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 with traverse of Group I, claim 1-17 and 19-20 in the reply filed on 02/20/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “[t]his application is a national stage application of a PCT International Application filed under 35 U.S.C. §371. This application is therefore subject to the Unity of Invention standard, rather that the U.S. restriction practice for national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. §111(a). The PCT international search and examination guidelines permit a product claim and method claim that is specially adapted for making the product in a single application… The claims of Group I are directed to a product and the claim of Group II is directed to a process that is specially adapted for the manufacture of the product of Group I. Unity of Invention exists a priori between claims 1 and 18, because the special technical feature common to all the claims is the flavor enhancer and the Office does not cite any prior art reference alleging that the flavor enhancer of claim 1 does not define a contribution over the prior art.”
This is not found persuasive because the groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons: Groups I and II lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature of group II specific to preparation step necessary and more specifically the corresponding technical feature of reacting the starting materials and at the same time drying the resulting material in a microwave oven to obtain the flavor enhancer and wherein the starting materials include at least a protein source or fragments of proteins or other materials with an amino functionality.
There is not prior art reference cited because there groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature, wherein the feature of reacting the starting materials and at the same time drying the resulting material in a microwave oven to obtain the flavor enhancer and wherein the starting materials include at least a protein source or fragments of proteins or other materials with an amino functionality.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/20/2026.
Application Status
Claim 1-17 and 19-20 are under examination.
Claim 18 is withdrawn from examination.
Claim 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 2-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: the component(s) in claim 2-13, should have “said” or “the” preceding the component(s) since antecedent basis have been established in claim 1. 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.
Claim 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the flavoring preparation" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the phrase “a solid flavoring preparation” in line 2 is confusing since the claim is to the flavor enhancer, i.e. a product. It is unclear as to what Applicant intend “a solid flavoring preparation” to encompass to meet the claim limitation. It is not clear how a “preparation”, in other words a method of making farther defines the product; hence the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (JP 2005/015683, Machine Translation English).
Regarding claim 1-13, Kawasaki discloses a meat flavor composition (flavor enhancer) (Abstract; [0031]) with more taste and odor similar to roasted meat ([0152], last sentence) wherein the meat including chicken ([0032], [0033], [0053], [0107], [0119]). Kawasaki discloses the meat flavor composition (flavor enhancer) comprising components, pyrazines including 2,5-dimethylpyrazine, 2,3-dimethylpyrazine, 2-methylpyrazine and 2,3,5-trimehtylpyrzaine ([0018]); 2,5-dimethyl-4-hydroxy-3 (2H)-furanone (furaneol) ([0030], [0061]); thiols including 2-methyl-3-furanthiol ([0089]); pyrroles including 2-acetylpyrrole ([0111]).
Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose concentrations as claimed in claim 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. However, it is known that strength of flavor compounds and aroma is concentration depended. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the concentrations, including the claimed concentrations in Kawasaki’s meat flavor composition (flavor enhancer) to provide the desired taste and odor similar to roasted meat ([0152], last sentence). Differences in concentration for a desired flavor profile will not support patentability of subject matter, unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical.
Attention is invited to In re Levin, 84 USPQ 232 and the cases cited therein, which are considered in point in the fact situation of the instant case, and wherein the Court stated on page 234 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.
With respect to claim 2, 10, 11, 12 and 13, the dependent claims do not specifically include the component(s) in claim 2, 10, 11, 12 and 13 hence the component(s) is still considered part of the alternative limitation of claim 1. As Kawasaki teaches the components as discussed in claim 1 above, and the component(s) in claim 2, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are listed as an alternative and never specifically claimed as being present then claim 2, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 with Kawasaki’s meat flavor composition (flavor enhancer) comprising the components, pyrazines including 2,5-dimethylpyrazine, 2,3-dimethylpyrazine, 2-methylpyrazine and 2,3,5-trimehtylpyrzaine ([0018]); 2,5-dimethyl-4-hydroxy-3 (2H)-furanone (furaneol) ([0030], [0061]); thiols including 2-methyl-3-furanthiol ([0089]); pyrroles including 2-acetylpyrrole ([0111]) being the taught element.
Regarding claim 14 and 20, Kawasaki’s meat flavor composition (flavor enhancer) comprising the pyrazines including 2-ethyl-3,6-dimethylpyrazine ([0111]). Kawasaki does not explicitly disclose concentration as claimed. However, it is known that strength of flavor compounds and aroma is concentration depended. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the concentrations, including the claimed concentration in Kawasaki’s meat flavor composition (flavor enhancer) to provide the desired taste and odor similar to roasted meat ([0152], last sentence). Differences in concentration for a desired flavor profile will not support patentability of subject matter, unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical.
Regarding claim 15 and 19, Kawasaki’s meat flavor composition (flavor enhancer) is powder or granule (solid flavoring preparation) ([0070], [0101]).
Regarding claim 16 and 17, Kawasaki discloses the meat flavor composition (flavor enhancer) in food product (claim 19), wherein adding the meat flavor composition to the food product ([0103], [0105]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jayasena et al. “Flavour Chemistry of Chicken Meat: A Review” discloses volatile compounds, including pyrroles, pyrazines, many other compounds identified as flavours and aroma in meats, including roasted chicken (abstract, Table 1, Table 2, Table 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG THI YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM to 3PM.
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.
/HONG T YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights