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 .
2. This application is entitled to and claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional App. No. 63/535,666, filed 08/31/2023. The preliminary amendment filed on 08/29/2024 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner.
3. Claims 1-8 are pending. Claims 1-8 are under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement submitted on 10/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the information disclosure statement.
Drawings
5. The drawings is received on 08/29/2024. This drawing is acceptable.
Claim Objections
6. Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that “"The" be inserted in the depended claims so as to engender claim language clarity. Dependent claims should start with a term “The” such as “The compound ”. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. Claims 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the term “(e.g., acid addition salt form or base addition salt form, as appropriate)”, wherein, the inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention. Claims 2-8 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
9. Claims 1-8 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 applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "for example or e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-8 being depended on claim 1 are rejected as well.
10. Claim 2 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites the term “(e.g., acid addition salt form or base addition salt form, as appropriate)”, wherein, the inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention.
11. Claim 2 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 2, the phrase "for example or e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
12. Claim 3 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites the term “(e.g., acid addition salt form or base addition salt form, as appropriate)”, wherein, the inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention.
13. Claim 3 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 3, the phrase "for example or e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
14. Claim 4 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the term “(e.g., acid addition salt form or base addition salt form, as appropriate)”, wherein, the inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention.
15. Claim 4 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 4, the phrase "for example or e.g." renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
16. Claim 5 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites “otherwise acceptable for the intended purpose of the composition”, wherein applicant fails to articulate by sufficiently distinct functional language, applicants regards as those which will facilitate “acceptable for the intended purpose of the composition” requisite to identifying “the product” or matter claimed, thus claim 5 constitutes indefinite subject matter as per the metes and bounds of said phrase engenders indeterminacy in scope and the language of the claim is such that a person of ordinary skill in the art could not interpret the metes and bounds of the claim from the application disclosure.
17. Claim 5 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation "comprising a compound" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
18. Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 8 recites the term “(e.g., a soap, skin …)”(three occurrences), wherein, the inclusion of a term within parentheses renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the included term is part of the claimed invention.
19. Claim 8 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 8, the phrase "for example or e.g." (three occurrences), renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
20. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claim 8, recites “a product selected from the following ”, wherein the improper phrasing of the Markush group renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear which members of the group are part of the claimed invention. Markush groups must be stated in the alternative, of which one acceptable form is “…selected from the group consisting of A, B and C.” See MPEP § 2173.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
21. 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.
22. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schur et al. (WO 99/02046, hereinafter “’046”).
Regarding claims 1-4: ‘046 discloses the modification of flavorants by reaction of mers, i.e., a monomer, prepolymer and/or polymer in the presence of flavorants to form products of significantly increased molecular weight (Page 1, lines 1-5). ‘046 discloses a compound as cross0linking agent such as 3-(2-methylprop-2-enoyloxy)butyl2-methylprop-2-encate (i.e.,1,3-butyleneglycol dimethacrylate) as shown below (Page 7, line 6; Page 32, line 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
118
256
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5: ‘046 discloses a flavor composition and/or fragrance composition comprising the compound, in admixture with one or more carriers or excipients, which carriers or excipients are non-toxic, orally acceptable (Page 3, line 39 to Page 4, lines 1-38).
Regarding claim 6: ‘046 discloses the composition, wherein the composition further comprises one or more solvents (Page 9 lines 17-28).
Regarding claim 7: ‘046 discloses the composition, wherein the composition further comprises one or more other flavors or fragrances (Page 25, [32-36).
Regarding claim 8: ‘046 discloses a product comprising the compound (Page 24, lines 14-36).
23. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (Improving the extraction of headspace volatile compounds: development of a headspace multi temperature solid-phase micro-extraction-single shot-gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (mT HSSPME-ss-GC/MS) method and application to characterization of ground coffee aroma, Anal. Methods,2015,7,3521–3536, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding claims 1-4: Lee discloses a compound such as 1,3-benzoxazole (Page 3531, No. 90, Table 2).
Examiner Information
24. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
09/04/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov
Prosecution Insights