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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the screening the antagonist molecules for efficacy, a source of carrier gas, a regulating means, a plurality of channels, a plurality of aroma substance containing cartridges in fluid communication with the plurality of channels, a disseminating means configured to deliver the at least one aroma substance to the nasal cavities of the user, a near-field communication (NFC) interface, loading an off-note compound from the selected a non-animal protein into its own individual cartridge or channel of the aroma blending device, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
With regards to claim 1, the method it is not understood as to what is being referred to as and how the alleged claim is to be performed and/or function. a) selecting a non-animal protein for analysis, ; b) identifying off-note compounds in the non-animal derived protein, how is this off-note identified?; c) selecting possible antagonist molecules (what is this antagonist molecules consisting thereof and how is this antagonist molecule selected and/or determined?; d) screening the antagonist molecules for efficacy of masking the identified off-note compounds (how is this screening performed and how is this efficacy of masking determined and/or performed?; and e) combining the efficacious antagonist molecules to form a masking composition, wherein the screening of the antagonist molecules is performed using an aroma blending device (what is this aroma blending device and how does it perform the intended use and its function?, How is this delivering of at least one aroma substance to the nasal cavities of a user? As the DETAILED DESCRIPTION fails to disclose and/or suggest all these above limitations and thus rendering claim 1 as indefinite.
With regards to claim 2, the method it is not understood as to what is being referred to as and how the alleged claim is to be performed and/or function a) a source of carrier gas how is this carrier gas introduced, attached, performing its intended use and function?; b) a regulating means which receives the carrier gas and regulates the passage of the carrier gas through a plurality of channels; c) a plurality of aroma substance containing cartridges in fluid communication with the plurality of channels; d) a disseminating means configured to deliver the at least one aroma substance to the nasal cavities of the user, As the DETAILED DESCRIPTION fails to disclose and / or suggest these limitations and thus rendering claim 2 as indefinite.
With regards to claim 3, the method wherein the aroma blending device is an olfactometer device (well known as discloses by applicant, ¶0029).
With regards to claim 4, the method wherein the carrier gas comprises air, nitrogen, or combinations thereof (carrier gas are well known in the art).
With regards to claim 5, the method it is not understood as to what is being referred to as and how the alleged claim is to be performed and/or function wherein the regulating means is a device that comprises a plurality of channels configured to convey the carrier gas to the plurality of aroma substance containing cartridges, wherein there is one cartridge per channel. As the DETAILED DESCRIPTION fails to disclose and / or suggest these limitations and thus rendering claim 5 as indefinite.
With regards to claim 6, the method it is not understood as to what is being referred to as and how the alleged claim is to be performed and/or function wherein the regulating means is configured to determine which aroma substances and how much thereof are conveyed and when, thereby altering the nature of the aroma perceived by the user As the DETAILED DESCRIPTION fails to disclose and / or suggest these limitations and thus rendering claim 6 as indefinite.
With regards to claim 8, the method it is not understood as to what is being referred to as aroma blending device comprises a near-field communication (NFC) interface and how the alleged claim is to be performed and/or function
With regards to claim 11, the method it is not understood as to what is being referred to as and how the alleged claim is to be performed and/or its function. (d)(1) loading an off-note compound from the selected a non-animal protein into its own individual cartridge or channel of the aroma blending device; (d)(2) loading a dilution of the selected the non-animal protein into its own individual cartridge or channel of the aroma blending device as a control; (d)(3) loading a candidate antagonist molecule into its own individual cartridge or channel of the aroma blending device; (d)(4) opening the gas flow of the cartridge or channel of the aroma blending device containing the off-note compound from the selected a non-animal protein; (d)(5) opening the gas flow of the cartridge or channel of the aroma blending device containing the candidate antagonist molecule; and (d)(6) adjusting the intensity of the flow of the candidate antagonist molecule containing cartridge or channel until the off-note is neutralized, as the DETAILED DESCRIPTION fails to disclose and/or suggest all these above limitations and thus rendering claim 11 as indefinite.
With regards to claims 7, 9, 10, 12-18 are rejected as being depended thereupon claim 1. It is also noted that the multiple and various selections of the alleged antagonist molecule, the non-animal derived protein comprises a pea protein, fatty acids, sulfur containing compounds, antagonist molecules comprise sweet browns, antagonist molecules comprise esters, antagonist molecules comprise lactones, antagonist molecules comprise terpenes, All fall under: The selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). And the expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness just as unexpected beneficial results are evidence of nonobviousness. In re Skoner, 517 F.2d 947, 186 USPQ 80 (CCPA 1975). And the adjustability, where desirable, is a modification that is within the skill of the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954). Note that applicant provides no teaching of the multiple and various selections of the alleged antagonist molecule and this is itself an admission that such the multiple and various selections of the alleged antagonist molecule are well known. In re Fox, 176 USPQ 340 (CCPA 1973).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCIS C GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, Stephanie Bloss can be reached at 571-272-3555. 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.
/FRANCIS C GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights