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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 2/20/26 is acknowledged.
In the amendment filed 2/20/26, applicant adds claim 42 which depends from claim 1. Thus, the new claim will be examined along with elected group I. Claims 23-41 and 43 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions. New claim 43 is directed to a method for obtaining composite (A) which is grouped with Group II. Claims 1-22 and 42 are pending.
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 1-22, 42 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “ chemically modified in situ” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is intended by in situ; in situ of what? The claim is directed to a composite material comprising three components. It’s unclear what situ indicate. ( for prior art application, the limitation is treated as “ modified polysaccharide”)
In claim 4, the recitation of “ the form” does not have proper antecedent basis. The limitation of “ a size between 100 and 500 micrometers” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what the size indicate. Is it the diameter, the length, the width or what. The claim recite “ sheets” which typically indicates a broad, thin piece of material but the size is on micrometer basis. Thus, it’s unclear what sheets indicate and it’s also unclear what the plural (s) of sheet means.
In claim 5, the recitation of “ the form” does not have proper antecedent basis.
In claim 6, the limitation “ chemically modified in situ” has the same problem as claim 1. Additionally, it’s unclear if a Markush group is intended. The proper language for Markush group is “ selected from the group consisting of”, not “ selected from the group comprising”.
In claim 7, the limitation “ chemically modified in site” has the same problem as claim 1. The dependency of the claim is also improper because a claim cannot depend from a subsequent claim. It’s also unclear what the crosslinking, esterification and hydrolysis encompass because the claim does not recite any reactant; crosslinking with what?
In claim 8, the limitation “ ( polyalcohols)” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is intended by the parentheses. Limitation in parentheses is not considered part of the claim.
In claim 13: Lines 5-6,9-10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). On line 9, the limitation “ or others allowed for post-hartvest use in fruits with inedible peel” is vague and indefinite because it’s not known what ingredients are excluded or included in such language.
Claim 14 has the same problem as claim 13 with the phrase “ such as”.
In claim 15, the limitation “ in situ chemically modified” has the same problem as claim 1. The limitation of “ an a solvent” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear if it’s part of composite A or coating B. It’s also unclear of the difference between coating B and composite A because the claim just recites 4 components. ( for prior art application, the claim is treated as “ a coating comprising modified polysaccharide, plasticizing agent, surfactant and solvent)
In claim 17, the term “ complementary” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended; complementary to what?
Claim 18,19 have the same problem as claim 17.
Claim 20 is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what the ratio means because the coating of claim 15 just recites 4 different components. There is no recitation of separate entity of composite A and coating B. The composite A is the coating material B.
In claim 22, the recitation of “ the complement, the mixture” does not have proper antecedent basis. It’s also unclear what is intended by “ the complement is the mixture of alcohol, oils and surfactants”.
In claim 42, the limitation “ chemically modified in situ” has the same problem as claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1,6,8,9,10, 12, 13,15,17,42, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Diguet ( 2014/0242179).
For claim 1, Diguet discloses a composite material for coating. The composite material comprises film forming compounds including modified polysaccharide such as modified starches, cellulose derivatives such as carboxymethylcellulose, hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, plasticizing agent and emulsifier agent. ( see paragraphs 0022-0033). The modified starch is readable on the claimed polysaccharide chemically modified in situ because it’s unclear what chemically modified in situ encompasses. Furthermore, how the polysaccharide is modified is a processing step which does not determine the patentability of the product. The claim does not recite what chemical is attached to the polysaccharide. The required limitation is “ modified polysacharride”. In any event, Diguet also disclose hydroxypropylmethylcellulose which is a chemically modified cellulose.
For claim 6, Diguet discloses the polysaccharide is starches. ( see paragraph 0026)
For claims 8-9, Diguet discloses the plasticizing agents including such as mannitol, sorbitol, glycerol, polypropylene glycol etc.. Mannitol and sorbitol are polyols. (see paragraphs 0033,0052)
For claim 10, Diguet discloses emulsifiers including polyoxyethylene sorbitan-fatty acid ester. ( see paragraph 0027)
For claims 12,17, Diguet discloses the coating composition can include components such as antioxidant , taste making substances which is considered a nutritional agent and dyestuff, filler, pH buffer which is considered an active agents. The claim does not specify agents. Furthermore, the ranges include 0. ( see paragraph 0039)
For claim 13, Diguet discloses the coating composition can comprise a mixture of film forming compounds including xanthan gum which is readable on the active agent in the claim. ( see paragraph 0026)
For claim 15, Diguet disclose a coating composition comprising film forming compounds including modified polysaccharide such as modified starches, cellulose derivatives such as carboxymethylcellulose, hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, plasticizing agent , emulsifier agent and lipid compound. The lipid compound is considered a solvent. ( see paragraphs 0022-0033). The modified starch is readable on the claimed polysaccharide chemically modified in situ because it’s unclear what chemically modified in situ encompasses. Furthermore, how the polysaccharide is modified is a processing step which does not determine the patentability of the product. The claim does not recite what chemical is attached to the polysaccharide. The required limitation is “ modified polysacharride”. Diguet also disclose hydroxypropylmethylcellulose which is a chemically modified cellulose.
For claim 42, Diguet discloses cellulose and starches which are the same polysaccharide as disclosed in paragraph 0025 of the instant specification. Thus, it’s inherent the polysaccharide comprises the monomers as claimed. ( see paragraph 0026)
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) 2-5,7,11,14,16,18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diguet ( 2014/0242179) in view of Cavender ( 2016/0002483)
For claims 2,16, Diguet discloses the coating composition comprising 40-80 film forming compound and at least one emulsifier and 5-20% plasticizer. ( see paragraphs 0051-0053)
Diguet does not specifically disclose the amount of emulsifier as in claims 2,16, the humidity as in claim 3, the forms as in claims 4-5,the modification as in claim 7, the emulsifier as in claim 11, the agents as in claims 14,18,19, the ratio as in claim 20 and the ingredients as in claims 21-22.
Cavender discloses a coating composition comprising .01-5% surfactant. Cavender also disclose the composition comprising cross-linking agent and additives, co-solvent. The additives includes those recited in paragraph 0162. The emulsifier includes polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monolaurate. Cavender discloses the coating composition can be in the forms of films or can be applied as dispersion, a solution, or an emulsion. Cavender discloses a co-solvent such as alcohols can be used. ( see also paragraph 0196,0174,0011)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the guideline of Cavender for the emulsifier and type of emulsifier since both Diguet and Cavender are directed to coating composition. Cavender teaches that coating composition can be used in various forms such as film, suspension, solution, emulsion etc.. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the relative humidity depending on how the coating composition is used. For example, when a film is form, it would have been obvious to evaporate the water to form the film. Claim 4 is vague and indefinite as explained in the 112 rejection above. It’s interpreted that a film is formed. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form film or granule as an obvious matter of alternative ways of applying the coating composition. It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the appropriate size to obtain the most optimum coating through routine experimentation. Cross-linking of starch is well known; it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use cross-linked starch as the modified starch. Cavender discloses many different additives are added to the coating composition. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to select any types of additive depending on the nutrition and function desired in the coating. For instance, it would have been obvious to select vitamin if it’s desired to enhance the nutrition of the coated product through the application of the coating. The claims recite complementary agent in coating B. But, there is no distinction claimed for coating B versus composite A. The claims just recite of composition comprising certain components. It would have been obvious to add one or multiple of additives depending on the functionality and nutrition desired. Such parameter can readily be determined by one skilled in the art through routine experimentation. Furthermore, the claims recite ranges include 0 amounts for the active agents and nutritional agent. Cavender discloses the coating can be in different forms such as suspension, solution, dispersion and emulsion. Cavender also discloses the use of co-solvent such as alcohol and additive including oil. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to form an emulsion as an obvious matter of forming a known way for applying the coating composition as taught in Cavender. Diguet discloses all the ingredients of emulsion including water, lipid, surfactant and Cavender teaches alcohol can be used as co-solvent. Thus, it would have been obvious to include alcohol in addition to water. Claim 20 is vague and indefinite as explained in the 112 rejection above. In any event, the forming of emulsion is known as shown in Cavender. Thus, it would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the amounts of component and solvent to form emulsion through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
May 2, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights