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 .
The amendment filed 3/4/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-23 are pending. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-11 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohse (WO 2018083224 A1) in view of Meynier et al. (“Volatile compounds of commercial Milano salami”, DOI: 10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00122-3, February 1999), and
Tamura, et al. (“Identification of Novel Aroma-Active Thiols in Pan-Roasted White Sesame Seeds”, DOI: 10.1021/jf100623a, May 2010), and
The Good Scents Company (2) (2-methyl-3-furanthiol , https://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/rw1035411.html, reference is made to the provided archival version, March 2019), and
The Good Scents Company (3), (2,3-dimethylpyrazine, https://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/rw1008141.html, reference is made to the provided archival version, June 2019), and
The Good Scents Company (4) (2,3-dimethyl pyrazine, https://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/rw1008121.html, reference is made to the provided archival version, June 2018), and
The Good Scents Company (5) (2-methyl-2,3-dihydrofuran-3-thiol, https://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/rw1551901.html, reference is made to the provided archival version, August 2019), and
The Good Scents Company (6) (2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine, https://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/rw1012941.html, reference is made to the provided archival version, October 2018), and
The Good Scents Company (7) (furfuryl mercaptan, http://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/rw1008451.html, reference is made to the provided archival version, September 2018, and
The Good Scents Company (8) (2-acetylpyrrole, https://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/rw1028421.html, reference is made to the provided archival version, February 2018)
Regarding Claims 1-11, Lohse teaches a composition for flavoring that imparts a red meat flavor (Page 7, Line 25). The flavor comprises aldehydes and ketones (Page 12, Line 19) which encompasses 2-methylbutanal and 2-acetylpyrrole, thiols (Page 11, Line 7) which encompasses 2-methyl-1-butene-1-thiol, 2-methyl-3-furanthiol, 2-methyl-4,5-dihydrofuran-3-thiol, and furfuryl mercaptan, pyrazines (Page 6, Line 3) which encompasses 2,5-dimethylpyrazine, 2,6-dimethylpyrazine, and 2,3-dimethyl pyrazine.
Lohse does not specifically teach the compounds or concentrations as claimed.
Meynier teaches that a meat product comprises 2-methylbutanal at up to 1.25 ppm (Page 180, Table 2), which overlaps the claimed range, and 2,6 dimethylpyrazine at .007-.035 ppm (Page 180, Table 2), which lies within the claimed range.
Tamura teaches that 2-methyl-1-butene-1-thiol has a meaty odor (Page 7372, Table 1, #5). Tamura does not discuss the concentration. However, it is known that the strength of an aroma or flavor compound is concentration dependent. Differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05 II A. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
The Good Scents Company (2) teaches that 2-methyl-3-furanthiol has a meaty odor (Page 3) and is found in meat products at up to 0.25 ppm (Page 13), which overlaps the claimed range.
The Good Scents Company (3) teaches that 2,5-dimethylpyrazine has a meat flavor (Page 4) and is found in meat products at up to 10 ppm (Page 12), which encompasses the claimed range.
The Good Scents Company (4) teaches that 2,3-dimethylpyrazine has a meaty flavor (Page 5) and is found in meat products at up to 10 ppm (Page 15), which encompasses the claimed range.
The Good Scents Company (5) teaches that 2-methyl-4,5-dihydrofuran-3-thiol has a meaty flavor (Page 5) and is typically found in savory products at 5 mg/kg, or 5 ppm (Page 6), which touches the claimed range.
The Good Scents Company (6) teaches that trimethylpyrazine is used in meat flavors (Page 4) and is typically found in meat products at up to 2 ppm, which encompasses the claimed range (Page 16, reproduced table from Page 15 for clarity).
The Good Scents Company (7) teaches that furfuryl mercaptan has a meaty flavor (Page 6, Paragraph 1) and is typically found in consumer products at .0001-0.5 ppm (Page 6, Paragraph 1), which encompasses the claimed range.
The Good Scents Company (8) teaches that 2-acetylpyrrole has a roasted flavor (Page 8, “Takasago” and is typically used in processed food at 2-50 ppm (Page 8, “Treatt”), which encompasses the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the compounds as claimed in the concentration as claimed in the flavor composition of Lohse. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since the claimed compounds are known for meaty or roasted odors or flavors, and Lohse teaches a flavor composition intended to impart a meat-like flavor.
Regarding Claim 18, Lohse teaches that the flavoring is a solid (Page 1, Line 1).
Regarding Claims 19 and 20, Lohse teaches that the flavoring is added to food (Page 4, Lines 4-5)
Regarding Claim 21, Lohse teaches that the flavoring is made by microwaving (Page 3, Line 25-29) a material comprising starting materials such as proteins (Page 10, Line 3).
Regarding Claim 22, Lohse teaches that the composition may be a powder or granule (Page 9, Line 18).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohse in view of Meynier, Tamura and The Good Scents Company (1-8) as applied to Claim 1, above, and further in view of The Good Scents Company (9) (furaneol https://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/rw1000931.html, reference is made to the provided archival version, January 2019)
Modified Lohse teaches a meat flavoring as discussed above in regards to Claim 1 but does not discuss the specific use of furaneol or its concentration.
The Good Scents Company (9) teaches that furaneol has a fried meat flavor (Page 4) and is used at foods at concentrations from 5-60 ppm (Page 16), which encompasses the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the furaneol as claimed in the concentration as claimed in the flavor composition of Lohse. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since furaneol is known to impart a meat flavor, and Lohse teaches a flavor composition intended to impart a meat-like flavor.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohse in view of Meynier, Tamura and The Good Scents Company (1-8) as applied to Claim 1, above, and further in view of Tonsbeek (“Isolation of 4-Hydroxy-5-methyl-3 (2H) -furanone and Its 2,5-Dimethyl Homolog from Beef Broth”, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf60160a008, 1968).
Modified Lohse teaches a meat flavoring as discussed above in regards to Claim 1 but does not discuss the specific use of nor-furaneol.
Tonsbeek teaches that 4-hydroxy-5-methyl-3 (2H) furanone (note that this is the same compound as nor-furaneol, as claimed) can be isolated with a beef broth with a “intense meaty” odor (Abstract and Page 1016, Column 2, Paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize nor-furaneol as claimed in the flavor composition of Lohse. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since nor-furaneol is known to impart a meat flavor, and Lohse teaches a flavor composition intended to impart a meat-like flavor.
Tonsbeek does not discuss the concentration of the nor-furaneol. However, the concentration of a flavorant/odorant is known to affect the intensity of the flavor/odor. It has long been settled to be no more than routine experimentation for one of ordinary skill in the art to discover an optimum value of a result effective variable. Additionally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05 II A. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohse in view of Meynier, Tamura and The Good Scents Company (1-8) as applied to Claim 1, above, and further in view of The Good Scents Company (10) (sulfurol, https://www.thegoodscentscompany.com/data/rw1023221.html reference is made to the provided archival version, January 2019)
Modified Lohse teaches a meat flavoring as discussed above in regards to Claim 1 but does not discuss the specific use of sulfurol
The Good Scents Company (10) teaches that sulfurol has a meaty flavor (Page 3) and is used at 0.1-1% (Page 5), which overlaps the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the furaneol as claimed in the concentration as claimed in the flavor composition of Lohse. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since sulfurol is known to impart a meat flavor, and Lohse teaches a flavor composition intended to impart a meat-like flavor.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohse in view of Meynier, Tamura and The Good Scents Company (1-8) as applied to Claim 1, above, and further in view of Chen, et al. (“2, 5-Diketopiperazines (Cyclic Dipeptides) in Beef: Identification, Synthesis, and Sensory Evaluation”, DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01062.x, March 2009)
Regarding Claims 15 and 16, modified Lohse teaches a meat flavoring as discussed above in regards to Claim 1 but does not discuss the specific use of proline-valine diketopiperazine or proline-isoleucine diketopiperazine.
Chen teaches that cis-cyclo(L-Pro-L-Val) (note that this is the same compound
as proline-valine diketopiperazine, as claimed) varies from 2-24 ppm in a beef product (Page C-103, Table 1), encompasses the range of Claim 15.
Chen additionally teaches that cis-Cyclo(L-Ile-L-Pro) (note that this is the
same compound as proline-isoleucine diketopiperazine, as claimed) varies from 2.0-12.7 ppm in a beef product (Page C-103, Table 1), which overlaps the claimed range of Claim 1 and encompasses the claimed range of Claim 16.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize proline-valine diketopiperazine or proline-isoleucine diketopiperazine as claimed in the concentration as claimed in the flavor composition of Lohse. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since these compounds are to be present in beef, and Lohse teaches a flavor composition intended to impart a meat-like flavor.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Lohse teaches a meat flavoring as discussed above in regards to Claim 1 but does not discuss the specific use of the compounds as claimed in the amounts as claimed.
Chen teaches that cis-Cyclo(L-Leu-L-Pro) (note that this is the
same compound as proline-leucine diketopiperazine, as claimed) varies from 3.3-20.6 ppm in a beef product (Page C-103, Table 1), which encompasses the claimed range of Claim 17.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lohse in view of Meynier, Tamura and The Good Scents Company (1-8) as applied to Claim 1, above, and further in view of The Good Scents Company (9), The Good Scents Company (10), and Chen, et al. (“2, 5-Diketopiperazines (Cyclic Dipeptides) in Beef: Identification, Synthesis, and Sensory Evaluation”, DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01062.x, March 2009)
Regarding Claim 23, modified Lohse teaches the use of 10 of the compounds in a meat flavoring as discussed above in regards to Claim 1 but does not discuss the specific use of at least fourteen.
The Good Scents Company (9) teaches that furaneol has a fried meat flavor (Page 4) and is used at foods at concentrations from 5-60 ppm (Page 16), which encompasses the claimed range.
The Good Scents Company (10) teaches that sulfurol has a meaty flavor (Page 3) and is used at 0.1-1% (Page 5), which overlaps the claimed range.
Chen teaches that cis-cyclo(L-Pro-L-Val) (note that this is the same compound
as proline-valine diketopiperazine, as claimed) varies from 2-24 ppm in a beef product (Page C-103, Table 1), which overlaps the claimed range.
Chen additionally teaches that cis-Cyclo(L-Ile-L-Pro) (note that this is the
same compound as proline-isoleucine diketopiperazine, as claimed) varies from 2.0-12.7 ppm in a beef product (Page C-103, Table 1), which overlaps the claimed range.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the additional compounds as claimed in the concentration as claimed in the flavor composition of Lohse. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since these compounds are known to be present in meat compounds or have a meat flavor, and Lohse teaches a flavor composition intended to impart a meat-like flavor.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues (Page 6 of Remarks) that Lohse teaches a wide variety of different flavors, and does not provide guidance on what ingredients to use, or in what amounts, to achieve a reaction flavor of a red meat (or roasted red meat) flavor. Applicant additionally argues that Claim 1 requires at least ten different markers components in specific concentrations. Applicant additionally argues that Lohse does not teach or suggest what ingredients can be used to achieve a specific flavor.
This argument is not convincing. First, where Lohse teaches the classes of compounds as claimed, and additionally teaches the modification of the composition to achieve desired flavor profiles (Page 7, Lines 16-18), and additionally where the combination of Meynier, Tamura, and The Good Scents Company (2-8) provide sufficient motivation to include the claimed compounds in a flavor intended to mimic roasted meat, one of ordinary skill would have been able to have adjusted the composition to have arrived at the claimed composition through no more than routine experimentation. Second, the instant Specification compares five samples all comprising the claimed compounds in compositions lying within the claimed range(s). Applicant has therefore has not provided a comparative showing for criticality, and the showings in the Specification are not commensurate in scope with the Claim(s).
Applicant additionally argues that the compounds taught by Meynier are not meat-derived, and therefore would be no reason to believe such compounds would impart a roasted red meat flavor. Applicant additionally states that Meynier teaches that 2,6- dimethylpyrazine is a “contaminant of unknown origin”, and that 2-methylbutanal and 2,6 dimethylpyrazine imparts a “rancid” or “mashed potatoes” odor, which do not suggest a roasted red meat flavor.
This argument is not convincing. First, the motivation to include the compounds as taught by Meynier is not required to be the same as that of the present Application, i.e., to provide a roasted red meat flavor. Where Meynier teaches olfactory compounds present in a meat product, it would have been obvious to have included the olfactory compounds of Meynier in a meat flavor as taught by Lohse. Second, Meynier teaches that 2,6-dimethylpyrazine is a compound of unknown origin (not a contaminant). Additionally, the provenance of the compound is not relevant to its inclusion in a meat flavor compound. Third, the odour/flavor of a flavor compound is known to be dependent on concentration and composition of the individual compounds. Where Meynier teaches olfactory compounds present in a meat product, it would have been obvious to have included the olfactory compounds of Meynier in a meat flavor as taught by Lohse.
Applicant additionally argues that the concentrations of compounds taught by The Good Scents company refers to the compounds in the food products, and the claimed concentration of the marker components used in a flavor enhancer used in low concentrations in the food product.
This argument is not convincing. The instant Claim(s) do not require a final concentration in food.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights