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 .
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.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11,13,14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiansen(US 2011/0177202) in view of He(Insights into interaction of chlophylls with sodium caseinate in aqueous nanometre-scale dispersion: color stability, spectroscopic, electrostatic, and morphological properties).
Regarding claims 1,2,4,6,7,10, Christiansen teaches a natural green liquid coloring composition comprising
a)an oil phase comprising a chlorophyll oleosein in an amount of 1-20% that is derived from spinach(example 1, [0019-0020], [0029]), which overlaps the claimed ranges in 1, 3, and 4 and renders them obvious.
b)a continuous water phase comprising an emulsifier(example 1, abstract)
wherein the natural green liquid coloring composition is an emulsion(abstract, example 1; the composition is homogenized and stabilized to form an emulsion without clots or oil rings, [0045-0046].
Christiansen does not specifically teach that the continuous water phase comprises casein. However, He teaches chlorophyll dispersions comprising sodium caseinate showing reduced storage decomposition(abstract). He teaches 2% casein and 3% chlorophyll, for a 1.5:1 ratio of chlorophyll oleoresin to casein(p.4531, 2.2). It would have been obvious to add 2% casein in the composition of Christiansen as taught in He in order to stabilize the emulsion and prevent storage decomposition.
While Christiansen and He may not specifically teach that casein is a microencapsulating agent, He renders obvious dispersing casein in with chlorophyll and how casein can stabilize chlorophyll in aqueous compositions. As such, the instant spec teaches forming the composition by merely dispersing chlorophyll oleoresin in with an aqueous composition comprising casein(p.3, line 14-20). Since Christiansen and He teach this same method, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect casein to act as a microencapsulating agent as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Christiansen teaches that the chlorophyll oleoresin is present in an amount of 1-20%([0029]), which overlaps the amounts in claim 4. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the chlorophyll to be present in the same amounts as recited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, He teaches sodium caseinate(abstract) and not native casein as claimed. However, since the casein component is the stabilizer, it would have been obvious to provide it in various forms including in native form.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Christiansen teaches the coloring composition comprises a tocopherol antioxidant(example 1).
Regarding claim 11, Christiansen does not specifically teach that the emulsifier is lecithin. However, it would have been obvious to use conventional emulsifiers such as lecithin in order to provide a stable emulsion.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Christiansen teaches that the coloring composition is included in beverages in an amount of 0.05 to 0.3wt%([0040[), which overlaps the broad claimed range and renders it obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Christiansen does not teach the presence of casein and or the presence of a microencapsulating agent. However, He teaches chlorophyll dispersions comprising sodium caseinate showing reduced storage decomposition(abstract). He teaches 2% casein and 3% chlorophyll, for a 1.5:1 ratio of chlorophyll oleoresin to casein(p.4531, 2.2). It would have been obvious to add 2% casein in the composition of Christiansen as taught in He in order to stabilize the emulsion and prevent storage decomposition.
While Christiansen and He may not specifically teach that casein is an encapsulating agent, He renders obvious dispersing casein in with chlorophyll and how casein can stabilize chlorophyll. As such, the instant spec teaches forming the composition by merely dispersing chlorophyll oleoresin in with an aqueous composition comprising casein(p.3, line 14-20). Since Christiansen and He teach this same method, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect casein to act as a microencapsulating agent.
The applicant argues that He is different from Christiansen because Christiansen teaches a chlorophyll oleoresin and He teaches an aqueous composition of chlorophyll. However, He specifically teaches that casein is an effective stabilizer for chlorophyll in aqueous dispersions since it has both hydrophilic and hydrophobic groups(p.4530, last paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include casein in with the aqueous phase in Christiansen in order to stabilize the hydrophobic chlorophyll oleoresin in with the continuous water phase.
The applicant argues that there is no predictability in pigment formulation. However, Christiansen specifically teaches a stabilized chlorophyll oleoresin in a continuous aqueous phase as claimed. He renders obvious including casein as a stabilizer/encapsulating agent. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE D LEBLANC whose telephone number is (571)270-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM EST M-F.
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.
/KATHERINE D LEBLANC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791