Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 21, 2026
Application No. 18/714,690

METHOD FOR IMPROVING MILKY FLAVOR OF FOOD/BEVERAGE AND FOOD/BEVERAGE MILKY FLAVOR IMPROVER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 30, 2024
Priority
Dec 13, 2021 — JP 2021-201433 +1 more
Examiner
ZILBERING, ASSAF
Art Unit
1792
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Nisshin OilliO Group, Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
35%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 9m
Est. Remaining
63%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 35% of cases
35%
Career Allowance Rate
234 granted / 663 resolved
-29.7% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 2m
Avg Prosecution
57 currently pending
Career history
730
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
63.4%
+23.4% vs TC avg
§102
7.9%
-32.1% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 663 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims Note: The amendment of July 29th 2026 has been considered. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended. Claims 5-6 were cancelled. Claims 18-20 were added. Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are pending in the current application. Claims 1, 2, 7-11, 15-18 and 20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 3, 4, 12-14 and 19 are examined in the current application. Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 3, 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa et al., (USPatPub. 2013/0344218 A1). Regarding claim 3: Ogawa discloses a milk flavored beverage (i.e., oil in water emulsion) comprising between 2-4wt% vegetable oils, which are known to comprise MCT fatty acids (e.g., caprylic acid and/or capric acid) at contents that overlap the claimed contents (see Ogawa abstract; paragraphs [0020]-[0025], [0030] and [0037]-[0041]; Tables 1 and 4). Ogawa also discloses the beverage comprises emulsifiers (see Ogawa paragraphs [0034] and [0042]), but fails to disclose the HLB; However, given the fact the composition comprises at emulsion that is a water-in-oil-in-water emulsion, the HLB value for the water-in-oil part, has to be below 10, which encompass the claimed HLB value range. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. 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. /ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 30, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12760241
PROCESS OF PRODUCTION OF A FAT COMPOSITION COMPRISING A STEP OF ESTERIFICATION
4y 4m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12751475
PROTEIN-COMPLEXED MCT OIL, METHOD OF MANUFACTURE, AND FOOD PRODUCTS MADE THEREFROM
3y 2m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12745786
Compositions with novel cannabinoid and terpene profiles
5y 3m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12745782
OIL/FAT COMPOSITION
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12740575
Method Of Efficiently Separating Solid Fat From Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Grease
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
35%
Grant Probability
63%
With Interview (+27.6%)
4y 2m (~1y 9m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 663 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month