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
Applicants’ election without traverse of invention Group II, namely claims 7-15 and 32-38, in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has added claims 35-38 as new claims. Since the newly added claims 35-38 does not increase search burden to examiner, they are examined in this office action.
Applicant's amendments of claim 15 in the reply filed on 05/14/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-19, 21, 28-29, and 31-38 are pending.
Claims 1-6, 16-19, 21, 28-29, 31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/16/2024.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Thus claims 7-15 and 32-38 are examined in this office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code for example in page 9, line 6, page 18, line 29, page 23, line 23, page 31, line 8, page 49, lines 20, 24, 26, 28, page 51, lines 10, 12 and 15. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Interpretation
The phrase “mint-flavoured” has been interpreted as Applicant states” by the term "mint-flavoured" is meant the user of the consumable in a substance delivery system experiences a mint (or minty) taste, smell and feeling from the composition which is the primary flavor of the composition (Spec, page 31, lines 25-27).
The phrase “mint flavor” is interpreted as Applicant states, “A mint flavour is typically described as "fresh", "cool", "cold", "refreshing" and/or "clean"; it can be described as a combination of a sweet taste, a fresh, aromatic aroma and a cooling aftertaste or sensation (Spec, page 31, lines 27-29). Therefore, the profile with "fresh", "cool", "cold", "refreshing" and/or "clean would have mint flavour or aroma.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13 line 1 is missing a comma (,) before the term “wherein”, correction is advised.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-8 and 32-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Dein et al. (Published online: 2019, Journal: J. Agric. Food Chem. 2019, 67, 2589−2597) and as evidenced by Saroch et al. (Published: 10/22/2018, Book: Flavors and Fragrances in Food, Chapter 5: Delivery Systems for Flavors and Fragrances: Quality by Design-Based Considerations, Doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2022-1433.ch005,pages 245-297).
Claims are drawn to a method of preparing mint-flavored composition for a substance delivery system wherein the composition have a predetermined orthonasal profile with at least one aroma other than mint. The method further comprise identifying the predetermined orthonasal profile comprising plurality of chemical compounds and their respective contents and providing the compounds in the composition.
Regarding claim 7, Dein et al. discloses a method of identifying the predetermined orthonasal profile with at least one aroma other than mint comprising a plurality of chemical compounds and their contents.
Applicant defines a mint flavor as “A mint flavour is typically described as "fresh", "cool", "cold", "refreshing" and/or "clean"; it can be described as a combination of a sweet taste, a fresh, aromatic aroma and a cooling aftertaste or sensation (page 31, lines 27-29). Therefore any other flavor not described as "fresh", "cool", "cold", "refreshing" and/or "clean" would be non-mint flavour.
Dein et al. discloses the identifying of the orthonasal profile of Pycnathemum incanum mint species from Lamiaceae family (page 2589, left paragraph 1), wherein the smell (i.e. flavour composition (Spec, page 31, lines 25-27) is fresh aroma (i.e. mint flavour), further comprises other flavor such as floral, eucalyptus, citrus etc. (i.e. non-mint aroma)(pages 2591, Tables 1 and 2).
Dein et al. discloses composition comprising mint powder (page 2590, left paragraph 5) which comprises both mint and non-mint aroma) (pages 2591, Tables 1 and 2). Dein et al. discloses selection of reference odorant as mint like and beyond mint like and wherein a quantitative olfactory profile analysis was performed (page2591, right paragraph 3).
Dein et al. discloses for sensory analysis panelist were provided with reference odorants as menthone (mint, fresh), linalool (citrus), (Z)-hex-3-en-1-ol (green), geraniol (floral), pulegone (mint, medicinal),eugenol (spice), 1-octen-3-one (mushroom), α-pinene (pine), 1,8-cineole (eucalyptus), and dihydrocarvone (solvent) to evaluate the ground fine powder of P. incanum plant material.
Dein et al. discloses composition comprising volatiles from P. incanum fine powder (page 2590, left second to last paragraph), the composition would have comprised the mint and non-mint aroma as recited in the claim.
Furthermore, Saroch et al. showed the evidence that such substance would have been included in the substance delivery system such as Microcapsule, Nanocapsule or in Core shell etc. (page 263, Table 4).
Regarding claim 8, Dein et al. discloses odor activity values of 24 odorants (OAV) (page 2593, Tables 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 32, Dein et al. discloses one of the compound is alcohol such as 1-Octen-3-ol , and terpenes such as myrcene, linalool etc. (see Table 2).
Regarding claims 33-35, Dein et al. discloses the aroma other than mint is floral, citrus, vegetable etc. and aroma as floral etc. (page 2592, Table 2) and the aroma is associated with other than mint.
Therefore Dein et al. anticipates the claims.
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.
Obvious over Dein et al. and further in view of Song et al., Bouassida et al. and Cirlini et al.
Claims 7, 9, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dein et al. and Further in view of Cirlini et al. (Published: 2016, Journal: Molecules 21, 1007; doi:10.3390/molecules21081007); and as evidenced by Saroch et al. (Published: 10/22/2018, Book: Flavors and Fragrances in Food, Chapter 5: Delivery Systems for Flavors and Fragrances: Quality by Design-Based Considerations, Doi: https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2022-1433.ch005,pages 245-297).
Claims are drawn to a method of preparing mint-flavored composition for a substance delivery system wherein the composition have a predetermined orthonasal profile with at least one aroma other than mint. The method further comprise identifying the predetermined orthonasal profile comprising plurality of chemical compounds and their respective contents and providing the compounds in the composition. The claims are drawn to the method wherein the predetermined orthonasal profile is identified by data acquired from headspace of the plant from family Lamiaceae, Geraniaceae etc.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Dein et al. discloses the identifying of the orthonasal profile of Pycnathemum incanum, a mint species from Lamiaceae family (page 2589, left paragraph 1). The data of the chemical compounds were identified within the headspace as dried plant materials using Volatile Isolate Fractionation by Solid-Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography−Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) (pages 2590-2591, last and paragraphs 1-2). Applicant states headspace technology comprise GC-MS (page 8, lines 8-12) which identified the chemical compounds and their respective contents (page 2593, Table 3).
Dein et al. discloses one or more chemical compounds and respective contents with aroma type other than mint (Tables 1-3) and quantification of the predominant odorants (page 2594, left paragraph 2).
Dein et al. discloses comparison to Perilla and Mentha order profiles (page 2595, last paragraph left) and M. spicata and other studies from P. incanum, Laurus nobilis etc. (page2596, left paragraph 1).
Dein et al. does not expressly teach comparing chemical compounds and their contents with one or mor libraries to characterize plant aroma types.
Furthermore, there are multiple libraries known in the art to compare, for example mass spectrum comparisons with those in instrument libraries (National The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST) as taught by Cirlini et al. Cirlini et al. teaches Head space solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) technique, that was applied to characterize the volatile fraction of spearmint (page 1, abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a skilled in the art before effective date of filling from teaching, suggestion sand motivation from Dein et al. to prepare composition comprising mint and non-mint flavors and use the available NIST libraries to compare to characterize the plant by one or more aroma types and use the headspace of the plant to characterize the aroma as taught by Cirlini et al. that would lead to development of method of preparing mint flavored composition with at least one non-mint aroma.
Regarding claim 10, the selection of the specific chemical compound would have been obvious over the aroma profile and composition provided by Dein et al. in Tables 1-3.
Regarding claim 11, Dein et al. teaches the orthonasal order detection threshold and odor threshold references (page 2593, Table 3). Dein et al. teaches identification of aroma using Odor thresholds for odorants 1−3, 6, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 23 were provided by the Sensory Systems Chemistry Group at Leibniz-LSB (Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany). Further threshold from American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) for odorants 7, 8. 13 and 14 wherein all sensory tests were administered to panelists who had no sensory impairments (i.e. human nose) (page 2590, right last paragraph).
Regarding claim 12, botanical would include “any material derived from the mentha species” as described in Spec, 18, lines 15-20, wherein Dein et. al. discloses ground powder of mint leaves as botanical (page 2592, left last paragraph).
Regarding claim 13, the chemical compounds listed are the constituent of the ground powder of mint leaves (page 2592, left last paragraph, Figure 2).
Obvious over Kevin et al. and further in view of Dein et al. and Cirlini et al.
Claims 7, 9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kevin et al. (WIPO International Pub. No.: WO 2021/222485 A1, Pub. Date: 04/11/2021), and further in view of Dein et al., and further in view of Cirlini et al. and as evidenced by Saroch et al.
Claims are drawn to method of preparing mint-flavored composition for a substance delivery system wherein the composition have a predetermined orthonasal profile with at least one aroma other than mint. The method further comprise identifying the predetermined orthonasal profile comprising plurality of chemical compounds and their respective contents and providing the compounds in the composition. The claims are drawn to the profile is from Lamiaceae, Geraniacea etc. The claims are drawn to the chemical compound provided by a synthetic source.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, Kevin et al. teaches method of preparing the mint flavor composition and showed their respective contents (Figures 1-10).
Furthermore, Saroch et al. showed the evidence that such substance would have been included in the substance delivery system such as Microcapsule, Nanocapsule or in Core shell etc. (page 263, Table 4).
Dein et al. discloses the identifying of the orthonasal profile of Pycnathemum incanum, a mint species from Lamiaceae family (page 2589, left paragraph 1). The data of the chemical compounds were identified within the headspace as dried plant materials using Volatile Isolate Fractionation by Solid-Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography−Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) (pages 2590-2591, last and paragraphs 1-2). Applicant states headspace technology comprise GC-MS (page 8, lines 8-12) which identified the chemical compounds and their respective contents (page 2593, Table 3).
Dein et al. discloses one or more chemical compounds and respective contents with aroma type other than mint (Table 1 and 2) and screening of the predominant odorants (page7, left paragraph).
Dein et al. discloses comparison to Perilla and Mentha order profiles (page 2595, last paragraph left) and M. spicata and other studies from P. incanum, Laurus nobilis etc. (page2596, left paragraph 1).
Kevin et al. and Dein et al. does not expressly teach comparing chemical compounds and their contents with one or mor libraries to characterize plant aroma types.
There are multiple libraries known in the art, for example mass spectrum comparisons with those in instrument libraries (NIST) as taught by Cirlini et al. Cirlini et al. teaches Head space solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) technique, that was applied to characterize the volatile fraction of spearmint (page 1, abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a skilled in the art before effective date of filling from teaching, suggestion sand motivation from Kevin et al. and Dein et al. to prepare composition comprising mint and non-mint flavors and use the available NIST libraries to compare to characterize the plant by one or more aroma types and use the headspace of the plant to characterize the aroma as taught by Cirlini et al. that would lead to development of method of papering mint flavored composition with at least one non-mint aroma.
Regarding claim 14, Dein et al. and Cirlini et al. does not teach providing chemical compound by a synthetic source.
Synthetically formulating mint flavor composition that would provide a quality mint flavor profile, impart a cooling sensation is known in the art. Kevin et al. teaches synthetically producing a mint flavor composition using raw materials (page 40, Examples, claim 17). Kevin et al. teaches an advantage provided in the use of predominantly synthetic ingredients in the mint flavor compositions herein is the reduction of seasonal or geographical variations in natural mint composition, quality, sensory, character, and/or cost that otherwise may be exhibited by natural mint oils and provide sensory stability or flavor profile in consumer formulation (page6, lines 27-33).
Therefore someone skilled in the art would develop synthetic mint flavor composition from Kevin et al. and Dein et al. that would provide sensory stability or flavor profile in consumer formulation.
Obvious over Dein et al. and further in view of Cirlini et al, Song et al., Bouassida et al.
Claims 7, 9, 15 and 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dein et al. and further in view of Cirlini et al. and further in view of Song et al. (Published: 2020, Journal: Horticultural Science and Technology 38(5):620-630, 2020 URL: http://www.hst-j.org) (Included in IDS submitted on 01/16/2024) and further in view of Bouassida et al. (Published: 2018, Journal: BioMed Research International Volume 2018, Article ID 7856517, 12 pages) and as evidenced by Saroch et al.
Claims are drawn to method of preparing mint-flavored composition for a substance delivery system wherein the composition have a predetermined orthonasal profile with at least one aroma other than mint. The method further comprise identifying the predetermined orthonasal profile comprising plurality of chemical compounds and their respective contents and providing the compounds in the composition. The claims are drawn to the profile is from Lamiaceae, Geraniacea etc. The claims are drawn to enhancing profile by modifying growing conditions of plant by modifying temperature, relative humidity, light intensity etc.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, see analysis above.
Regarding claim 15, Dein et al. and Cirlini et al. does not teach modifying growing conditions of plant by modifying temperature, relative humidity, light intensity etc.
Song et al. (Published: 2020, Journal: Horticultural Science and Technology 38(5):620-630, 2020 URL: http://www.hst-j.org) (Included in IDS submitted on 01/16/2024) (page 626, last paragraph - page 628, last paragraph; Tables 3 and 4) which discloses method to enhance secondary metabolites in plants by modifying light quality and intensity. Song et al. specifically teaches some combination of LED light the composition (Blue B2:Red R3:White W5) of various compound from sweet basil (i.e. plant from family Lamiaceae) for example β-Myrcene, limonene etc. as also shown in the orthonasal profile of the mint plants of Dein et al. (Tables 1 and 3). Furthermore, Bouassida et al. teaches seasonal variation of winter and spring (i.e. mild temperature) vs. winter for various content and composition of essential oils from Mentha longifolia (a plant of family Lamiaceae, page 2, left paragraph 3) (page 5, Table 2).
Therefore it would have been obvious to modify the plant of Lamiacea to have different temperature, relative humidity and light intensity or composition and growth duration leading to enhancement of some orthonasal profile as taught by Song et al. and Bouassida et al.
Regarding claim 36, , Dein et al. discloses the identifying of the orthonasal profile of Pycnathemum incanum, a mint species from Lamiaceae family (page 2589, left paragraph 1). The data of the chemical compounds were identified within the headspace as dried plant materials using Volatile Isolate Fractionation by Solid-Phase Extraction and Gas Chromatography−Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) (pages 2590-2591, last and paragraphs 1-2).
Dein et al. discloses one or more chemical compounds and respective contents with aroma type other than mint (Tables 1-3) and quantification of the predominant odorants (page 2594, left paragraph 2).
Dein et al. discloses comparison to Perilla and Mentha order profiles (page 2595, last paragraph left) and M. spicata and other studies from P. incanum, Laurus nobilis etc. (page2596, left paragraph 1).
Dein et al. does not expressly teach comparing chemical compounds and their contents with one or mor libraries to characterize plant aroma types.
Furthermore, there are multiple libraries known in the art to compare, for example mass spectrum comparisons with those in instrument libraries (National The National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST) as taught by Cirlini et al. Cirlini et al. teaches Head space solid-phase microextraction (HS-SPME) coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) technique, that was applied to characterize the volatile fraction of spearmint (page 1, abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a skilled in the art before effective date of filling of the invention to determine the orthonasal profile of plant with enhanced othonasal profile from teaching and suggestions and motivation of Dein et al. for developing profile of the plant from data generated from headspace of the plant, identify the chemical compounds and their contents and compare the compounds in the publicly available libraries as taught by Cirlini et al.
Regarding claim 37, Dein et al. teaches the orthonasal order detection threshold and odor threshold references (page 2593, Table 3). Dein et al. teaches identification of aroma using Odor thresholds for odorants 1−3, 6, 10, 16, 17, 20, and 23 were provided by the Sensory Systems Chemistry Group at Leibniz-LSB (Technical University of Munich, Freising, Germany). Further threshold from American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) for odorants 7, 8. 13 and 14 wherein all sensory tests were administered to panelists who had no sensory impairments (i.e. human nose) (page 2590, right last paragraph).
Regarding claim 38, Song et al. teaches modification in Linalool which has floral and citrus aroma and eugenol which has clove aroma(i.e. not mint) (Song et al. table 4) and Bouassida et al. teaches modification in α-pipene which has pine aroma and 1,8 cineole which has eucalyptus aroma (Bouassida et al. Table 2) (For odor profile see Dein et al., Table 2).
Summary
No claim is allowed.
Examiner’s Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANTOSH SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8440. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, AMJAD A. ABRAHAM can be reached at (571)270-7058. 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.
/SANTOSH SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663
Prosecution Insights