs [0022] and [0024]). The component layers comprise the water soluble dietary fibers to aid in providing good moisture retention within the respective high fiber component layer (‘084, Paragraph [0007]). The nut butter composite (core component 201) comprises about 10 wt% to about 18 wt% water soluble dietary fibers (‘084, Paragraph [0008]), which is close to but does not overlap the claimed nut butter composite comprising 20 wt% soluble fiber. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of soluble fiber in the nut butter composite of the food bar of Valentina as taught by the close to overlapping ranges disclosed by Coleman et al. since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed soluble fiber concentration in the nut butter composite ranges does not overlap with the prior art but is merely close in view of Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Coleman et al. further discloses the caramel composite comprises about 20 wt% to about 60 wt% water soluble dietary fibers (‘084, Paragraph [0008]) and the chocolate composite (compound coating 203) comprising about 20 wt% to about 30 wt% water soluble dietary fibers (‘084, Paragraph [0028]), which encompasses the claimed caramel composite comprising 49 wt% soluble fiber and the claimed chocolate composite comprising 1-30 wt% soluble fiber, respectively. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of soluble fiber in the caramel composite and the chocolate composite of the food bar of Valentina as taught by Coleman et al. since where the claimed soluble fiber concentration in the caramel composite and the chocolate composite is encompassed by soluble fiber concentration in the caramel composite and chocolate composite ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Coleman et al. also discloses the caramel composite comprising soluble fibers in the form of fructooligosaccharides (‘084, Paragraphs [0009] and [0088]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food bar of Valentina and incorporate fructooligosaccharide soluble fibers into the caramel composite as taught by Coleman et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Coleman et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food and beverage art to incorporate soluble fibers in the form of fructooligosaccharides into a caramel composite to provide some sweetness to the food bar (‘084, Paragraph [0088]).
Further regarding Claim 16, Coleman et al. discloses the various components and layers of the food bar including natural or artificial sweeteners to the extent they are not present in amounts that prevent conformance with caloric targets or limits set for the food bar (‘084, Paragraph [0062]) wherein water soluble dietary fibers are used in place of higher calorie conventional food bar ingredients such as sugars and sugar alcohols (‘084, Paragraph [0034]). Although Valentina modified with Coleman et al. does not explicitly disclose the nut butter composite comprising 5 wt% sugar, the caramel composite comprising 16 wt% sugar, and the chocolate composite comprising a “low” sugar milk chocolate, Coleman et al. discloses incorporating soluble dietary fibers in place of higher calorie sugar ingredients (‘084, Paragraph [0034]). Sekula et al. discloses an almond butter and almond spread (‘817, Column 2, lines 52-60) having reduced calories and sweeteners such as sugar in an amount from about 0% to about 5% wherein the amount of natural and/or artificial sweeteners employed varies depending upon the sweetness desired as apparent to those skilled in the art (‘817, Column 10, lines 24-52). The disclosure of the sugar sweetener present in the almond butter and almond spread being from about 0% to about 5% encompasses the claimed nut butter composite comprising 5 wt% sugar.
Both modified Valentina and Sekula et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food bars. Both food bars of modified Valentina and Sekula et al. both contain a nut butter composite containing almonds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sugar content of the nut butter composite of modified Valentina to be 5 wt% sugar as taught by Sekula et al. since where the claimed sugar content of the nut butter composite overlaps sugar content of the nut butter composite disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the sugar content of the nut butter composite of modified Valentina based upon the desired degree of sweetness of the food bar while limiting the calories of said food bar by incorporating a lower concentration of sugar into the food bar.
Further regarding Claim 16, Valentina modified with Coleman et al. and Sekula et is silent regarding the caramel composite comprising 16 wt% sugar and the chocolate composite comprising a “low” sugar milk chocolate. However, Coleman et al. discloses the water soluble dietary fibers being used in place of higher calorie conventional food bar ingredients of sugars without diminishing organoleptic properties of the finished product (‘084, Paragraph [0034]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the sugar concentration of the individual components constituting the various layers of the food bar of modified Valentina based upon the desired calorie reduction of the overall food bar as taught by Coleman et al.
Further regarding Claim 16, Valentina discloses the nut butter composite (nougat layer) comprising lactose (evaporated milk) (Valentina, Page 4). However, Valentina modified with Coleman et al. and Sekula et al. is silent regarding the nut butter composite comprising 8 wt% lactose.
Toksoz et al. discloses a food bar (‘832, Paragraph [0079]) comprising a nut butter composite (‘832, Paragraph [0079]) wherein the food bar comprises a natural sweetening composition (‘832, Paragraphs [0027] and [0077]) wherein the natural sweetening composition is a disaccharide of lactose (‘832, Paragraphs [0027] and [0029]) wherein lactose is a disaccharide sugar derived from galactose and glucose that is found in milk wherein lactose makes up around 2-8% of milk by weight (‘832, Paragraph [0030]), which encompasses the claimed lactose concentration in the nut butter composite of 8 wt% lactose. Toksoz et al. also discloses the amount of lactose varies among species and individuals and milk with a reduced amount of lactose also exists (‘832, Paragraph [0030]) and lactose is a natural sweetener (‘832, Paragraph [0035]).
Both modified Valentina and Toksoz et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food bars. Both food bars of modified Valentina and Toksoz et al. contain a nut butter composite and lactose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the lactose concentration in the nut butter composite of modified Valentina as taught by Toksoz et al. since where the claimed lactose concentration of the nut butter composite overlaps lactose concentration of the nut butter composite disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Further regarding Claim 16, Sekula et al. discloses a nut butter composite (reduced calorie nut butter) comprising defatted or partially defatted nuts and/or nut flour (‘817, Column 2, lines 64-67) mixed with full fat peanuts wherein the defatted peanut flours has a fat content from about 0% to about 15% (‘817, Column 4, lines 31-55). However, Valentina modified with Coleman et al., Sekula et al., and Toksuz et al. is silent regarding the nut butter composite comprising 12 wt% fat.
Strecker et al. discloses a nut butter composite (nut butter composition) comprising full fat nuts in combination with defatted nut flour and sweeteners (‘992, Paragraph [0023]) to form a reduced calorie and reduced fat nut butter composition (‘992, Paragraph [0036]) wherein the defatted nut flour employed in the nut butter has a fat content of from 0% to about 15% by weight (‘992,. Paragraph [0076]).
Both modified Valentina and Strecker et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of nut butter composites. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the fat content of the nut butter composite of modified Valentina and reduce the calorie and fat content of the nut butter composite as taught by Sekula et al. and Strecker et al. since differences in the concentration of the fat of the nut butter composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of fat in the nut butter composite is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of the fat in the nut butter composite of modified Valentina by incorporating various concentrations of defatted nut flour as taught by Sekula et al. and Strecker et al. based upon the desired reduction in calories and fat desired by a particular consumer.
Further regarding Claim 16, Valentina modified with Coleman et al., Sekula et al., Toksoz et al., and Strecker et al. is silent regarding the caramel composite comprising 15 wt% sunflower oil, 9 wt% milk, 4 wt% invert syrup, and 3 wt% water.
Eastick discloses a chocolate or candy bar comprising a caramel composite (Eastick, Page 2) comprising sugar, invert/glucose syrup, milk or cream, and butter which are added together and cooked and undergoes a Maillard reaction leading to brown color and flavor compounds (Eastick, Page 2) wherein the type of confectionery, amount of butter, type of milk and type of sugar creates differences in flavor in a caramel confection (Eastick, Page 1).
Both modified Valentina and Eastick are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food bars. Both food bars of modified Valentina and Eastick et al. comprises a nut butter composite, a caramel composite, and a chocolate composite wherein the food bar is sweetened with sugar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food bar of modified Valentina and incorporate invert sugar syrup as a sweetener in combination with sugar as well as milk in the caramel component as taught by Eastick et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Eastick teaches that there was known utility in the food art to make food bars having a caramel component made using invert syrup to impart sweetness to the caramel component.
Further regarding Claim 16, although modified Valentina does not explicitly state that the caramel component comprises 4 wt% invert sugar syrup, Coleman et al. discloses the food product (bar) having reduced use of high calorie sugar ingredients (‘084, Paragraph [0006]) wherein component layers such as the high fiber caramel composition incorporate water soluble dietary fibers to replace higher calorie sugar ingredients (‘084, Paragraphs [0007], [0025], and [0034]) wherein the sugar ingredients includes sucrose (‘084, Paragraphs [0050]) and [0062].. The caramel composite is made from sugar and soluble fiber content (‘084, Paragraph [0042]). Coleman et al. establishes using water soluble dietary fibers to replace higher calorie sugar ingredients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of invert sugar syrup of the caramel composite of modified Valentina since differences in the concentration of the amount of invert sugar syrup of the caramel composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the amount of invert sugar syrup of the caramel composite is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would limit the amount of invert sugar syrup added to the caramel composite and replace substantial amounts of sucrose sugar with soluble dietary fibers to limit the calories of the snack bar to the desired low caloric levels. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the amount of invert sugar added to the food product of modified Valentina based upon the desired retention and preservation of the moisture of the food product (Eastick, Page 2). Additionally, Van Damme discloses invert sugar is a type of corny syrup substitute or replacement for confectionary or baking applications wherein invert sugar has an ability to control crystallization and creates a smoother mouth feel in these products and is hygroscopic which leads to a reduction of available water in food preparations and results in a longer shelf life of countless products and lowers the spread of bacteria and acts as a preservative and has high humectant properties to keep products moist and tender for longer and also contributes to the Maillard reaction (caramelizing) and aids the browning process and intensifies aromas (Van Damme, Page 1) wherein invert sugar can replace about 5-10% of sugar in some food applications (Van Damme, Page 2). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the amount of invert syrup incorporated into the caramel composite of the food bar of modified Valentina since Van Damme discloses that the amount of invert sugar added controls crystallization and creates a smoother mouth feel in these products.
Further regarding Claim 16, Valentina modified with Coleman et al., Sekula et al., Toksoz et al., Strecker et al., Eastick et al., and Van Damme is silent regarding the caramel composite comprising 15 wt% sunflower oil, the milk having a concentration of 9 wt% milk, and 3 wt% water.
Ervin et al. discloses a food bar (‘182, Paragraph [0014]) comprising a caramel composite (dulce de leche) comprising from about 1% to about 50% by weight dietary fiber (‘182, Paragraph [0019]), a reduced amount of sugar (‘182, Paragraph [0016]), milk (‘182, Paragraph [0032]), water (‘182, Paragraph [0008]), and sunflower oil (‘182, Paragraphs [0038]-[0040]) wherein the edible oil component is 3% to 25% by weight of the composition in which the edible oil component adjusts the taste, texture, and improves the melt and creaminess of the dulce de leche caramel composite (‘182, Paragraph [0050]).
Both modified Valentina and Ervin et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food bars. Both food bars of modified Valentina and Ervin et al. comprise a caramel composite. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the caramel composite of modified Valentina and incorporate sunflower oil and water into the caramel composite as taught by Ervin et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Ervin et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food art to make a caramel composite out of the claimed ingredients of fiber, sugar, milk, water, and sunflower oil. Although Ervin et al. does not explicitly disclose the concentration of sunflower oil being used in the caramel composite to be 15 wt% sunflower oil, 9 wt% milk, and 3 wt% water, differences in the concentration of sunflower oil, milk, and water in the caramel composite will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of sunflower oil, milk, and water in the caramel composite is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of the sunflower oil in the caramel composite based upon the desired degree of sunflower flavor as desired by a particular consumer and would also adjust the concentration of milk and water in the caramel composite based upon the desired mouthfeel and moisture content of the caramel composite.
Further regarding Claim 16, Coleman et al. discloses the caramel composite comprising peanut inclusions to provide a crunchy textural feel (‘084, Paragraphs [0033] and [0064]). Although Valentina modified with Coleman et al., Sekula et al., Toksoz et al., Streck et al., Eastick et al., Van Damme, and Ervin et al. does not disclose the caramel composite also including oats as inclusions, Helena discloses a food bar (snickers bar) comprising a caramel composite of date caramel mixed with oats and topped with salted peanuts and dark chocolate (Helena, Pages 2-3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food bar of Valentina and incorporate peanuts into the caramel composite as taught by Coleman et al. and Helena and also incorporate oats into the caramel composite as taught by Helena based upon the desired ingredients and flavor profile of the food bar for a particular consumer.
Further regarding Claim 16, Coleman et al. discloses the caramel composite (caramel component 202) covering all sides of the nut butter composite (core component 201) and the chocolate composite (compound coating 203) enrobing the nut butter composite (core component 201) and the caramel composite (caramel component 202) (‘084, FIG. 2) (‘084, Paragraphs [0022] and [0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the food bar of Valentina and construct the food bar such that the caramel composite covers all sides of the nut butter composite and the chocolate composite enrobes the nut butter composite and the caramel composite as taught by the embodiment depicted by FIG. 2 of Coleman et al. since the configuration of the claimed food bar is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed food bar was significant in view of In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.B.).
Further regarding Claim 16, Valentina modified with Coleman et al., Sekula et al., Toksoz et al., Streck et al., Eastick et al., Van Damme, Ervin et al., and Helena is silent regarding the food product comprising 33% of the nut butter composite, 32% of the caramel composite, and 35 wt% of the chocolate composite. However, differences in the concentration of the nut butter composite, the caramel composite, and the chocolate composite of the food bar will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of the nut butter composite, the caramel composite, and the chocolate composite of the food bar is critical. Where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of the nut butter composite, caramel composite, and chocolate composite based upon the desired flavor profile and intensity of the respective nut butter, caramel, and chocolate ingredients.
Further regarding Claim 16, the limitations “wherein the nut butter composite is in the form of a paste formed by grinding the almonds with the sugar, soluble fiber, fat, and lactose” are product by process limitations. Even though product by process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process in view of In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP § 2113.I.). Nevertheless, Valentina discloses the nut butter composite (nougat layer) is in the form of a paste comprising the ingredients of a smooth mixture of sugar, milk, marshmallow fluff, almond butter, and vanilla (Valentina, Page 4).

Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the previous indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that new indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been made in view of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed June 9, 2026 with respect to the previous combination of references applied to the obviousness rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 9-10 of the Remarks that Sekula does not teach a nut butter composite comprising less than 15 wt%. Applicant points to Column 3, lines 1-5 of Sekula as disclosing the content of the fatty acid esterified propoxylated glycerin composition in the reduced calorie nut butter is up to about 30% of the total composition.
Examiner first notes that Column 3, lines 1-5 of Sekula is not cited to or relied upon in the rejection. The secondary reference of Zook et al. is being relied upon to render obvious the limitations regarding a nut butter composite comprising less than 15 wt% fat. Zook et al. discloses a particular embodiment wherein the partially defatted nut flour has a fat level of about 15% (‘192, Column 22, lines 5-21), which is close to but does not overlap the claimed fat content of fat in an amount of greater than 0 wt% and less than 15 wt%. Weiser discloses that a secondary fat in addition to the fats naturally present in nuts is necessary to make a smooth and creamy nut butter (Weiser, Page 2) Both modified Chamberlain and Zook et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of nut based food products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nut composite of modified Coleman et al. and utilize nuts in nut butter in the claimed concentrations as taught by Zook et al. since where the claimed nut content of the nut butter composite overlaps nut content of the nut butter composite disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the nut content of the nut butter composite of modified Chamberlain based upon the desired degree of nutty flavor of the food product for a particular consumer. Furthermore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nut composite of modified Chamberlain and incorporate nuts having a fat content that is close to the claimed fat content of the nut butter composite as taught by Zook et al. since a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed nut content ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close in view of Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the fat content of the nut butter composite used in modified Chamberlain based upon the desired reduced calorie content levels achieved from using partially defatted nuts and nut products (‘192, Column 2, lines 46-54) to make lower fat nut butter having the organoleptic character of full fat nut spreads without the calories (‘192, Column 3, lines 41-51). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the nut butter composite of modified Chamberlain and incorporate an additional fat that is in addition to the fat naturally present in nut butter since Weiser also teaches that a secondary fat in addition to the fats naturally present in nuts is necessary to create a smooth and creamy nut butter that is spreadable (Weiser, Page 2). The secondary reference of Sekula et al. is being relied upon to render obvious the limitations regarding providing an added or refined sugar to the nut butter composite in the claimed amounts. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 10 of the Remarks that Examiner’s reliance on eight separate references to reconstruct the claimed invention reflects impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Examiner notes that the rejection has been amended to introduce the new secondary reference of Raw Caramel Sauce to render obvious the new limitations regarding the caramel composite comprising 1-30 wt% fat. Furthermore, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Examiner notes that applicant’s other comments on Pages 10-11 does not specifically and distinctly point out the supposed errors of the Office Action.
Examiner notes that a new obviousness rejection under 35 USC 103(a) has been applied to newly presented Claim 16.

Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pastry Arts Magazine “The Basics of Caramel” <https://pastryartsmag.com/general/the-basics-of-caramel/> (published September 22, 2020) discloses caramel basically consists of granulated sugar, heavy cream, butter, and/or water and/or corn syrup (Pastry Arts Magazine, Page 1) wherein corn syrup is known as an invert sugar and helps prevents the sugar from crystallizing, which can result in a grainy caramel wherein sugar cooks until it becomes a deep amber color similar to maple syrup wherein the darker the caramel the more bitter and smoky the flavor will be wherein sugar caramelizes between 320°-350°F and anything above the latter temperature will be bitter wherein once the sugar is the desired color and temperature hot cream is added and then stirred until the caramel is thickened, smooth, and luxurious (Pastry Arts Magazine, Page 2).
Velie “The Serious Eats Guide to Sugar” <https://www.seriouseats.com/the-serious-eats-guide-to-sugar-syrup-honey-natural-sweetners> (published August 10, 2018) discloses invert sugar is made by treating sucrose with an enzyme or with the application of heat and an acid wherein invert syrup is fructose and sucrose dissolved in water and is more hygroscopic than sucrose and keeps baked goods more moist longer and discourages crystallization, which is important when making smooth caramels and invert syrup browns more quickly than sucrose (Velie, Page 17).
Hill “What Is Invert Sugar? Know the Facts” <https://web.archive.org/web/20200926153909/https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/invert-sugar> (archived on September 26, 2020) discloses invert sugar is frequently used to sweeten and improve the quality of a variety of commercial and homemade confections and is also known as invert sugar syrup or invert syrup and is a liquid sweetener made from granulated table sugar and water (Hill, Page 1) wherein invert sugar is created via hydrolysis in which sucrose is mixed with water and heated until the bonds between glucose and fructose break and enzymes or acidic ingredient like citric acid or cream of tartar can be added to expedite the process to make a thick, sweet syrup comprised of half glucose and half fructose wherein the presence of free fructose in invert sugar gives it a much sweeter flavor compared with regular table sugar wherein when light passes through invert sugar it reflects in the opposite/invert direction compared to sucrose (Hill, Page 2) wherein invert sugar helps baked goods retain moisture and improves texture by preventing crystallization, which can occur when using regular table sugar and gives a more uniform sweetness and mitigates the problem of sugar crystals collecting in the bottom of the glass and is more water soluble than regular sugar and invert sugar can be used in combination with other sweeteners to sweeten a variety of foods (Hill, Page 3) wherein fully inverted sugar contains around 50% glucose and 50% fructose and can be made with varying concentrations of glucose, fructose, and sucrose depending on how long it is heated (Hill, Page 4) wherein invert sugar is a form of added sugar and its nutritional features are almost identical to those of regular table sugar or corn syrup wherein intake of foods containing invert sugar should be limited wherein overconsumption of any type of added sugar is associated with an increased risk of chronic conditions like heart disease, diabetes, liver disease, and obesity (Hill, Page 5).
Melissa “Chocolate, peanut butter, caramel oat bars” <https://icrashedtheweb.com/2013/04/28/chocolate-peanut-butter-caramel-oat-bars/> (published April 28, 2013) discloses a chocolate, peanut butter, caramel oat bar made with a caramel layer wherein the caramel is heated with almond milk (Melissa, Pages 1-2).
Alvarez “Healthier Salted Caramel Sauce” <https://thealmondeater.com/healthier-salted-caramel-sauce/> (published September 9, 2020) discloses a dairy free vegan healthy caramel sauce made primarily with coconut cream and maple syrup (Alvarez, Page 3).
Jessica “Healthy Homemade Caramels” <https://dessertswithbenefits.com/super-soft-homemade-caramels/> (published March 30, 2013) discloses a caramel made with light coconut milk, coconut oil, maple syrup, water, granulated erythritol, and almond butter comprising 5 g fat and 0.5 g fiber (Jessica, Pages 4-5).
Azary “DIY: Caramel sauce with milk (no butter, no cream)” <https://www.brighteyedbaker.com/caramel-sauce-with-milk/> (published March 23, 2020) discloses a caramel sauce comprising granulated sugar, salt, and 1% milk or skim milk or rice milk or almond milk or soy milk (Azary, Pages 17-19).
Taste of Artisan “Invert Sugar – What It Is, How It’s Made and Used.” <https://tasteofartisan.com/invert-sugar/> (published December 22, 2019) discloses invert sugar is generally used in combination with sugar (sucrose) (Taste of Artisan, Page 1) wherein invert sugar is also known as inverted sugar or inverted sugar syrup and is a mixture of the simple sugars of glucose and fructose and invert sugar is sweeter than white sugar having a sweetening power of 125% compared to sucrose and bakers often refer to invert sugar as trimoline and invert sugar is used in conjunction with glucose syrup to control crystallization and helps create the small sugar crystals that result in a smooth texture and is best suited for products with a high water content that must be kept soft and invert sugar inhibits crystallization in creams and provides aroma and color when heated and contributes to potential Maillard browning and acts as a humectant helping to retain moisture in the finished product and prevents it from drying out to increase hygroscopicity and invert sugar also has preservative effects due to its high degree of solubility which lowers the water activity level and results in longer shelf life for the finished product (Taste of Artisan, Page 3) and excessive invert sugar gives confections an excessively soft pliable texture and an overly sweet confection and baked goods prepared using invert syrup brown at a lower temperature and require shorter baking times than those made with sucrose (Taste of Artisan, Page 4).
Christina “Vegan Snickers Bars (No Bake, GF)” <https://web.archive.org/web/20210117041423/https://addictedtodates.com/best-ever-vegan-snickers-bars/> (published May 18, 2018) discloses a vegan snickers bar comprising unsalted peanuts, medjool dates to form the nougat layer to add sweetness, fiber and acts as the glue to keep everything together and serves as the main ingredient for the peanut caramel layer, rice milk, crunchy peanut butter blended with the caramel ingredients, vanilla extract, roasted peanuts, chocolate, salt, and coconut oil (Christina, Pages 4-6) wherein the snickers bars are dipped into chocolate (Christina, Page 9) wherein the chocolate is dairy free milk chocolate or dark chocolate (Christina, Page 6).
Nutritionist Mom “Healthy Snickers Protein Bar” <https://nutritionistmom.com/blogs/blog/healthy-snickers-protein-bars?srsltid=AfmBOoo3gLxtyG1-O7lLsYwil5dLMY5xeYdLwq0UhMhJO90oqWE0X0OD> (published March 31, 2019) discloses a snickers bar comprising a nougat layer made from coconut flour, vanilla whey protein powder, and Vitafiber syrup made from tapioca or any sugar free syrup or maple syrup or honey (Nutritionist Mom, Pages 2-3), a caramel layer made from pitted dates, water, vitafiber syrup, pure vanilla extract, and/or sea salt (Nutritionist Mom, Page 5), and a peanut chocolate layer made from dry roasted peanuts pressed into the caramel layer and melted with dairy free dark chocolate on top (Nutritionist Mom, Page 6).
Audrey “Dulce de Leche” <https://www.unconventionalbaker.com/raw-dulce-de-leche-dairy-free-refined-sugar-free/> (published November 19, 2015) discloses a sugar free caramel (spreadable raw dulce) comprising medjool dates, agave or liquid sweetener of your choice like maple syrup, coconut butter, cashew butter, pure vanilla extract, lemon juice, water, carob powder, molasses, and salt (Audry, Pages 17-18).
Nest and Glow “Salted Caramel Snickers Bars Recipe” <https://www.nestandglow.com/healthy-recipes/salted-caramel-snickers> (published August 5, 2016) discloses a snicker bar comprising almonds, dates, almond butter or any other nut butter, maple syrup, sea salt, vanilla, chocolate, and any nut for decoration (Nest and Glow, Pages 4-5).
Parties with a Cause “Homemade Snickers Healthy Candy Bar” <https://partieswithacause.com/homemade-snickers-healthy-candy-bar/> (published on August 19, 2020) discloses a snickers bar comprising a base of medjool dates and nuts of choice, a caramel layer of medjool dates, sea salt, vanilla, and coconut or almond milk, and a chocolate layer and chopped salted peanuts spread evenly over caramel for a crunchy candy bar wherein melted chocolate is poured over the caramel sauce (Parties With A Cause, Pages 25-27).
Ervin US 2010/0278981 discloses a food bar (‘981, Paragraph [0004]) comprising a caramel confection component comprising corn syrup, disaccharide sucrose, condensed skim milk, a liquid edible oil of a blend of canola, soybean, and sunflower oil, a coconut oil component, and a vanilla powder, a fiber component, a water component, an emulsifier, and an inulin fiber component (‘981, Paragraph [0056]).
Ward et al. US 2008/0226786 discloses a nutritional bar composition or food product having 50% lower fat than a traditional chocolate bar by weight comprising caramel and sunflower oil (‘786, Paragraph [0015]).
Girsh US 2012/0164306 discloses a dried evaporated concentrated milk comprising a low lactose content concentrate comprising only 4% lactose to produce an essentially sugar free of no more than 0.5 wt% sugar from any source to chocolate product (‘306, Paragraph [0056]).
Schimoler et al. US 2020/0029613 discloses a frozen confection comprising milk sugar and lactose in a range of from 0 to 8 wt percent (‘613, Paragraph [0024]) further comprising nut butter solids (‘613, Paragraph [0022]).
Dekker et al. US 2006/0134312 discloses a dairy source contributing dairy fat and/or non-fat milk solids such as lactose and milk proteins, e.g. whey proteins and casein (‘312, Paragraph [0048]).
Wilkes US 2012/0164307 discloses nut butters have typical fat levels of approximately 50-55% by weight (‘307, Paragraph [0003]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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 at 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.

/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792

Prosecution Timeline

• Oct 27, 2023: Application Filed
• Oct 22, 2025: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
• Nov 10, 2025: Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
• Nov 10, 2025: Examiner Interview Summary
• Nov 18, 2025: Response Filed
• Nov 25, 2025: Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
• Jan 12, 2026: Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
• Jan 12, 2026: Examiner Interview Summary
• Jan 20, 2026: Response after Non-Final Action
• Feb 11, 2026: Request for Continued Examination
• Feb 14, 2026: Response after Non-Final Action
• Feb 23, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
• Mar 18, 2026: Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
• Mar 18, 2026: Examiner Interview Summary
• Mar 26, 2026: Response Filed
• Apr 09, 2026: Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112
• Jun 09, 2026: Response after Non-Final Action
• Jun 25, 2026: Request for Continued Examination
• Jun 27, 2026: Response after Non-Final Action
• Jul 07, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103, §112 (current)