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
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I: Claims 1-11 and 14 in the reply filed on August 12, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that CN 1111213870 does not explicitly disclose the claimed concentrations of 30-60 wt% water, 10-40 wt% fat, 8-40 wt% of the starch component, 0.1-20 mg/k 2,4-heptdienal, or 1-200 mg/kg 2,4-decadienal but that differences in the concentrations will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such ingredient concentrations is critical. Applicant contends that the criticality of the much higher percentage of water and starch component required by Claim 1 is discussed in the application. Applicant asserts that the flavor delivery system of Claim 1 differs from the flavoring paste of CN 111213870 in that it contains substantially more water of 30-60 wt% and starch component of 8-40 wt% and the lower limit is 3 times the examples and the starch is less than half required by the claim. Applicant contends that the combination of starch component and water represents a substantial part of the flavor delivery system of Claim 1 and is critical for achieving these desirable characteristics of retaining the flavor not only during storage but also during cooking so that the flavor is still present during consumption. This is not found persuasive because disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure of nonpreferred embodiments in view of In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971) (MPEP § 2123.II.). Furthermore, the common technical feature was known in the art in view of the obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103(a) of Claim 1 below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12-13 and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
An action on the merits of elected Claims 1-11 and 14 is provided below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 1, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-11 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “semi-solid flavour delivery system” in line 1. The term “semi-solid” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “semi-solid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A solid or semi-solid flavour delivery system comprising 30-60 wt% water” in lines 1-2. A flavor delivery system containing at 30-60 wt% water would not be solid. It is unclear if the flavor delivery system is solid or not solid.
Claim 3 recites the limitation ““wherein the flavour delivery system contains 30-80% of the starch component by weight of water” in lines 1-2. Claim 1, line 4 already recites the limitation “8-40 wt% of a starch component.” It is unclear if the starch component of Claim 3 requires 30-80 wt% of the starch component or 8-40 wt% starch component.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “preferably in the range of 0.3-10 mg/kg” in line 3. The phrase "preferably" 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).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “preferably at least 0.3-10 mg/kg of (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal” in lines 2-3. The phrase "preferably" 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).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “preferably in the range of 3-160 mg/kg” in line 3. The phrase "preferably" 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).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “preferably at least 3 mg/kg of (E,E)-2,4-decadienal” in line 3. The phrase "preferably" 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).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “preferably in a weight ratio of 1:8 to 1:80” in lines 3-4. The phrase "preferably" 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).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “water soluble flavour compounds” in line 3. It is unclear if this refers to “flavouring” recited in Claim 1, line 6 or to an entirely different flavouring.
Clarification is required.
Claims 2, 4, 11, and 14 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein the flavour delivery system contains 30-80% of the starch component by weight of water” in lines 1-2. Claim 1, line 4 already recites the limitation “8-40 wt% of a starch component.” The starch component concentration of 30-80% falls outside of the claimed starch component concentration range of 8-40 wt% recited in Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 3 fails to further limit Claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “wherein the flavour delivery system contains at least 0.2 mg/kg…of (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal” in lines 2-3. Claim 1, line 8 already recites the limitation “0.1-20 mg/kg 2,4-heptadienal.” Claim 6 encompasses a concentration of 2,4-heptadienal that is not required by Claim 1, i.e. Claim 6 encompasses a concentration of 2,4-heptadienal of greater than 20 mg/kg. Therefore, Claim 6 fails to further limit Claim 1.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein the flavour delivery system contains at least 2 mg/kg… of (E,E)-2,4-decadienal” in lines 2-3. Claim 1, line 8 already recites the limitation “1-200 mg/kg 2,4-decadienal.” Claim 8 encompasses a concentration of 2,4-decadienal that is not required by Claim 1, i.e. Claim 8 encompasses a concentration of 2,4-heptadienal of greater than 200 mg/kg. Therefore, Claim 8 fails to further limit Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavallini et al. US 2005/0003071 in view of Simmons et al. US 5,178,892, CN 111213870 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 1, 2024), Zhang US 2017/0306263, and FooDB “(E,E)-2,4-heptadienal” <https://web.archive.org/web/20201029065429/https://foodb.ca/compounds/FDB029656> (archived October 29, 2020) (herein referred to as “FooDB”).
It is noted that a human translation was previously furnished with the Restriction Requirement mailed June 24, 2026. All citations to CN 111213870 are with respect to the machine translation of CN 111213870.
