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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/18/25 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/18/25 was filed after the mailing date of the final Office Action on 10/18/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On claim 24, the acronym “GABA” should recite the full name of the compound “gamma-aminobutyric acid” as disclosed on page 194, lines 3-4 of the instant Specification, and as recited on claim 20 for the compound “2-isobutyl-3-methoxypyrazine (IBMP)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On pages 6, 9, 66, 72, 76, 135, 138, 140, 181, 184, 186, and 208, of the instant Specification, the nucleotide monophosphate compound CMP is disclosed. The acronym should be defined at least once on the first mention (i.e., cytidine monophosphate (CMP)).
On pages 6, 9, 66, 72, 75, 135, 138, 139, 181, 184, 185, and 207, of the instant Specification, the nucleotide monophosphate compound AMP is disclosed. The acronym should be defined at least once on the first mention (i.e., adenosine monophosphate (AMP)).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-17 and 19-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. [US 20110318459 A1], hereinafter George, in view of Kindel et al. [US 20040202767 A1], hereinafter Kindel, and Franklin et al. [US 6090431 A1], hereinafter Franklin.
Regarding claim 1, George teach methods of making flavoring compositions [0002], comprising three or more compounds [0020-0063], wherein each compound is independently selected from alcohols [0028, 0068, 0071], aldehydes [0043, 0068] and ketones [0052, 0058-0059, 0061], wherein the compounds use to produce the composition may be in solid form and soluble in water [0067]. The flavor compositions of the invention may be modified to provide for any improved flavor profiles that closely replicates the food products [0012], and one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with George’s disclosure can produce any number of suitable formulations with flavor and aromatic profiles similar to a formulation that is traditionally produced (equivalent to replicas) [0063].
George does not teach a coffee replica (coffee replica flavor composition), wherein the coffee replica is a coffee granule replica.
Kindel teach method of making coffee aroma compositions comprising three or more compounds [0011-0036], individually selected from alcohols [0048], aldehydes [0033-0034], and ketones [0035-0036]. Kindel further recognize the work of Mayer et al. (Eur. Food Res Technol. 2000, 211, 272-276, not relied upon for the rejection of record), where is disclosed that by mixing at least 24 individual compounds that have been identified within the typical aroma of coffee, it is possible to produce compositions that can simulate coffee aroma (coffee replica), using these odorant compounds as pure samples available commercially or synthetized according to available literature [Kindel, 0008], and [Mayer, p.273, Chemicals, Table 1]. The combination of these individual components is useful for imparting an aroma of fresh ground coffee to foods, beverages and other substances [0037, 0070], and said aroma substances may be combined as separate ingredients to prepare coffee flavored formulations in dry form (coffee flavor replica) [0037, 0067, 0070], particularly instant or dry products [0002], dry application form [0067], and/or coffee flavored formulations in granular form (coffee granule replica) [0071, 0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed individual components to produce a coffee granule replica into the invention of George, in view of Kindel, since both are directed to methods of making flavor compositions using individual aromatic compounds, since George already disclosed making flavor compositions with individual components in solid form [George, 0067] but simply did not mention producing granules, and since George further teach that the flavor compositions of the invention may be modified to provide for any number of improved flavor profiles that closely replicates the food products [George, 0012], and one of ordinary skill in the art can produce any number of suitable formulations with flavor and aromatic profiles similar to a formulation that is traditionally produced [George, 0063], but simply did not mention coffee flavor. Doing so would provide instant or dry formulations [Kindel, 0002] in dry application form [Kindel, 0067], as simple aromatic compositions that are capable of imparting fresh ground coffee aroma and flavors to foods/beverages and are characterized by having storage stability [Kindel, 0009].
Modified George does not teach wherein the solid comprises one or more of a processed or unprocessed grain or a grain product, a legume or legume seed, an oil plant or oil seed, a fruit, and a fruit seed.
Franklin teach a pelletized food product in the form of coffee beans that may be subjected to a grinding process comprising beverage based ingredients such as individual pieces of edible plant materials [Abstract]. Suitable edible plant materials include grains, seeds and the like [col.3, l.19-21].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed solid comprising grain or seed into the invention of modified George in view of Franklin in order to provide a pelletized product with coffee bean shape that may be marketed in a manner similar to coffee beans, thereby allowing consumers to use the same rituals with other food products as is now currently employed when making coffee directly from coffee beans. In some cases, the pellets may be marketed in a pre-ground state [Franklin, col.3, lines 10-15]. Doing so would provide compositions that allow individuals to enjoy the ritual of grinding “beans” for hot or cold brewing of beverages other than coffee [Franklin, col.1, l.1-10 and 36-42].
Regarding claim 6, modified George teach wherein each compound of the three or more compounds is independently selected from (2,3-butanedione) a ketone [0052, 0058-0059, 0061], (4-ethylphenol) a phenol [0062-0063], and (2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine) a pyrazine [0081, 0056], as disclosed on page 20, line 18, page 24, line 4, and page 72, line 18 of the instant Specification.
Regarding claim 7, modified George teach wherein each compound of the three or more compounds is independently selected from a ketone [0052, 0058-0059, 0061], a phenol [0062-0063], a pyrazine [0081, 0056], and (dimethyl trisulfide) a sulfur compound [0081], as disclosed on page 28, line 18 of the instant Specification.
Regarding claim 8, modified George teach wherein the coffee replica comprises at least five compounds, wherein each compound is independently selected from an alcohol [0028, 0068, 0071], an aldehyde [0043, 0068], a ketone [0052, 0058-0059, 0061], a phenol [0062-0063], and a sulfur compound [0081], see claim 1, 6-7 rejections above.
Regarding claim 9, modified George teach wherein the coffee replica comprises at least seven compounds, wherein each compound is independently selected from the group consisting of an alcohol [0028, 0068, 0071], an aldehyde [0043, 0068], a ketone [0052, 0058-0059, 0061], a phenol [0062-0063], a pyrazine [0081, 0056], a sulfur compound [0081], see claim 1, 6-7 rejections above, and (acetic acid) an acid [0039], as disclosed on page 21, line 20 of the instant Specification.
Regarding claims 10-17 and 19-25, modified George teach the coffee replica comprises an alcohol, wherein at least one alcohol includes 2-phenylethanol [0028], an aldehyde, wherein at least one aldehyde includes phenylacetaldehyde [0044], a ketone, wherein at least one ketone includes 2,3-butanedione [0058], an acid, wherein at least one acid includes acetic acid [0039], an ester, wherein at least one ester includes ethyl butanoate [0025], a lactone, wherein at least one lactone includes gamma-decalactone [0075], a phenol, wherein at least one phenol includes 4-ethyl phenol [0062], a furan, wherein at least one furan includes furfural [0049], a pyrazine, wherein at least one pyrazine includes 2,3-diethyl-5-methylpyrazine and 2-isobutyl-3-methoxypyrazine [0075], a sulfur compound, wherein at least one sulfur compound includes methanethiol [0173], a sugar and/or amino acid [0090], wherein at least one sugar includes glucose [0093], wherein at least one amino acid includes glycine [0189], and one or more non-volatile compounds including vanillin [0133].
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George, Kindel and Franklin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Weisberg [US 2380092 A].
Regarding claim 5, modified George teach the coffee replica in solid form, wherein the solid comprises a grain or seed, but does not explicitly teach the solid comprises one or more of a grape seed, a chickpea, a date, barley, brown rice, a bean, a lentil, a pea seed, and a pea protein concentrate.
Weisberg teach a water soluble coffee bean like or replica product [col.1, l.1-8, col.2, l.10-16, l.21-25, and l.29-32], which can be made with any appropriate substitute or synthetic substance [col.2, l.10-16] in place of natural or traditional coffee material, extract or powder [col.3, l.35-43]. The invention disclose that the solid may comprise barley [col.3, l.51, Example II. B.].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed solid comprising barley into the invention of modified George in view of Weisberg in order to provide a water soluble coffee like bean product not only in the form or shape and the approximate size of coffee beans but also having the color of roasted coffee beans on the exterior of each individual bean as well as the aroma thereof [Weisberg, col.1, l.1-8]. Doing so would provide coffee like compositions that are in bean form, which would aid in overcome psychological sales resistance, since the consumer is used to see the coffee product in bean form [Weisberg, col.1, l.25-28].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George, Kindel and Franklin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawasaki [JP 2006020526 A].
Regarding claim 18, modified George teach the coffee replica discussed above in claim 1 but is silent regarding the coffee replica comprising a pyrrole, wherein at least one pyrrole is selected from the group consisting of 1-(1H-pyrrol-2-yl)-ethanone, 1-(2-furanylmethyl)-1H-pyrrole, 1-ethyl-1H-pyrrole, 1-methyl-1H-pyrrole, 1-methyl-1H-pyrrole-2-carboxaldehyde, 2- acetyl-1-methylpyrrole, 2-acetylpyrrole, indole, and pyrrole.
Kawasaki teach a coffee flavor composition comprising individual components as active ingredients selected from a group that includes at least one pyrrole [0026], wherein at least one pyrrole includes indole [0029].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed pyrrole into the invention of modified George in view of Kawasaki since both are directed to methods of making aroma/flavor compositions with individually selected compounds. Doing so would provide coffee like flavored compositions that can impart a pleasant aroma and flavor to foods and beverages, and which is effective in improving astringent, bitter, sweet, salty, sour, powdery, metallic taste/flavors of the components and raw materials of the foods containing the composition [Kawasaki, 0002].
Claim(s) 30-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George et al. [US 20110318459 A1], hereinafter George, in view of Kindel et al. [US 20040202767 A1], hereinafter Kindel, and Franklin et al. [US 6090431 A1], hereinafter Franklin.
Regarding claim 30, see claim 1 and claim 7 rejections above where George teach methods of making flavoring compositions [0002], comprising three or more compounds [0020-0063], wherein each compound of the three or more compounds is independently selected from a ketone [0052, 0058-0059, 0061], a phenol [0062-0063], a pyrazine [0081, 0056], and (dimethyl trisulfide) a sulfur compound [0081], wherein the compounds use to produce the composition may be in solid form (granule) and soluble in water [0067]. The flavor compositions of the invention may be modified to provide for any improved flavor profiles that closely replicates the food products [0012], and one of ordinary skill in the art, armed with George’s disclosure can produce any number of suitable formulations with flavor and aromatic profiles similar to a formulation that is traditionally produced (equivalent to replicas) [0063].
Modified George in view of Kindel teach a method of making coffee aroma compositions comprising substantially the same volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and non-volatile compounds [Kindel, 0011-0036], individually selected from ketone [Kindel, 0025], phenol [Kindel, 0042], pyrazine [Kindel, 0026], and sulfur compounds [Kindel, 0042], wherein said aroma substances may be combined as separate ingredients to prepare coffee flavored formulations in dry form (coffee flavor replica) [Kindel, 0037, 0067, 0070], particularly instant or dry products [Kindel, 0002], dry application form [Kindel, 0067], and/or coffee flavored formulations in granular form (coffee granule replica) [Kindel, 0071, 0073].
And, modified George in view of Franklin teach a pelletized food product in the form of coffee beans that may be subjected to a grinding process comprising beverage based ingredients such as individual pieces of edible plant materials [Abstract]. Suitable edible plant materials include grains, seeds and the like [col.3, l.19-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed individual components to produce a coffee granule replica, and the claimed solid comprising grain or seed into the invention of George, in view of Kindel, and Franklin since all are directed to methods of making flavor compositions using individual aromatic compounds, since George already disclosed making flavor compositions with individual components in solid form [George, 0067] but simply did not mention producing granules, and since George further teach that the flavor compositions of the invention may be modified to provide for any number of improved flavor profiles that closely replicates the food products [George, 0012], and one of ordinary skill in the art can produce any number of suitable formulations with flavor and aromatic profiles similar to a formulation that is traditionally produced [George, 0063], but simply did not mention coffee flavor. Doing so would provide instant or dry formulations [Kindel, 0002] in dry application form [Kindel, 0067], as simple aromatic compositions that are capable of imparting fresh ground coffee aroma and flavors to foods/beverages and are characterized by having storage stability [Kindel, 0009]. It would also provide for a pelletized product with coffee bean shape that may be marketed in a manner similar to coffee beans, thereby allowing consumers to use the same rituals with other food products as is now currently employed when making coffee directly from coffee beans. In some cases, the pellets may be marketed in a pre-ground state [Franklin, col.3, lines 10-15]. Doing so would provide compositions that allow individuals to enjoy the ritual of grinding “beans” for hot or cold brewing of beverages other than coffee [Franklin, col.1, l.1-10 and 36-42].
Regarding claim 31, see claim 12 rejection above where modified George teach the coffee replica comprises a ketone, wherein at least one ketone includes 2,3-butanedione [0058].
Regarding claim 32, see claim 16 rejection above where modified George teach the coffee replica comprises a phenol, wherein at least one phenol includes 4-ethyl phenol [0062].
Regarding claims 33-34, see claim 19 rejection above where modified George teach the coffee replica comprises a pyrazine, wherein at least one pyrazine includes 2,3-diethyl-5-methylpyrazine and 2-isobutyl-3-methoxypyrazine [0075].
Regarding claim 35, see claim 21 rejection above where modified George teach the coffee replica comprises a sulfur compound, wherein at least one sulfur compound includes methanethiol [0173].
Regarding claim 36, see claim 31 rejection above where modified George in view of Franklin teach the coffee replica as a pelletized food product in the form of coffee beans that may be subjected to a grinding process comprising beverage based ingredients such as individual pieces of edible plant materials [Abstract]. Suitable edible plant materials include grains, seeds and the like [col.3, l.19-21].
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over George, Kindel and Franklin as applied to claim 30 above, and further in view of Weisberg [US 2380092 A].
Regarding claim 37, modified George teach the coffee replica in solid form, wherein the solid comprises a grain or seed, but does not explicitly teach the solid comprises one or more of a grape seed, a chickpea, a date, barley, brown rice, a bean, a lentil, a pea seed, and a pea protein concentrate.
Weisberg teach a water soluble coffee bean like or replica product [col.1, l.1-8, col.2, l.10-16, l.21-25, and l.29-32], which can be made with any appropriate substitute or synthetic substance [col.2, l.10-16] in place of natural or traditional coffee material, extract or powder [col.3, l.35-43]. The invention disclose that the solid may comprise barley [col.3, l.51, Example II. B.].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed solid comprising barley into the invention of modified George in view of Weisberg in order to provide a water soluble coffee like bean product not only in the form or shape and the approximate size of coffee beans but also having the color of roasted coffee beans on the exterior of each individual bean as well as the aroma thereof [Weisberg, col.1, l.1-8]. Doing so would provide coffee like compositions that are in bean form, which would aid in overcome psychological sales resistance, since the consumer is used to see the coffee product in bean form [Weisberg, col.1, l.25-28].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-25, and 30-37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mayer et al. [Sensory study of the character impact aroma compounds of a coffee beverage, Eur. Food Res Technol. 2000, 211, 272-276], hereinafter Mayer.
Mayer disclose that by mixing at least 24 individual compounds that have been identified within the typical aroma of coffee, it is possible to produce compositions that can simulate coffee aroma (coffee replica), using these odorant compounds as pure samples available commercially or synthetized according to available literature [Kindel, 0008], and [Mayer, p.273, Chemicals, Table 1].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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.
/LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/DREW E BECKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792