DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I and Species I, vegetable bouillon in the reply filed on April 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 11-12 and 14-15 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 13 includes two periods at the end of the sentence. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “cellulose gums (including carboxy methylcellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, microcrystalline cellulose, and methylcellulose)”. It is unclear as to if the cellulose gums claimed are limited to those recited, or if other cellulose gums may be encompassed by the term “cellulose gums”. It is suggested applicant remove the exemplary gums and just recite “cellulose gums”, or alternatively delete “cellulose gums” and “including” and remove the parenthetical.
Claim 10 recites the combination of components a, b, and d is from 15-40%. Claim 10 also limits components a, b, and d to comprising certain elements. It is unclear as to if the “a, b, and d” which is from 15-40% is limited to only the elements the claim has been further limited to, or could including any components which were previously encompassed by the terms a, b, and d respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2019/0364940 A1) in view of Florentina (“Vegan Vegetable Soup” pages 1-7 April 15, 2021 https://veggiesociety.com/vegan-vegetable-soup-recipe/).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-10, Kim et al (Kim) teaches a granular, i.e. particulate, boullion composition (abstract and paragraph 68). Kim teaches the composition comprises 0-45% vegetables, herbs, and spices which encompass components a-e as claimed; 0-25% of a starch component including maltodextrin which encompasses filler component g as claimed, or native starch which encompasses thickener component f as claimed; 22-85% inorganic salt which could also be considered a thickener or filler as claimed; and 0-20% sugar which could also be considered a thickener, filler, or flavoring as claimed (abstract). Thus, the composition of Kim encompasses one with 10-50% components a-e, 35-75% components f-g; and 70-100% of components a-h as claimed.
Regarding the composition as containing less than 0.5% sodium as recited in claim 1, as Kim teaches that the salt employed is potassium chloride (paragraph 84), wherein sodium is not required in the composition, the teachings of Kim encompass or at least make obvious a product with less than 0.5% sodium as claimed.
Kim teaches that the vegetable matter may include onion and leek (allium as recited in claim 1 a); carrot, tomato, and bell pepper (vegetables as recited in claim 1b); parsley and rosemary (herbs as recited in claim 1 c) (paragraph 94), but is silent to the composition as comprising: 2-16% allium selected from onion, shallot, garlic, leek, and combinations thereof, 1.5-25% vegetables selected from carrot, tomato, red bell pepper, parsnip, and combinations thereof, 1-10% herbs selected from parsley, fenugreek, rosemary, bay leaves, and combinations thereof, 0-15% herbal roots selected from celeriac, lovage root, root parsley and combinations thereof, and 0.4-4.2% spices selected from turmeric, pepper, nutmeg, clove, celery seed and combinations thereof as recited in claim 1 a-e; to the tomato as from 1.5-8% as recited in claim 6, to the herbs as at least 3 selected from parsley, fenugreek, rosemary, and bay leaves as recited in claim 7, to the celery seed as from 0.2-1.5% as recited in claim 8, to the lovage root as from 0.1-1.0% as recited in claim 9, or to the onion as from 4-15%, the carrot and/or tomato as from 5-20%; and the celeriac, lovage root, and/or root parsley as from 3-15%, wherein a, b, and d are 15-40% of the composition as recited in claim 10.
Florentina teaches a recipe for vegetable soup comprising in combination: onions (allium as recited in claim 1a); carrots, diced bell pepper, and tomato (vegetables as recited in claim 1b); parsley, and bay leaves (herbs as recited in claim 1c); celery root (celeriac) and lovage (lovage root) (herbal roots as recited in claim 1d); salt and pepper to taste (spices as recited in claim 1e); and lime (flavoring as recited in claim 1h) (Ingredients page 6). Florentina teaches that the combination of ingredients is healthy and hearty, loaded with flavor and nutrition, and features immunity boosting root vegetables and fragrant herbs (page 1). Florentina teaches lovage makes any soup and stew taste better; root vegetables like carrot, parsley, and celery root provide deep flavor and nuttiness to soup; and lime brings the soup together to help ingredients stand out (page 3). Florentina teaches that you can add some of your favorite veggies to the mix as well (page 5 “What other veggies should I add”).
Regarding the composition as comprising: 2-16% allium selected from onion, shallot, garlic, leek, and combinations thereof, 1.5-25% vegetables selected from carrot, tomato, red bell pepper, parsnip, and combinations thereof, 1-10% herbs selected from parsley, fenugreek, rosemary, bay leaves, and combinations thereof, 0-15% herbal roots selected from celeriac, lovage root, root parsley and combinations thereof, and 0.4-4.2% spices selected from turmeric, pepper, nutmeg, clove, celery seed and combinations thereof as recited in claim 1 a-e; to the tomato as from 1.5-8% as recited in claim 6, to the herbs as at least 3 selected from parsley, fenugreek, rosemary, and bay leaves as recited in claim 7, to the celery seed as from 0.2-1.5% as recited in claim 8, to the lovage root as from 0.1-1.0% as recited in claim 9, or to the onion as from 4-15%, the carrot and/or tomato as from 5-20%; and the celeriac, lovage root, and/or root parsley as from 3-15%, wherein a, b, and d are 15-40% of the composition as recited in claim 10, it would have been specifically obvious for the combination of herbs, vegetables, and spices as taught by Kim to comprise onions (allium as recited in claim 1a); carrots, diced bell pepper, including red, orange, or yellow bell peppers, and tomato (vegetables as recited in claim 1b); parsley, and bay leaves (herbs as recited in claim 1c); celery root (celeriac) and lovage (lovage root) (herbal roots as recited in claim 1d); salt and pepper to taste (spices as recited in claim 1e); and lime (flavoring as recited in claim 1h) to provide a healthy and hearty soup bouillon, loaded with flavor and nutrition, and featuring immunity boosting root vegetables and fragrant herbs in view of Florentina. It would have been further obvious to adjust the amount of each of said components based on the desired flavor, taste, and/or nutritional impact desired from each respective component. Additionally, as Florentina teaches that you can add some of your favorite veggies to the mix as well, it would have been further obvious to add other known vegetables and herbs, such as and including celery seed, fenugreek, and/or rosemary as desired for taste, flavor, and/or nutrition. Further, attention is invited to In re Levin, 84 USPQ 232 and the cases cited therein, which are considered in point in fact situation of the instant case. At page 234, the Court stated as follows: This court has taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them in ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention, merely because it is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In all such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients, which produces a new, unexpected and useful function. In re Benjamin D. White, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 956, 39 F.2d 974, 5 USPQ 267; In re Mason et al., 33 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1144, 156 F.2d 189, 70 USPQ 221.
Regarding claim 2, Kim teaches the bouillon comprises 2-60% fat (abstract), selected from the group including vegetable oils (paragraph 86).
Regarding claim 13, Kim teaches the bouillon comprise 0-25% glutamate which is a taste enhancer (abstract and paragraph 87).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0134397 teaches bouillon composition comprising 2-80% herbs and/or vegetables.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY BEKKER whose telephone number is (571)272-2739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-3:30pm.
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.
KELLY BEKKER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1792
/KELLY J BEKKER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights