FOOD PRODUCT

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 Election/Restrictions Claim 16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/08/2026. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-15, 17 and 19-21 in the reply filed on 09/08/2026 is acknowledged. 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. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-14, 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman et al (US 8,486,469 B2). In regard to claim 1, Coleman et al discloses a low-calorie nutrition energy food bar with high fiber and reduced sugar alcohol contents, and includes: -- a core component (i.e. plant-based nougat component); -- a caramel component (i.e. plant-based caramel component); and --compound coating layer (i.e. plant-based chocolate component); wherein the core component and caramel components are enrobed with a compound coating layer (Abstract). In regard to the plant-based chocolate component, Coleman et al discloses chocolate coating (Col. 10 lines 20-23). In regard to the “plant-based” recitation, Coleman et al discloses vegetable fat sources and plant water-soluble fiber included in the chocolate coating (Col. 10 lines 34, 39-42). In regard to the core component (i.e. plant-based nougat component), Coleman et al discloses the core component comprises protein crisps, caramel, water-soluble fiber and binder system (Col. 5 lines 23-25). Coleman et al discloses that core component (i.e. plant-based nougat component) comprises about 10-18% of water-soluble fiber (Col. 5 lines 31-34). Coleman et al discloses water-soluble fiber in powdered form (Col. 5 lines 62-64). Coleman et al discloses that water-soluble fiber comprises fructooligosaccharide (FOS)) such as inulin (i.e. plant-based powder). Therefore, Coleman et al discloses that core component (i.e. plant-based nougat component) comprises 10-18% of plant-based powder as claimed. In regard to the plant-based protein, Coleman et al discloses 20% of protein crisps (Col. 6 lines 12-15). Coleman et al discloses plant protein (soy protein, peanut protein, wheat germ) as a source of protein crisps (Col. 9 lines 12-14, 20-29). In regard to the caramel component, Coleman et al discloses that caramel is comprised of caramelized mix of at least one fat source and at least one carbohydrate source (Col. 8 lines 19-21). Caramel pre-mix comprises 5-15% of vegetable fat and 25-50% of corn syrup (Col. 8 lines 21-28). Vegetable fat and corn syrup are plant- based. Hence, caramel as disclosed by Coleman et al reads on plant-based caramel because it includes plant-based ingredients. Further in regard to the concentration recitations, it is noted that: Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05, II A). Further, regarding the concentration ranges as examined above, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In regard to claim 2, Coleman et al discloses that core component (i.e. plant-based nougat component) includes caramel and that caramel includes sugar (25-50% of corn syrup) (Col. 8 lines 21-35). In regard to claim 3, Coleman et al discloses soy protein isolate (Col. 9 line 22). In regard to claim 4, Coleman et al discloses core component (i.e. plant-based nougat component) comprises 10-18% of water-soluble fiber (Col. 5 lines 31-34). In regard to claim 5, Coleman et al discloses that caramel component (i.e. plant-based caramel component) comprises 20-60% of water-soluble fiber (Col. 2 lines 55-57). In regard to claim 6, Coleman et al discloses that chocolate coating (i.e. plant-based chocolate component) comprises 20-35% of water-soluble fiber (Col. 2 lines 60-61). In regard to claim 8, Coleman et al discloses that core component (i.e. plant-based nougat component) comprises about 10-18% of water-soluble fiber (Col. 5 lines 31-34). In regard to claims 9 and 13, Coleman et al discloses food bars comprising 0.5% of granulated sugar (Tables 1 and 3). In regard to claim 10, Coleman et al discloses that nuts and pieces are included in the core component (Col. 11 lines 31-32, 50-51; Col. 12 lines 50-51). In regard to claim 11, Coleman et al discloses that caramel is comprised of caramelized mix of at least one fat source and at least one carbohydrate source (Col. 8 lines 19-21). Caramel pre-mix comprises 5-15% of vegetable fat and 25-50% of corn syrup (Col. 8 lines 21-28). Coleman et al discloses that caramel component may include other additives (Col. 11 lines 31-32) such as protein-based inclusion (Col. 12 lines 13-44) including soy protein, vegetable protein, nut meats (Col. 12 lines 50-51). It is noted that the presence of soy protein, vegetable protein, nut meats reads on plant-based milk. In regard to claim 12, Coleman et al discloses that caramel component may include other additives (Col. 11 lines 31-32) such as nuts and pieces, nut meats ((Col. 11 lines 50-51; Col. 12 lines 50-51). In regard to claim 14, Coleman et al discloses that caramel component (i.e. plant-based caramel component) comprises 20-60% of water-soluble fiber (Col. 2 lines 55-57). Coleman et al discloses fructooligosaccharide such as inulin as water-soluble fiber (Col. 7 lines 5-30). In regard to claim 14, Coleman et al discloses that “a caramel component; and the core component and caramel components are enrobed with a compound coating layer” (Abstract). In regard to claims 19 and 20, Coleman et al discloses chocolate component may include other additives (Col. 11 lines 31-32) such as protein-based inclusion (Col. 12 lines 13-44) including soy protein, vegetable protein, nut meats (Col. 12 lines 50-51). It is noted that the presence of soy protein, vegetable protein, nut meats reads on plant-based milk. In regard to claim 19, Coleman et al does not require the presence of sugars in the chocolate coating (Col. 10 lines 20-67). In regard to claim 19, Coleman et al discloses food bars comprising 0.5% of granulated sugar (Tables 1 and 3). In regard to claim 20, Coleman et al discloses chocolate component includes 20-35 of water soluble fiber (Col. 2 lines 60-61). Coleman et al discloses fructooligosaccharide such as inulin as water-soluble fiber (Col. 7 lines 5-30). In regard to claim 21, Coleman et al discloses the following food bar formulations: PNG media_image1.png 682 464 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 902 482 media_image2.png Greyscale Further in regard to the concentration recitations, it is noted that: Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05, II A). Further, regarding the concentration ranges as examined above, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman et al (US 8486469 B2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ideal Nougat. Ideal Nougat discloses a nougat composition including beetroot powder, spinach powder or saffron powder that impart color to the nougat. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply beetroot powder, spinach powder or saffron powder in the food bar composition in order to obtain desired color of the plant-based nougat as suggested by Ideal Nougat. Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coleman et al (US 8486469 B2) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Wilson et al (US 4,614,658 A). In regard to claim 15, Coleman et al does not disclose that plant-based caramel component comprises invert sugar. Coleman et al does discloses that plant-based caramel component comprises 25-50% of corn syrup (Col. 8 lines 21-28). Wilson et al discloses filed sugar candies where the center filling syrup sugars are preferably derived from sucrose, invert sugars and corn syrup (Claims 5, 8 and 12). Wilson et al discloses: The center filling 14 consists of a viscous liquid sugar syrup, which, in turn, consists of a moisture content ranging from 19 to 23 percent by weight, the remainder of such syrup consisting of sugars, with essentially no acid content. Preferably, the moisture content should be approximately 21 percent by weight. It is preferable that the sugars of such syrup be essentially derived entirely from sucrose, invert sugars and corn syrup. The invert sugars may be made by producing a syrupy solution of sucrose dissolved in water, and adding the minimum amount of acid, preferably citric acid, to cause hydrolysis of the sucrose into invert sugars, including dextrose and levulose. Only the minimum possible amount of citric acid should be used, so that there is essentially no acid content in the invert sugar syrup. For example, only three pounds of citric acid need to be used in a batch of syrup containing thirteen hundred pounds of sucrose. While this small amount of citric acid is not considered significant, it is highly desirable to test the invert sugar syrup for acidity and to neutralize any acidity by adding a suitable neutralizer, preferably finely ground calcium carbonate, in an amount sufficient to bring the pH of the invert sugar syrup to a neutral value of 7.0 (Col. 3 lines 27-50). Coleman et al discloses that plant-based caramel component comprises 25-50% of corn syrup. Wilson et al discloses sugars employed in the center filling syrup are preferably derived from sucrose, invert sugars and corn syrup. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Coleman et al in view of Wilson et al and to employ either invert sugars or corn syrup as a sugar composition as suggested by Wilson et al. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERA STULII whose telephone number is (571)272-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30AM-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, 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. /VERA STULII/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791