Regarding Claim 1, Cavallini et al. discloses a solid flavor delivery system (flavored emulsion base) (‘071, Paragraph [0018]) comprising 45-65 wt% water (‘071, Paragraph [0032]), 10-15 wt% fat (oil) (‘071, Paragraph [0035]), and 5-10 wt% modified starch (‘071, Paragraph [0036]), which overlaps the claimed weight concentrations of 30-60 wt% water, 10-40 wt% fat, and 8-40 wt% starch and/or modified starch, respectively. Where the claimed weight concentrations of water, fat, and starch and/or modified starch ranges overlaps weight concentrations of water, fat, and starch and/or modified starch ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of 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) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Cavallini et al. also discloses the solid flavor delivery system (flavored emulsion base) comprising flavoring (flavoring ingredients comprising a sweetener, salt, spice, or food coloring) (‘071, Paragraph [0036]).
Cavallini et al. discloses the flavoring (flavoring ingredients) being a beef flavor (‘071, Paragraph [0024]) or a chicken or a pork flavor (‘071, Paragraph [0045]). However, Cavallini et al. is silent regarding the flavor delivery system comprising 0.1-20 mg/kg 2,4-heptadienal and 1-200 mg/kg 2,4-decadienal calculated by weight of the flavor delivery system.
Simmons et al. discloses a process for the preparation of flavoring mixtures through controlled oxidation of fatty acids or fatty acid derivatives in the presence of antioxidants and foods containing these flavoring mixtures (‘892, Column 1, lines 5-13) wherein the oxidation mixtures obtained by the process are valuable flavor mixtures due to their high content of aliphatic flavor aldehydes and other flavor components wherein such aldehydes include 2,4-heptdienal and 2,4-decadienal (‘892, Column 3, lines 33-40) wherein the quantities and ratios of these aldehydes depends on the fatty acid or fat starting material, taking into account that the results of mixtures of fatty acids or fats can be different from the sum of the results of the separate components due to preferential oxidation of certain fatty acids over others wherein the composition of the flavor mixtures is also dependent on the type and quantity of antioxidant and on the reaction conditions used such as time, temperature, mixing efficiency, or amount of oxygen supplied wherein the flavor properties of the flavor mixtures are varied to suit specific needs by changing these variables (‘892, Column 3, lines 40-59) wherein a dry chicken flavor for soup is prepared (‘892, Column 10, lines 66-68).
Additionally, CN 111213870 discloses a solid flavor delivery system (roasted chicken flavor base) comprising 0.01-0.1 parts 2,4-heptadienal and 0.2-0.8 parts 2,4-decadienal (‘870 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0011]) wherein the flavor delivery system comprises water, fat (chicken bone oil), starch, and flavoring (garlic powder) (‘870 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0035]). Although CN 111213870 does not explicitly disclose the units of the 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal being present in the claimed amounts of 0.1-20 mg/kg or 1-200 mg/kg 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal, respectively, CN 111213870 discloses the roasted chicken flavor base being prepared with raw materials of 0.01-0.1 parts 2,4-heptadienal and 0.2-0.8 parts decadienal (‘870 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0011]) and an example wherein the roasted chicken flavoring comprises 0.1 parts 2,4-heptadienal, 0.2 parts 2,4-decadienal, and about 70 parts of other ingredients (‘870, Machine Translation, Paragraph [0037]), which indicates that the 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal are present in the flavor delivery system of the chicken flavoring base in small amounts relative to the entire flavor delivery system.
Cavallini et al., Simmons et al., and CN 111213870 are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of chicken flavor delivery systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flavor delivery system of Cavallini et al. that contains chicken flavoring and adjust the concentration of aldehydes of 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal through different reaction conditions as taught by Simmons et al. which 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal are present in the chicken flavoring in very small amounts relative to the total flavor delivery system as taught by CN 111213870 and adjust the concentrations of the aldehydes 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal to the claimed low concentrations since differences in the concentrations of the aldehydes of 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal present in the chicken flavor delivery system will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentrations of the aldehydes of 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal present in the chicken flavor delivery system is critical. Where 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Furthermore, Zhang discloses oxidation of lipids such as fats and oils is known to generate many natural flavor compounds such as 2,4-decadienal wherein there is an interest in the food industry to make good use of this flavor compound and to have them integrated into flavor reaction processes such as Maillard reactions in order to enhance the generation of certain flavor notes such as more meaty or fatty flavor notes wherein lipid oxidation can be accelerated by thermally induced auto-oxidation, photo-oxidation, heavy metal catalysis, activated oxygen, and enzymatic catalysis (‘263, Paragraph [0002]) wherein frying typically leads to the formation of 2,4-decadienal, which is one of the key compounds contributing to fried aroma wherein 2,4-decadienal is typically formed via lipid oxidation of linoleic fatty acid, which is the dominant fatty acid in sunflower oil (‘263, Paragraph [0032]). FooDB discloses 2,4-heptadienal or (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal belongs to a class of compounds known as medium chain aldehydes with a chain length containing between 6 and 12 carbon atoms and considered to be a fatty aldehyde and is an aldehydic, cake, and cinnamon tasting compound (FooDB, Page 2). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of 2,4-heptadienal in the flavor delivery system of Cavallini et al. based upon the desired degree of intensity of cinnamon taste as taught by FooDB. Analogously, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of 2,4-decadienal in the flavor delivery system of Cavallini et al. based upon the desired degree of intensity of fried aroma as taught by Zhang.
Regarding Claim 2, Cavallini et al. discloses the flavor delivery system comprising 45-65 wt% water (‘071, Paragraph [0032], 10-15 wt% oil (‘071, Paragraph [0035]), and 5-10 wt% modified starch (‘071, Paragraph [0035]), which amounts to 60-90 wt% of water, oil, and modified starch combined, which overlaps the claimed combination of water, oil, and modified starch of at least 70 wt%. Where the claimed amounts of water, fat, and modified starch combined overlaps the amounts of water, fat, and modified starch combined disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of 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) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Regarding Claims 5-8, Cavallini et al. is silent regarding the flavor delivery system comprising 0.2-15 mg/kg 2,4-heptadienal or at least 0.2 mg/kg (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal and 2-80 mg/kg 2,4-decadienal or at least 2 mg/kg (E,E)-2,4-decadienal.
Simmons et al. discloses a process for the preparation of flavoring mixtures through controlled oxidation of fatty acids or fatty acid derivatives in the presence of antioxidants and foods containing these flavoring mixtures (‘892, Column 1, lines 5-13) wherein the oxidation mixtures obtained by the process are valuable flavor mixtures due to their high content of aliphatic flavor aldehydes and other flavor components wherein such aldehydes include 2,4-heptdienal and 2,4-decadienal (‘892, Column 3, lines 33-40) wherein the quantities and ratios of these aldehydes depends on the fatty acid or fat starting material, taking into account that the results of mixtures of fatty acids or fats can be different from the sum of the results of the separate components due to preferential oxidation of certain fatty acids over others wherein the composition of the flavor mixtures is also dependent on the type and quantity of antioxidant and on the reaction conditions used such as time, temperature, mixing efficiency, or amount of oxygen supplied wherein the flavor properties of the flavor mixtures are varied to suit specific needs by changing these variables (‘892, Column 3, lines 40-59) wherein a dry chicken flavor for soup is prepared (‘892, Column 10, lines 66-68).
Additionally, CN 111213870 discloses a solid flavor delivery system (roasted chicken flavor base) comprising 0.01-0.1 parts 2,4-heptadienal and 0.2-0.8 parts 2,4-decadienal (‘870 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0011]) wherein the flavor delivery system comprises water, fat (chicken bone oil), starch, and flavoring (garlic powder) (‘870 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0035]). Although CN 111213870 does not explicitly disclose the units of the 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal being present in the claimed amounts of 0.2-15 mg/kg 2,4-heptadienal or at least 0.2 mg/kg (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal and 2-180 mg/kg 2,4-decadienal or at least 2 mg/kg (E,E)2-4,-decadienal, respectively, CN 111213870 discloses the roasted chicken flavor base being prepared with raw materials of 0.01-0.1 parts 2,4-heptadienal and 0.2-0.8 parts decadienal (‘870 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0011]) and an example wherein the roasted chicken flavoring comprises 0.1 parts 2,4-heptadienal, 0.2 parts 2,4-decadienal, and about 70 parts of other ingredients (‘870, Machine Translation, Paragraph [0037]), which indicates that the 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal are present in the flavor delivery system of the chicken flavoring base in small amounts relative to the entire flavor delivery system.
Cavallini et al., Simmons et al., and CN 111213870 are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of chicken flavor delivery systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flavor delivery system of Cavallini et al. that contains chicken flavoring and adjust the concentration of aldehydes of 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal through different reaction conditions as taught by Simmons et al. which 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal are present in the chicken flavoring in very small amounts relative to the total flavor delivery system as taught by CN 111213870 and adjust the concentrations of the aldehydes 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal to the claimed low concentrations since differences in the concentrations of the aldehydes of 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal present in the chicken flavor delivery system will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentrations of the aldehydes of 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal present in the chicken flavor delivery system is critical. Where 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Furthermore, Zhang discloses oxidation of lipids such as fats and oils is known to generate many natural flavor compounds such as 2,4-decadienal wherein there is an interest in the food industry to make good use of this flavor compound and to have them integrated into flavor reaction processes such as Maillard reactions in order to enhance the generation of certain flavor notes such as more meaty or fatty flavor notes wherein lipid oxidation can be accelerated by thermally induced auto-oxidation, photo-oxidation, heavy metal catalysis, activated oxygen, and enzymatic catalysis (‘263, Paragraph [0002]) wherein frying typically leads to the formation of 2,4-decadienal, which is one of the key compounds contributing to fried aroma wherein 2,4-decadienal is typically formed via lipid oxidation of linoleic fatty acid, which is the dominant fatty acid in sunflower oil (‘263, Paragraph [0032]). FooDB discloses 2,4-heptadienal or (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal belongs to a class of compounds known as medium chain aldehydes with a chain length containing between 6 and 12 carbon atoms and considered to be a fatty aldehyde and is an aldehydic, cake, and cinnamon tasting compound (FooDB, Page 2). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of 2,4-heptadienal in the flavor delivery system of Cavallini et al. based upon the desired degree of intensity of cinnamon taste as taught by FooDB. Analogously, it would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of 2,4-decadienal in the flavor delivery system of Cavallini et al. based upon the desired degree of intensity of fried aroma as taught by Zhang.
Further regarding Claims 6 and 8, FooDB discloses the flavor delivery system comprising the enantiomer of (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal (FooDB, Page 2). Zhang discloses the enantiomer of (E,E)-2,4-decadienal (‘263, Paragraph [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flavor delivery system of modified Cavallini et al. and use the claimed enantiomers of (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal and the enantiomer of (E,E)-2,4-decadienal as taught by FooDB and Zhang, respectively since when the species is clearly named, the species claim is obvious no matter how many other species are additionally named in view of Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (MPEP § 2131.02.II.).
Regarding Claim 9, CN 111213870 discloses the 2,4-heptaidenal being present in an amount of 0.01 parts and the 2,4-decadienal being present in an amount of 0.2 parts (‘870 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0037]), which converts to a weight ratio of 1:20, which falls within the claimed weight ratio of 2,4-heptadienal to 2,4-decadienal of 1:5 to 1:100. Where the claimed weight ratio of 2,4-heptadienal to 2,4-decadienal overlaps weight ratios of 2,4-heptadienal to 2,4-decadienal disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of 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) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Regarding Claim 14, Cavallini et al. discloses the flavor delivery system forming at least part of a foodstuff (‘071, Paragraph [0037]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavallini et al. US 2005/0003071 in view of Simmons et al. US 5,178,892, CN 111213870 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 1, 2024), Zhang US 2017/0306263, and FooDB “(E,E)-2,4-heptadienal” <https://web.archive.org/web/20201029065429/https://foodb.ca/compounds/FDB029656> (archived October 29, 2020) (herein referred to as “FooDB”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Lane et al. US 2018/0192683.
Regarding Claim 3, Cavallini et al. modified with Simmons et al., CN 111213870, Zhang, and FooDB is silent regarding the flavor delivery system containing 30-80% of the starch component by weight of water.
Lane et al. discloses a method of improving the viscosity of thermally inhibited, starch based texturizers and application of those texturizers in food products (‘683, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the physiochemical properties of starch are commonly modified by hydrothermal treatments such as annealing wherein starch with excess or intermediate moisture of about 40 wt% to about 80 wt% is treated at a temperature above the glass transition temperature but below the gelatinization temperature which gelatinization temperature varies depending on the starch source (‘683, Paragraph [0006]), which falls within the water concentration of starch component of 30-80 wt%.
Both modified Cavallini et al. and Lane et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of food products containing starch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flavor delivery system of Cavallini et al. and incorporate starch having the claimed intermediate to high water concentration of 30-80 wt% as taught by Lane et al. in order to physically alter the starch to the desired properties by treatment at specific moisture and temperature conditions (‘683, Paragraph [0005]) to obtain products having specific functional properties of desired viscosity profiles and/or texture (‘683, Paragraph [0061]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavallini et al. US 2005/0003071 in view of Simmons et al. US 5,178,892, CN 111213870 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 1, 2024), Zhang US 2017/0306263, and FooDB “(E,E)-2,4-heptadienal” <https://web.archive.org/web/20201029065429/https://foodb.ca/compounds/FDB029656> (archived October 29, 2020) (herein referred to as “FooDB”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Gah et al. US 2020/0397025.
Regarding Claim 4, Cavallini et al. modified with Simmons et al., CN 111213870, Zhang, and FooDB is silent regarding the fat having a solid fat content at 15°C of at least 20%.
Gah et al. discloses a flavored oil in water emulsion (‘025, Paragraph [0210]) comprising structuring fat present in solid particles having a solid fat content N10 from 50 to 100% and N20 from 26 to 95% which n value expresses the solid fat content (SFC) at a certain temperature in °C to optimize the structuring capacity and/or impression of the emulsion in the mouth upon consumption (‘025, Paragraph [0219]). Gah et al. discloses the solid fat content N10 being greater than that of N20. The N15 would be greater than that of N20. The N15 would be greater than the lower bound of 26% of N20, which falls within the claimed N15 of at least 20%.
Both modified Cavallini et al. and Gah et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of flavor delivery systems in the form of emulsions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flavored emulsion of modified Cavallini et al. to have the claimed N15 solid fat content as taught by Gah et al. since where the claimed N15 solid fat content ranges overlaps N15 solid fat content ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of 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) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the N15 solid fat content of the emulsion of the flavor delivery system will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such N15 solid fat content of the emulsion of the flavor delivery system is critical. Where 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the flavor delivery system of modified Cavallini et al. and adjust the N15 solid fat content based upon the desired mouthfeel as suggested by Gah et al. (‘025, Paragraph [0219]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavallini et al. US 2005/0003071 in view of Simmons et al. US 5,178,892, CN 111213870 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 1, 2024), Zhang US 2017/0306263, and FooDB “(E,E)-2,4-heptadienal” <https://web.archive.org/web/20201029065429/https://foodb.ca/compounds/FDB029656> (archived October 29, 2020) (herein referred to as “FooDB”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Markison et al. US 2017/0042196.
Regarding Claim 10, CN 111213870 discloses the flavor delivery system comprising glutamate (‘870 Machine Translation, Paragraphs [0016] and [0054]). Although Cavallini et al. modified with Simmons et al., CN 111213870, Zhang, and FooDB does not explicitly disclose the amount of water soluble flavor compound of glutamate being present in an amount of at least 0.1 wt%, Markison et al. discloses monosodium glutamate (MSG) has a savory or umami flavor and is often added to foods often at concentrations on the order of about 0.05 to about 0.5% by weight (‘196, Paragraph [0006]), which overlaps the claimed concentration of glutamate of at least 0.1 wt%. It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the amount of glutamate present in the flavor delivery system of modified Cavallini et al. to be at least 0.1 wt% glutamate as taught by Markison et al. since where the claimed glutamate concentration ranges overlaps glutamate concentration ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of 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) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the concentration glutamate present in the chicken flavor delivery system will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration glutamate present in the chicken flavor delivery system is critical. Where 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would modify the chicken flavor delivery system of modified Cavallini et al. and adjust the amount of glutamate based upon the desired umami flavor intensity as suggested by Markison et al.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavallini et al. US 2005/0003071 in view of Simmons et al. US 5,178,892, CN 111213870 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed October 1, 2024), Zhang US 2017/0306263, and FooDB “(E,E)-2,4-heptadienal” <https://web.archive.org/web/20201029065429/https://foodb.ca/compounds/FDB029656> (archived October 29, 2020) (herein referred to as “FooDB”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Hecht et al. US 2022/0400733.
Regarding Claim 11, Cavallini et al. discloses the flavor delivery system comprising an emulsion base with dispersed oil droplets (‘071, Paragraph [0035]). However, Cavallini et al. modified with Simmons et al., CN 111213870, Zhang, and FooDB is silent regarding the flavor delivery system comprising a dispersed fat phase having a volume weighted mean diameter D[4,3] of 3 to 800 µm.
Hecht et al. discloses a flavored (‘733, Paragraph [0173]) emulsion comprising dispersed oil droplets having a volume average mean D(4,3) of from about 50 nm to about 20 micrometers (‘733, Paragraph [0025]).
Both modified Cavallini et al. and Hecht et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of flavor delivery systems in the form of emulsions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flavor delivery system emulsion of modified Cavallini et al. and make the dispersed fat phase with the claimed volume weighted mean diameter as taught by Hecht et al. since where the claimed volume weighted mean diameter D[4,3] of the dispersed fat phase ranges overlaps volume weighted mean diameter D[4,3] of the dispersed fat phase ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of 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) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, claims directed to a flavor delivery system comprising a dispersed fat phase of appreciable size is held unpatentable over prior art flavor delivery systems comprising a dispersed fat phase because limitations relating to the size of the dispersed fat phase is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art in view of In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.A.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HMDB “(E,E)-2,4-decadienal” <https://web.archive.org/web/20201027082455/https://hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB0036598> (archived October 27, 2020) discloses (E,E)-2,4-decadienal is a medium chain aldehyde with a chain length containing between 6 and 12 carbon atoms and is a fat, fatty, and fried tasting compound (HMDB, Page 2).
Umami Information Center “List of Umami rich Food” <https://web.archive.org/web/20160606195621/https://www.umamiinfo.com/richfood/> (archived June 6, 2016) discloses glutamate is naturally present in most foods such as chicken and has a umami taste (Umami, Pages 3-4 and 13).
Ramen Chemistry “Umami Science Part III – Umami Synergy” <https://www.ramenchemistry.com/blog/2015/2/18/umami-science-part-iii-umami-synergy> (published March 1, 2015) discloses glutamate causes umami flavoring (Ramen Chemistry, Pages 1-2).
Stidham et al. US 2024/0407392 discloses a meat analog product comprising one or more flavorants included in a hydration step and/or ingredient addition step having different flavors or tastes wherein the flavorant is chicken flavor (‘392, Paragraphs [0017] and [0067]) wherein non-animal derive protein comprises soy (‘392, Paragraph [0029]).
Dyson et al. US 2021/0392920 discloses a meat analogue product comprising one or more flavoring agents designed to mimic the natural flavor of chicken (‘920, Paragraph [0100]) wherein the artificial meat product includes one or more plant protein sources including soy (‘920, Paragraph [0095]).
Akin et al. US 3,939,284 discloses a meat analog flavored with chicken flavoring (‘284, Column 3, lines 34-41).
Winkel et al. US 2020/0288758 discloses authentic chicken flavor can be provided by a combination of matter containing flavor characteristic compounds obtained from a combination of at least two different chicken varieties wherein flavor characteristic compounds include 2,4-decadienal and 2,4-heptadienal is particularly useful for boiled chicken (‘758, Paragraph [0083]).
Ongouta et al. US 2019/0289887 discloses chicken flavor contains 2,4-decadienal (‘887, Paragraph [0003]) wherein the flavor can be applied in the form of reaction flavors (Maillard products), extracts, or essential oils of plants or parts of plants and spices (‘887, Paragraph [0071]).
Bedoukian et al. US 2017/0166836 discloses a consumer flavor product of a spice or seasoning (‘836, Paragraph [0053]) wherein dienals such as 2,4-decadienal has been used in chicken meat flavor preparations (‘836, Paragraph [0007]) wherein the composition is in the form of an emulsion (‘836, Paragraph [0059]).
Isak et al. US 2016/0128375 discloses an antioxidant composition suitable for addition to meat foodstuff (‘375, Paragraphs [0085]-[0086]) wherein an antioxidant will delay formation of 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal in a mayonnaise sample (‘375, Paragraph [0153]).
Nakatoh et al. US 2015/0257423 discloses a chicken flavor composition and a food, drink, or seasoning containing the chicken flavor composition (‘423, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the chicken flavor composition contains odor components including 2,4-decadienal (‘423, Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]) wherein the chicken flavor composition comprises 2/1000 parts 2,4-decadienal (‘423, Table 1) (‘423, Paragraph [0066]) wherein the chicken flavor composition is prepared in the form on an emulsion with the use of various emulsifiers usable for food or drink (‘423, Paragraph [0052]).
Bornscheuer et al. US 2025/0040580 discloses ingredients for improving the flavor of food products (‘580, Paragraph [0001]).
Han et al. US 2022/0042051 discloses a food or feed composition comprising a flavor ingredient comprising particular aldehydes or aldehyde mixtures (‘051, Paragraph [0003]) wherein unsaturated C10 aldehydes of decadienal are important ingredients for chicken and citrus flavors (‘051, Paragraph [0004]).
Reiss et al. US 2006/0286237 discloses 2,4-decadienal is a type of unsaturated aldehyde suitable as a volatile flavoring (‘237, Paragraph [0005]).
Perret US 3,689,289 discloses an artificial chicken flavor and a process for preparing the same (‘289, Column 1, lines 15-22).
Fraser et al. US 2018/0192680 discloses a method for producing a flavor compound comprising the step of heating a mixture to form one or more flavor compounds including 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal.
Vrljic et al. US 2018/0027851 discloses a mixed meat tissue replica increasing the sense of flavors wherein the mixed meat replicas increase the presence of volatile odorants including 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal (‘851, Paragraph [0284]) wherein the consumables replicates chicken (‘851, Paragraph [0074]).
Varadan et al. US 2017/0188612 discloses a plant based meat replica that mimics the texture, appearance, and sensory aspects of cooking and eating ground meat (‘612, Paragraph [0002]) wherein the addition of algal oil to a flavored emulsion used in a meat replica increases the precursors needed for the creation of fatty flavor molecules wherein GC-MS detected created flavors including 2,4-heptadienal and 2,4-decadienal (‘612, Paragraphs [0167]-[0168]) wherein the meat replica is ground chicken (‘612, Paragraph [0039]).
Shmulewitz et al. US 2021/0051975 discloses a method of making an emulsion comprising chickpea protein product and 10-30 wt% water (‘975, Paragraphs [0101]-[0108]).
Kugitani et al. US 2015/0099053 disclose an oil in water emulsion gel food obtained by gelling an oil in water emulsion slurry containing 10-60 wt% oil droplets having a particle diameter of 50-800 µm.
Shi et al. US 2019/0254303 discloses an emulsion comprising 15-75 wt% water (‘303, Paragraphs [0014]-[0015]).
Cheison et al. US 2020/0205441 discloses a wet pet food product (‘441, Paragraph [0020]) having a volume mean diameter (also referred to as the D[4,3] value) of no more than 70 µm (‘441, Paragraph [0068]) wherein the water content of reconstituted animal material is typically up to about 50 wt5 (‘441, Paragraph [0089]).
Boursier et al. US 2011/0311599 discloses a granular powder containing vegetable proteins and fibers (‘599, Paragraph [0001]) having a volume mean diameter D4,3 of between 10 µm and 500 µm (‘599, Paragraph [0037]).
De Sadelleer et al. US 2010/0105872 discloses D4,3 is the volume average diameter also DeBrouker mean (‘872, Paragraph [0090]).
Zhao et al. US 2016/0021899 discloses a continuous process for improving the flavor and texture of bran and germ components or ingredients which may be used for making stabilized whole grain flours (‘899, Paragraph [0001]) wherein ground bran and germ component or fraction is heat treated to volatize wheaty flavor components including saturated and unsaturated aldehydes such as heptadienal and/or decadienal which are removed by venting with or without the application of vacuum and by stripping with steam or moisture volatilization and removal wherein venting of volatiles during the heat treatment of the bran and germ component or fraction reduces the amount of volatile compounds which affects the overall flavor of the baked goods made with whole grain flour containing the heat treated bran and germ component or fraction wherein the lower levels of wheaty related compounds compared to non heat treated bran and germ indicates that venting of volatile compounds during heating reduces the potential carryover of volatile compound into whole grain flours made from the heat treated bran and germ component or fraction wherein the amounts or levels of one or more volatile compounds in the heat treated bran and germ component or fraction mis monitored or analyzed using headspace GC MS analysis and the heat treatment conditions can be adjusted to increase the removal to reduce wheatiness and improve flavor as determined by sensory evaluation or by an expert taste panel wherein the amounts of levels of one or more of these volatile compoudns in the vented gases is monitored or analyzed periodically or continuously using headspace CG MS analysis and the heat treatment conditions such as temperature, moisture treatment time can be adjusted to increase their removal to reduce wheatiness and improve flavor (‘899, Paragraph [0042]).
Contreras et al. US 2023/0136465 discloses a method of making a plant based chicken flavoring agent in the form of a composition and/or a mixture added to food products to mask flavors of the food products and/or provide chicken like flavoring (‘465, Paragraph [0033]) wherein the chicken like flavor comprises glutamate (‘465, Paragraph [0092]).
Fraser et al. US 2017/0295833 discloses a method for imparting a meat like flavor such as chicken to a food product comprising the step of contacting the food product with a flavoring composition comprising one or more flavor precursor molecules including ionsine IMP, GMP, and glutamate wherein after heating the food product and the flavoring composition together a meat like flavor such as chicken like is imparted to the food product (‘833, Paragraph [0020]) wherein the food product is a meat substitute (‘833, Paragraph [0063]).
Tandy US 4,592,917 discloses a method of making a chicken flavorant (‘917, Column 1, lines 11-13) wherein the organoleptic profile of the flavorant is adjusted to simulate the flavor notes of natural cooked, roasted, or fried light or dark chicken meat as desired (‘917, Column 2, lines 20-29) wherein varying the parameters of temperature, time, and solvent content alters the organoleptic profile of the resulting chicken flavorant to provide cooked white meat chicken flavor characteristics, cooked dark meat chicken flavor characteristics, or roast or fried chicken meat flavor characteristics as desired (‘917, Column 4, lines 57-68) wherein flavor potentiators or enhancers such as spices, condiments, monosodium glutamate, 5’-nucelotides and the like may be combined with the chicken flavorant prior to or during the reaction (‘917, Column 6, lines 5-10) wherein the chicken flavorant is incorporated into simulated chicken meat products based on vegetable proteins (‘917, Column 6, lines 11-24).
Zheng et al. US 6,495,184 discloses a process for preparing a meat flavoring composition wherein amino acids and reducing sugars are combined in an oil environment to product a meat flavoring composition having a grilled flavor and aroma where it is known that oil/fat, which degrades to produce fatty acids, aldehydes and ketones, gives meat a species specific flavor.
Chhuy et al. US 4,081,565 discloses a method of making a poultry meat flavoring composition (‘565, Column 2, lines 42-44) wherein lower alkyl carbonylic materials such as ketones and alkyl aldehydes can be admixed into a reaction system during or subsequent to a heating step after heating the reaction mass since they are generally volatile and losses thereof may occur during the heating wherein the aldehydes are 2,4-decadienal employed at levels ranging from 0.01 up to 0.1 times the weight of the meat powder enzymatic digest used (‘565, Column 6, lines 42-59).
Shi et al. US 11,425,923 discloses a flavor modifier comprising a top note agent added during or after a reaction which top note includes 2,4-decadienal which gives foods their fresh flavors (‘923, Column 25, lines 46-58) wherein evaporating the volatile substances leads to purified non volatile substances used as the flavor modifiers wherein partial separation of MRPs by distillation and non volatile substances by recrystallization could be done to meet different targes of taste and flavor (‘923, Column 30, lines 26-56).
Fraser et al. US 2015/0351435 discloses a method and composition for modulating the flavor and/or aroma profile of consumable food products including animal or non-animal/plant based food products during and/or after the cooking process that generates one or more chemical compounds that modulate the flavor and/or aroma profile of the consumable food product during and/or after the cooking process (‘435, Paragraph [0007]) wherein one or more flavor precursor molecules or compositions can be added along with an iron complex to an uncooked food product before and/or during the cooking process to give the consumable food product a particular meaty taste and smell of chicken (‘435, Paragraph [0010]) wherein the one or more flavor precursor molecules include (E,E)-2,4-heptadienal and (E,E)-2,4-decadienal (‘435, Paragraph [0018]) for imparting a meat like chicken flavor to a food product with a flavoring composition (‘435, Paragraph [0020]) wherein the food product used to modulate the taste and/or aroma profile is meat substitutes (‘435, Paragraph [0062]) wherein the characteristic flavor and fragrance components were mostly produced during the cooking process when the flavor precursor molecules reacted with the heme protein and samples were evaluated by gas chromatography to identify the flavor compounds generated after heating and also evaluated for their sensory profiles which volatile chemicals were isolated from the head space around the flavor reactions (‘435, Paragraph [0084]).
Drajier US 2024/0358042 discloses a meat analogue comprising a flavor agent and water (‘042, Paragraph [0040]) wherein the flavoring agent comprises flavoring agents that contribute to meat flavor including glutamate, inosine monophosphate, guanosine monophosphate, and chicken flavoring agents wherein glutamate is in an amount of 0.001 to 0.4 wt% by weight of the meat analogue (‘042, Paragraph [0053]) and GMP is in an amount of 0.0001 to 0.3 wt% by weight of the meat analogue (‘042, Paragraph [0054]) wherein glutamate, IMP and GMP is added as part of as a chicken flavor high ribonucleotide flavoring agent (‘042, Paragraph [0057]).
Backes et al. US 2020/0080023 discloses a method for producing an aromatic blend comprising unsaturated dienals (‘023, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the flavorings for the aroma industry used are polyunsaturated aldehydes of 2E,4E-decadienal (‘023, Paragraph [0004]) wherein mixtures comprising 2,4-decadienal are characteristic for a particularly authentic meat taste, e.g. chicken and beef and are also used in fruit and vegetable aromas as well as for aromatizing spirits (‘023, Paragraph [0005]).
Cheetham et al. US 2019/0297930 discloses a flavored sweetener comprising glutamate at a concentration of greater than 0.1 wt% (‘930, Paragraph [0011]) wherein the umami characteristic of a flavored sweetener is analyzed by determining the concentration of monosodium glutamate (‘930, Paragraph [0196]).
Morley US 2004/0156973 discloses a flavor enhancer such as monosodium glutamate used in a cooking paste typically in amounts of up to 1% wt (‘973, Paragraph [0038]).
Ogasawara et al. US 2004/0146633 discloses sodium glutamate enhances umami or body taste of an umami substance (‘633, Paragraph [0095]).
Zurbriggen et al. US 6,129,937 discloses a flavoring agent comprising 11.5% monosodium glutamate.
Mizutani et al. US 4,472,447 discloses it is well known that the combination of MS and a flavor inducing 5’-nucleotide such as IMP and/or GMP exhibits a synergistic flavoring activity and have been widely used as flavoring agents or seasoning agents (‘447, Column 1, lines 12-20).
Bodor et al. US 2003/0017239 discloses an emulsion comprising an oil in water dispersion comprising fat droplets having a volume weighted mean diameter of less than 5 micrometers (‘239, Paragraph [0085]).
Jones et al. US 5,217,742 discloses an oil in water dispersion comprising oil droplets having a volume weighted mean diameter of less than 5 microns.
Fujioka et al. US 2020/0370077 discloses a transesterification method useful for modifying and improving the physical properties of oils and fats or processed products of oils and fats to improve emulsion stability and optimize a solid fat content (SFC) (‘696, Paragraph [0069]).
Sikking et al. US 2003/0104110 discloses a heat treated whippable oil in water emulsion comprising a fat phase comprising a fat blend having a solid fat content of at least 10% at 40°C and at least 40% at 30°C and at least 60% at 10°C (‘110, Paragraph [0025]).
Schoeppe et al. US 2020/0375210 discloses an emulsion containing a solid fat wherein the solid fat content is chosen such that it melts or dissolves optimally at in mouth conditions (‘210, Paragraph [0059]).
Sheskey et al. US 2014/0201872 discloses a food product (‘872,Paragraph [0067]) comprising an intermediate starch product having a moisture content in the range of from 35 to 65 weight percent (‘872, Paragraph [0024]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
