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 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 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “A method to reduce a bitter taste of an ingestible composition, the method comprising introducing an unsaturated fatty acid compound to the ingestible composition” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the “bitter taste of an ingestible composition” could be reduced if the composition does not comprise a bitter tastant,
Claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
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, 5, 8, 13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mattes (“Effects of linoleic acid on sweet, sour, salty, and bitter taste thresholds and intensity ratings of adults”, Am J. Physiol. Gastriointest. Liver Physiol., 292, (2007), pp. G1243-G1248 – IDS filed November 4, 2024).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 8 and 13, Mattes discloses a method of reducing the bitter taste of a solution (i.e., ingestible composition) comprising caffeine (i.e., bitter tastant, an active pharmaceutical ingredient) by adding a solution of linoleic acid (Abstract, p. 1244/Methods/General protocol, p. 1245/Results/Intensity ratings, p. 1246/Fig 2). The structure of linoleic acid:
PNG
media_image1.png
268
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 15-17, Mattes discloses a solution (i.e., ingestible composition, beverage or pharmaceutical) comprising caffeine (i.e., bitter tastant) and linoleic acid (Abstract, p. 1244/Methods/General protocol, p. 1245/Results/Intensity ratings, p. 1246/Fig 2). The structure of linoleic acid:
PNG
media_image1.png
268
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Given the solution comprises caffeine (a bitter tastant), the solution is considered “flavored.”
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maciejewska et al. (“The content of linoleic and alpha-linolenic acid in different types of Yerba Mate depending on country of origin and the conditions of the infusion”, Pom J. Life Sci., (2015), pp. 90-93 – IDS filed November 4, 2024).
Regarding claims 15-17, Maciejewska et al. disclose Yerba Matte tea (i.e., a flavored beverage product) comprising linoleic acid (i.e., an unsaturated fatty acid compound having the formula of claim 1 (Abstract):
PNG
media_image1.png
268
416
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Maciejewska et al. disclose the tea comprises alkaloids, polyphenols and flavonoids (i.e., bitter tastants – p.91/Introduction).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattes (“Effects of linoleic acid on sweet, sour, salty, and bitter taste thresholds and intensity ratings of adults”, Am J. Physiol. Gastriointest. Liver Physiol., 292, (2007), pp. G1243-G1248 – IDS filed November 4, 2024) in view of Ogi et al. (“Long-Chain Fatty Acids Elicit a Bitterness-Masking Effect on Quinine and Other Nitrogenous Bitter Substances by Formation of Insoluble Binary Complexes”, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 63 (38), (2015, pp. 8493-8500 – IDS dated October 27, 2025).
Regarding claims 2-4, Mattes discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Mattes disclose a solution comprising an unsaturated fatty acid, linolenic acid and a bitter tastant, caffeine, the reference is silent with respect to the specifically claimed unsaturated fatty acids of the formulas of claims 2-4.
Ogi et al. teach long chain fatty acids (e.g., hexanoic, octanoic, decanoic, linoleic, linolenic, myristoleic, palmitoleic, oleic, and arachidonic acids -p. 8494/Materials and Methods/Chemicals) that elicit a bitterness-masking on nitrogenous bitter substances. Ogi et al. teach long chain fatty acids can mask the bitterness of nitrogenous substances through direct molecular interactions (i.e., formation of hydrogen bonds between the nitrogen atoms of the bitter substances and the carboxyl groups of the fatty acids to form an insoluble binary complex (Abstract, p. 8498-8499/Discussion). Ogi et al. is silent with respect to the specifically claimed unsaturated fatty acids of claims 2-4.
Mattes and Ogi et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely masking the bitter taste of bitter compounds with unsaturated fatty acids. While Ogi et al. does not disclose using the specifically claimed unsaturated fatty acids of claims 2-4, the reference teaches how unsaturated fatty acids can mask the bitterness of nitrogenous substances by forming a bond between the nitrogen atoms of the bitter substances and the carboxy groups of the fatty acids. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have tried using any unsaturated fatty acid in the solution of Mattes with a reasonable expectation of masking the bitter taste of the caffeine.
Regarding claim 9, Mattes discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Mattes discloses a solution comprising a bitter tastant, caffeine, the reference is silent with respect to a high intensity sweetener.
Ogi et al. teach long chain fatty acids, including linoleic acid, that elicit a bitterness-masking on nitrogenous bitter substances, including saccharin and potassium acesulfame (i.e., high intensity sweeteners)(Abstract, p. 8494/Materials and Methods/Screening of Bitter Substances, Figure S1-1/ (k) and (n)). Ogi et al. teach the linoleic acid can mask the bitterness of nitrogenous substances, such as saccharin and potassium acesulfame, through direct molecular interactions (i.e., formation of hydrogen bonds between the nitrogen atoms of the bitter substances and the carboxyl groups of the fatty acids to form an insoluble binary complex (Abstract, p. 8498-8499/Discussion).
Mattes and Ogi et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, masking bitter substances with unsaturated fatty acids. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have added a different bitter tastant, i.e., saccharin or potassium acesulfame, to the solution of Mattes et al. with a reasonable expectation that the linoleic acid in the solution would mask (i.e., reduce the bitter taste) the bitterness of high intensity sweeteners while providing a sweet taste to the solution.
Claims 6, 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mattes (“Effects of linoleic acid on sweet, sour, salty, and bitter taste thresholds and intensity ratings of adults”, Am J. Physiol. Gastriointest. Liver Physiol., 292, (2007), pp. G1243-G1248 – IDS filed November 4, 2024).
Regarding claims 6, 7 and 10, Mattes disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Mattes disclose a bitter tastant, i.e., caffeine, the reference is silent with respect to non-animal protein or ginseng.
Mattes disclose adding a linoleic acid solution to a solution comprising caffeine (i.e., bitter tastant), sodium chloride (i.e., salty tastant), sucrose (i.e., sweet tastant) or citric acid (i.e., sour tastant) to reduce the perceived intensity of the respective tastes (Abstract). While Mattes does not show the effect of linoleic acid to reduce the bitter taste of bitter tastants of non-animal proteins or ginseng, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have tried to reduce the bitter taste of any known ingestible bitter tastants, including from non-animal protein and ginseng, by combining them in a solution with linoleic acid with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Mattes discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Mattes teach wherein the ingestible composition is a solution comprising caffeine and water, the reference is silent with respect to (a) coffee or tea; or (b) a composition comprising an umami taste, a kokumi tastant or a combination thereof. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application of have used any known ingestible composition comprising a bitter tastant, i.e., caffeine, and introduced linoleic acid with a reasonable expectation of reducing the bitter taste of the caffeine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Coupland et al. (“Physical Approaches to Masking Bitter Tast: Lessons from Food and Pharmaceuticals”, Pharm Res., 31(11), (2016), pp. 1-36) teaches about different mechanisms to mask bitter taste in foods and pharmaceuticals. The reference teaches the bitterness of quinine is less readily detected in oil than in water (p. 20). The reference is silent with respect to unsaturated fatty acids.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights