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 .
Claim status
Claims 1-5 filed 08/30/024 are pending in the application and are hereby examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to form an acidic emulsified composition” should read “to form the acidic emulsified composition”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Max US Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0076389 A1 (cited in the IDS submitted on 08/30/2024, hereinafter referred to as Max).
Regarding claims 1-4, Max teaches an acidic emulsified composition (e.g., an O/W cream having a pH of 5.5) comprising water, fat and oil (e.g., paraffin oil and caprylic/capric triglyceride), cyclodextrin (e.g., β-cyclodextrin) a water-soluble gelling agent (e.g., xanthan gum), a water-soluble organic solvent (e.g., glycerol and cetylstearyl alcohol), and an acidic substance (e.g., citric acid) ([0100]). Further, the mixing of the aforementioned ingredients is taught by Max to form the O/W cream.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teruo JPS61260849 A (English translation relied upon for reference, hereinafter referred to as Teruo) in view of Oguchi US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0020177 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Oguchi).
Regarding claims 1-5, Teruo teaches a method of making an acidic emulsion (e.g., mayonnaise, dressing. etc.) comprising mixing water, fat and oil, cyclodextrin, a water-soluble gelling agent (e.g., gum arabic), sugar, and an acidic substance (e.g., vinegar) (Abstract; page 4, and Examples). Teruo further teaches subjecting the acidic emulsified composition to a drying treatment (e.g., by spray-drying, Abstract; Examples).
Teruo teaches sugar but is silent regarding the specific species of sugar.
Oguchi in the same field of endeavor teaches an acidic O/W emulsified condiment (e.g., mayonnaise, dressing, tartar sauce, etc.) comprising water, oil, an acid (e.g., acetic acid), a gum, sugar, etc. (0008; 0015; 0022; 0065-0066). Oguchi teaches that suitable sugar is glucose, galactose, fructose, mannose, etc. (0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Teruo by using glucose or galactose as the sugar source for the acidic emulsion of Teruo with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that glucose or galactose is an art-recognized sugar suitable for use in an acidic emulsion (e.g., mayonnaise, dressing. etc.). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07.
Glucose or galactose reads on the water-soluble organic solvent as recited in claims 1 and 3 (see para. 0024 of the instant specification for evidence).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, NIKKI H 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights