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
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 14-25 and the chewing gum species in the reply filed on May 22, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-13 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 14 and 16-25 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.
Claim 14 recites the terms “minimum concentration” and “maximum concentration” which are relative terms in relation to a set bench mark. As no bench mark has been established the terms are unclear. For example, it is unclear as to if the terms are related to the concentration of the specific food component in the entire product, or in the individual shell component, or the entire shell component.
Claim 20 is unclear because it depends on canceled claim 15. It is unclear as to if the claim was meant to be amended to depend on claim 14, or to be canceled. For the purpose of prior art comparison, the claim will be considered to depend off claim 14.
Claim 23 recites that the fat-soluble ingredient in said interior and exterior portion is about 0%. It is unclear as to if this is by weight of the total amount of the fat-soluble ingredient in the product, or as to if this is by weight of the interior and exterior portions respectively. Similarly, it is unclear as to if the about 100% recited in relation to the central portion is by weight of the total amount of the fat-soluble ingredient in the product, or as to if this is by weight of the central portion. For the purpose of prior art comparison either interpretation will be considered to encompass the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 14 and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Monte (US 5578336).
Regarding claims 14, 16-17, and 23-27 Monte teaches a comestible product comprising a concentration gradient with a maximum concentration of fat-soluble ingredients in a central portion and a minimum concentration in an interior portion and exterior portion by teaching of:
a comestible core of chewing gum;
a first coating applied to the core, i.e. an interior portion, free of vitamins;
a second coating applied to the first coating, i.e. a central portion, comprising vitamins, which are fat-soluble ingredients; and
a third coating applied to the second coating, i.e. an exterior portion, and free of vitamins. Monte teaches that the interior portion protects the vitamins from the chewing gum core components, and the exterior portion protects the vitamins from oxygen. Monte teaches that the shell is a hard candy. Refer to Examples 29-33 and column 18 lines 9-67.
Regarding claims 18-19, Monte teaches that the vitamin is vitamins A, D, E, and/or K (column 4 lines 3-27, and Example 3).
Regarding claim 20, Monte teaches that the chewing gum is formulated from standard ingredients and by known methods in the art, and includes a gum base and additives such as sweetener (column 5 lines 43-47). The Examiner takes official notice that a gum base used for chewing gums was known to comprise elastomers, and that chewing gum was known to be hydrophobic, thus the teachings of Monte encompass a hydrophobic chewing gum core comprising an elastomer and sweetener.
Regarding claim 21, as Monte teaches the hard coating is formed from aqueous solutions of sugar sweeteners and sugar alcohols, and that the coatings can include substances which absorb and bind to water (column 2 line 67 through column 3 line 9, Examples 29-33, and column 19 lines 10-15), the teachings of Monte encompass a hard confectionery shell that is hydrophilic and comprises at least one sugar alcohol.
Regarding claim 22, as Monte teaches that the coating seals adjacent coatings, the vitamin, i.e. fat-soluble ingredient, would be localized in the central portion of the comestible shell taught by Monte (column 19 lines 30-43).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lydia B “Chewing Gum: Characteristics and Components”, GooRoo Blog pages 1-5, printed August 2026 https://www.gooroo.com/blog/chewing-gum/ shows chew gum base had three main components, one of which is elastomers, and that chewing gum was hydrophobic.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY BEKKER whose telephone number is (571)272-2739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-3:30pm.
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.
KELLY BEKKER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1792
/KELLY J BEKKER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights