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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s submission dated July 1, 2026. Any rejections and/or objections made in previous actions and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5, 9-10, 13-16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Looft et al. (US 2015/0230491 A1) in view of Bok et al. (US 6,465,019 B1).
With respect to Claim 1, Looft et al. teaches a method of creating a flavor composition [0042] comprising flavors, [0052] water-soluble matrix materials, [0062] an insoluble carrier material, [0045] and additives such as vitamins and mineral, [0071] wherein the composition coats the insoluble food carrier. [0045] Looft et al. teaches the matrix materials can be selected from modified starches, including hydrolyzed starches, [0063] and teaches that the composition forms a particle, such as a granule. [0046]
Looft et al. reads on a composition comprising at least one nutrient, at least on flavor modifier, and at least one water soluble carrier, comprising at least one modified starch and at least one hydrolyzed starch, wherein the at least one water soluble carrier forms a solid matrix, and wherein the composition comprises an insoluble food carrier coated in the composition excluding the insoluble food carrier, and a granule reads on a solid matrix.
Additionally, Looft et al. states that the matrix materials taught can be used as single compounds or as mixtures of compounds, [0069] which reads on the at least one Water soluble matrix comprising at least one modified starch and at least one hydrolyzed starch, wherein the starches are different. Looft et al. teaches that the composition is preferably as homogenous mixture, [0061] which reads on the limitation of the flavor being homogenously dispersed in the at least one water-soluble carrier material. Looft et al. is silent to a taste modulator from the list recited
Bok et al. teaches a spice composition, [Example 9] comprising a water-soluble carrier material in the form of corn starch, nutrients in the form of vitamins and minerals, and taste modulators in the form of citrus peel powder and sucrose. [Table III] Bok et al. also teaches the citrus peel composition can comprise flavor compounds such as hesperetin, naringin, quercetin, and more, [Table I] which are compounds recited in the limitation of claim 1. Bok et al. teaches the use of the citrus compositions taught can be beneficial to one’s health. [Col. 2, Ln. 27-34]
Looft et al. and Bok et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach flavor compositions. Where Looft et al. teaches a composition for coating an insoluble food carrier, Bok et al. teaches a specific flavor composition. One would have been motivated to incorporate the composition of Bok et al. into Looft et al. in order to provide a health benefit, as well as a flavor.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. in order to devise a composition comprising at least one taste modulator selected from a group consisting of hesperidin, at least one nutrient, and at least one water soluble carrier material, wherein the water soluble carrier is at least one modified starch and at least one different, hydrolyzed starch, that forms a solid matric and is homogenously dispersed with the flavor composition, and wherein the composition further comprises an insoluble food carrier coated in the composition, thereby rendering claim 1 obvious.
With respect to Claims 2-4, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Looft et al. teaches the incorporation of vitamins and minerals [0071] and flavors. [0052] Therefore, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. render claims 2-4 obvious.
With respect to Claims 5 and 16, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Bok et al. teaches the use of a vitamin mixture at 1% incorporation. [Table III] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. in order to devise the invention recited in claim 1, wherein the nutrient is added to the composition between 0.1% and 50% by weight, thereby rendering claims 5 and 16 obvious.
With respect to Claims 9 and 22, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Looft et al. teaches the use of maltodextrins [0064] and that the starches may be hydrolyzed. [0063] Looft et al. teaches that the maltodextrins of the invention taught comprise between 3-20 dextrose equivalent. [0064] Therefore, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. renders claims 9 and 22 obvious.
With respect to Claims 10 and 18, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Looft et al. teaches incorporating the flavor composition between 2-5%. [0118] One would have been motivated to use the flavor composition taught in Bok et al. due to the beneficial health aspects of the invention, [Col. 2, Ln 27-34] and Looft et al. teaches the use of citrus extracts. [0052-54] Therefore, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. render claims 10 and 18 obvious.
With respect to Claim 13, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Looft et al. teaches that the composition forms a particle, such as a granule. [0046] Therefore, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. renders claim 13 obvious.
With respect to Claims 14, 15, 19, and 21, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Looft et al. teaches the use of the composition with tea in order to form a flavored tea composition. [0114-115] Therefore, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. render claims 14, 15, 19, and 21 obvious.
With respect to Claim 20, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Looft et al. teaches that suitable components to form the composition comprise a transition to liquid state between 40-90°C. [0096] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used compositions with a glass transition temperature of at least 40°C. The invention taught by Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. is also substantially identical to the invention recited in claim 1.
MPEP 2112 II states, “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference”. The composition according to Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. would also have the same property of glass transition temperature.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. in order to devise a composition according to claim 1, wherein the glass transition temperature is at least 40°C, thereby rendering claim 20 obvious.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Looft et al. (US 2015/0230491 A1) in view of Bok et al. (US 6,465,019 B1) as evidenced by Czech et al. (Mineral Content of the Pulp and Peel of Various Citrus Fruit Cultivars, Biological Trace Element Research).
With respect to Claim 6, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Both references teach the use of minerals, but are silent to the minerals used or the mineral composition make up.
Czech et al. teaches a study of the nutritional composition of citrus peels. [Title] Czech et al. teaches that the peels of various citrus comprise various minerals, such as potassium, calcium, magnesium, and more. [Table 2] Bok et al. teaches the use of citrus peel extracts in the flavoring composition, [Col 2., Ln. 64-67] which would comprise the mineral components taught in Czech et al.
MPEP 2112 II, states, “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. to devise the invention recited in claim 1, wherein the mineral component is potassium, calcium, or sodium, thereby rendering claim 6 obvious.
Claims 7, 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Looft et al. (US 2015/0230491 A1) in view of Bok et al. (US 6,465,019 B1) as applied to claim 1, in further view of Tanaka et al. (5,709,895).
With respect to Claim 7, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Looft et al. and Bok et al. teach the use of vitamins and minerals, but do not teach a specific vitamin or mineral.
Tanaka et al. teaches a composition comprising water-soluble carrier materials, [Col. 3, Ln. 34-38] at least one nutrient in the form of antioxidants, and at least one taste modulator in the form of a flavor. [Col. 5, Ln. 13-45] Additionally, Tanka et al. teaches the use of vitamin E and vitamin C.
Looft et al., Bok et al., and Tanaka et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach flavor compositions. Where Looft et al. teaches a composition for coating an insoluble food carrier, Bok et al. teaches a specific flavor composition, and Tanaka et al. teaches another flavor composition comprising water soluble matrix components. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Tanaka et al. in order to produce a low sugar flavor composition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Looft et al. in view of Bok et al., in further view of Tanaka et al. in order to devise the invention according to claim 1, wherein the nutrient is Vitamin E, thereby rendering claim 7 obvious.
With respect to Claims 8 and 17, Looft et al. in view of Bok et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Both references are silent to a composition comprising between 50-95% of at least one water soluble matrix material.
Tanaka et al. teaches a composition comprising water-soluble carrier materials, [Col. 3, Ln. 34-38] at least one nutrient in the form of antioxidants, and at least one taste modulator in the form of a flavor. [Col. 5, Ln. 13-45] Additionally, A specific embodiment of the invention taught comprises starch, dextrin, and isomalt at 70% the total composition. [Example 1]
Looft et al., Bok et al., and Tanaka et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach flavor compositions. Where Looft et al. teaches a composition for coating an insoluble food carrier, Bok et al. teaches a specific flavor composition, and Tanaka et al. teaches another flavor composition comprising water soluble matrix components. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Tanaka et al. in order to produce a low sugar flavor composition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Looft et al. in view of Bok et al., in further view of Tanaka et al. in order to devise the invention according to claim 1, wherein the water soluble matrix is either 50-95% or 65-90%, thereby rendering claims 8 and 17 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does relies on a new reference not applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JOSEPH CULLEN MERCHLINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/J.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights