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 .
Claims
Claims 1, 8, 9, 11 and 14 are pending.
Examiner’s Note
When making amendments to the claims Applicant is advised to be careful and not add new matter. If Applicant believes that support is present in the Figures then Applicant is advised to consider amending the text of the Specification to capture the new limitations while being careful not to add new matter. Applicant is advised to precisely point out where in the disclosure as filed, not the PGPUB, support is present for any amendments.
WITHDRAWN OBJECTIONS
All objections of record in the Office Action mailed 11/16/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 4/8/2026.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
All rejections of record in the Office Action mailed 11/16/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 3/6/2026.
NEW REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Official Correspondence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1, 8, 9, 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cornelius et al. (US 2003/0203019).
The claims are interpreted as being directed to a powder composition that is capable of being consumed as food.
Regarding Claim 1, Cornelius (‘019) teaches a solid flavour composition (See Abs., paras. 4, 15 and 56.) comprising a plurality of individual components at least one of which is a flavour-providing substance and at least one of which is an auxiliary component, wherein the auxiliary component comprises calcium stearate (See paras. 21, 34, Claims 1, 3, 5, 16.) and a carbonate compound being calcium carbonate (See Claims 1, 6.), wherein the solid flavour composition is substantially free of nanosilica (See Abs., claim 1, 3, 6. Nanosilica is not listed as an ingredient. Furthermore, calcium carbonates and phosphates are alternative inorganic particles to silica, thus, substantially free of nanosilica.), however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the solid flavour composition is a powder having a flow index value of 0.15 to 0.24.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one flow index value over another. It is noted the claimed range is very broad and includes virtually every conceivable value. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date since Cornelius’ (‘019) composition and use are substantially the same as claimed that one could reasonably foresee and expect the flow index value would also be the same. It would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to adjust the conditions of the components so the composition could be used as intended.
Regarding Claim 8, Cornelius (‘019) teaches wherein the calcium stearate is present in an amount of 0.01 wt. % to 10 wt. %, based on the total weight of the solid flavour composition (See para. 34, Table 2, 2%, 4%).
Regarding Claim 9, Cornelius (‘019) teaches wherein the carbonate compound is present in an amount of 0.01 wt. % to 10 wt. %, based on the total weight of the solid flavour composition (See para. 33, Table 1, 2%, 4%.).
Regarding Claim 11, Cornelius (‘019) teaches wherein the flavour-providing substance imparts a spicy flavour (See para. 56, garlic, a spicy flavor food.).
Regarding Claim 14, Cornelius (‘019) teaches the composition discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein when stored at 40° C/50% humidity for a period of 8 days shows no caking or clumping.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one caking or clumping profile over another. It would have been reasonably foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date since Cornelius’ (‘019) composition and use are substantially the same as claimed that one would expect the caking or clumping properties would also be the same under the conditions as described.
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
In response to Applicant’s arguments (See pp. 6-7 of Applicant’s Paper filed 3/6/2026.) since Cornelius (‘019) teaches uses silica it cannot teach excluding silica, it is noted that said arguments are not persuasive. Cornelius (‘019) does not state silica must be present but rather teaches it as an alternative particle. As discussed above, Cornelius (‘019) teaches inorganic particles including calcium carbonates and phosphates, thus, free of nanosilica (See Abs., claim 1, 3, 6.).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 March 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights