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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 2-7, 11-14 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 2 recites the limitation "said ester" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "said acid ester".
Claim 3 recites the limitation "said ester" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "said acid ester".
Claim 4 recites the limitation "said ester" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "said acid ester".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said ester" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "said acid ester".
Claim 12 recites the limitation "said ester" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "said acid ester".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said ester" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "said acid ester".
Clarification and/or correction required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi et al. (US 2010/0272690).
Regarding Claim 1, Gandhi (‘690) teaches a composition comprising propanoic acid (See Abs. col. 6, l. 15+, col. 14, l. 14+, Claims 43, 46.), a C4 acid salt (See Claims 43-45.), and a component selected from a C2-C5 acid ester (See Claim 43.) and a C2-C8 aldehyde and combinations thereof (See Claims 9, 43.), however, fails to expressly disclose said propanoic acid present at a ratio of about 4:3 (v/w) to about 1:6 (v/w) with respect to said C4 acid salt.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide amounts of the ingredients that are effective to provide a composition that is usable as intended. Selecting effective amounts would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding Claim 2, Gandhi (‘690) teaches wherein said ester is selected from esters of a C4 or C4 acid and combinations thereof (See Claim 43.).
Regarding Claim 3, Gandhi (‘690) teaches wherein said ester is selected from esters of isobutyric acid, isovaleric acid, and combinations thereof (See Claim 44.).
Regarding Claim 8, Gandhi (‘690) teaches the composition discussed above with said composition in an aqueous medium (See col. 14, l. 22+.), however, fails to teach wherein the composition comprises a pH greater than about 4.4.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide amounts of the ingredients that are effective to provide a composition with desired pH that is usable as intended. Selecting effective amounts would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Claim(s) 4-6, 16-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gandhi et al. (US 2010/0272690) in view of Gandhi et al. (US 2017/0311594).
Regarding Claim 4, Gandhi (‘690) teaches the composition discussed above, however, fails to teach wherein said ester is isobutyl isobutyrate or isobutyl isovalerate.
Gandhi (‘594) teaches a similar composition as Gandhi (‘690) where the ester isobutyl isobutyrate to provide a composition with antimicrobial properties and safe for human consumption (See Abs., paras. 24-26, claims 1 and 5.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select the isobutyl isobutyrate as an ester as taught by Gandhi (‘594) for Gandhi’s (‘690) composition to provide a composition a composition with antimicrobial properties and safe for human consumption. The selection of ester would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 5, Gandhi (‘690) teaches the composition discussed above, however, fails to teach wherein said aldehyde is benzaldehyde.
Gandhi (‘594) teaches a similar composition as Gandhi (‘690) where the aldehyde is benzaldehyde to provide a composition with antimicrobial properties and safe for human consumption (See Abs., paras. 18, 26-28, claims 1 and 5.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select benzaldehyde as an aldehyde as taught by Gandhi (‘594) for Gandhi’s (‘690) composition to provide a composition a composition with antimicrobial properties and safe for human consumption. The selection of aldehyde would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, Gandhi (‘690) teaches the composition discussed above, however, fails to teach wherein said acid salt is selected from salts of isobutyric acid and combinations thereof.
Gandhi (‘594) teaches a similar composition as Gandhi (‘690) where the acid salt are salts of isobutyric acid to provide a composition with antimicrobial properties and safe for human consumption (See Abs., paras. 18, 26-28, claims 1 and 5.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select benzaldehyde as a salt as taught by Gandhi (‘594) for Gandhi’s (‘690) composition to provide a composition with antimicrobial properties and safe for human consumption. The selection of a salt would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 16, Gandhi (‘690) teaches a composition comprising propanoic acid (See Abs. col. 6, l. 15+, col. 14, l. 14+, Claims 43, 46.), a C4 acid salt (See Claims 43-45.), a C2-C5 acid ester (See Claim 43.), however, fails to expressly teach a flavor component selected from benzaldehyde, octyl acetate, gamma-decalactone and methyl anthranilate, said composition in an aqueous medium and said composition comprising a pH greater than about 4.4.
Gandhi (‘594) teaches a similar composition as Gandhi (‘690) where the aldehyde is benzaldehyde to provide a composition with antimicrobial properties and safe for human consumption (See Abs., paras. 18, 26-28, claims 1 and 5.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select benzaldehyde as an aldehyde as taught by Gandhi (‘594) for Gandhi’s (‘690) composition to provide a composition a composition with antimicrobial properties and safe for human consumption. The selection of aldehyde would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 17, Gandhi (‘690) teaches the composition discussed above, however, fails to teach wherein said flavor component is benzaldehyde.
Gandhi (‘594) teaches a similar composition as Gandhi (‘690) where the aldehyde is benzaldehyde to provide a composition with antimicrobial properties and safe for human consumption (See Abs., paras. 18, 26-28, claims 1 and 5.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select benzaldehyde as an aldehyde as taught by Gandhi (‘594) for Gandhi’s (‘690) composition to provide a composition a composition with antimicrobial properties and safe for human consumption. The selection of benzaldehyde r would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 17-24, Gandhi (‘690) teaches the composition discussed above, however, fails to teach the various flavors.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for selecting one flavor over another.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select any flavor a consumer prefers, including those claimed, to satisfy the consumer’s preference. The selection of flavor would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 17, Gandhi (‘690) teaches the composition discussed above, however, fails to teach wherein the aqueous medium comprises the composition at a concentration of about 0.06 vol. % to about 0.1 vol. %.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for selecting one amount over another.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select any amount a consumer prefers, including those claimed, to satisfy the consumer’s preference. The selection of amount would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights