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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
This application is a 371 of PCT/CL2023/050044, filed on 12/02/2024.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending in the instant application.
The claims set filed on 12/02/2024 is acknowledged.
Election/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8, drawn to a method for quantifying the astringency of a beverage CHARACTERIZED in that the method comprises the steps of a) Contacting an artificial saliva-type protein composition with the beverage in a ratio between 0.75:2 and 1.75:0.5; and b) Determining the tribological profile using a tribological device; and c) Determining the astringency of the beverage; where the protein composition contains alpha-amylase and optionally includes at least one protein selected from mucins, amylases, proline-rich proteins, and lysozymes; where the concentration of protein in the protein composition is between 0.5 to 2.5 mg/L in the response filed on 09/09/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) about Applicants request for rejoinder, However, current claims of elected Group I are not allowable at this time. When Group I would be allowable, rejoinder request would be evaluated at that time.
Claims 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-8 are present for examination.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicants claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) to a foreign patent application CHILE 1467-2022, 06/02/2022 without English translation, and claim Internation patent application PCT/CL2023/050044, filed on 05/26/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 12/02/2024, and 01/30/2026 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are considered by the examiner. The signed copies of 1449 are enclosed herewith.
Drawings
Drawings submitted on 12/02/2024 are accepted by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to in the recitation “Characterized”, which should be changed to “comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite and vague for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is indefinite with the recitation “preferably” in the context of normal force, which is unclear as to the scope of the claim. 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. Clarification is required.
The use of the expressions “preferably” (claim 8) attempts to give both broad and narrow meaning to the scope of the above claim 8. This claim is unclear, confusing, and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 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.
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.
According to MPEP 2143:
“Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield
predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable
results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products)
in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready
for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “ Obvious to try ” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in
either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market
forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art
reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.”
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morell et al. (The role of starch and saliva in tribology studies and the sensory perception of protein-added yogurts. The Royal Society of Chemistry (2016), Biochemistry (2004), 43(16): 4635-4645, see IDS) in view of Rosenkranz et al. (Correlating wine astringency with physical measures – Current knowledge and future directions. Advances in Colloid and Interface (2021), 296: 1-9).
Morell et al. teach the role of starch and saliva in tribology studies and the sensory perception of protein-added yogurts, and further teach artificial saliva (AS) composition, which is prepared using well known method, and the components were sodium chloride (0.117 g L−1), potassium chloride (0.149 g L−1) and sodium bicarbonate (2.1 g L−1), mucin from porcine stomach, type II (PGM) (Sigma, M2378) (1 g L−1), α-amylase from Bacillus subtilis (4000 U g−1) (2 g L−1) and HPLC grade double-distilled water, and incubated with sample at a temperature between 25 to 43oC. Morella et al. also teach increasing the protein content of yogurts would be a good strategy for enhancing their satiating ability. However, the addition of protein can affect product palatability, contributing astringency or an inhomogeneous texture, and increasingly, studies mimicking oral tribology and oral lubrication, which have been attracting interest among food researchers because of their link with oral texture sensations. Morrel et al. further teach using four double protein stirred yogurts were prepared by adding extra skimmed milk powder (MP) or whey protein concentrate (WPC) and by adding a physically modified starch to each (samples MPS and WPCS, respectively) to increase the consistency of the yogurts, wherein the lubricating properties of the four yogurts were examined by tribological methods with the aim of relating these properties to the sensory perception described by flash profiling, where samples were also analyzed after mixing with saliva, and the tribology results clearly showed that addition of starch reduced the friction coefficient values regardless of the type of protein, and the saliva addition produced a further decrease in the friction coefficient values in all the samples, which is consequently, adding saliva is recommended when performing tribology measurements of foods in order to give a more realistic picture, and the sensory results confirmed that the addition of starch reduced the astringent sensation, especially in sample WPC, while the MP and MPS samples were creamier and smoother. On the other hand, the astringency of sample WPC was not explained by the tribology results. Since this sample was described as “grainy”, “gritty”, “rough”, “acid” and “sour”, further studies are necessary to investigate the role of the number, size, shape and distribution of particles in yogurt samples, their role in astringency perception and their interaction with the perception of the tastes mentioned, and oral tribology has shown itself to be an in vitro technique that may aid a better understanding of the dynamics of in-mouth lubrication and the physical mechanisms underlying texture and mouth-feel perception (see, Title, abstract, pg , para xx).
Morrel et al. do not teach using said method for beverages, red wines and beers (for claims 1-3), ratio of protein with the composition 05:1.5 to 1.2:1 (for claim 4), protein concentration in protein composition between 0.75 and 1.5 mg/L or 1 mg/L (for claims 5-6),
PNG
media_image1.png
319
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Rosenkranz et al teach correlating wine astringency with physical measures, and oral tribology in the field of food sciences as it offers great opportunities to establish correlations between physical parameters, such as the coefficient of friction (COF), and sensory effects when interacting with components of the human mouth, wherein the important aspect of the astringency produced by wine, which can be described as the sensation of dryness and puckering in the mouth, specifically occurring between the tongue and the palate after swallowing. Therefore, this article aims at shedding some light on recent trends to correlate physical measures, such as the coefficient of friction derived by oral tribology, with prevailing theories on underlying physiological causes for sensory perception of wines. Some successful cases reported the potential of correlating wine astringency perception with the coefficient of friction in tribological experiments. Our critical assessment demonstrates that the findings are still contradictory, which urgently asks for more systematic studies. Therefore, we summarize the current challenges and hypothesize future research directions with a particular emphasis on the comparability, reproducibility and transferability of studies using different experimental test-rigs and procedures (see, whole document, specifically Title, abstract, pg 1, left Col para 1-2, right Col, para 1, .Fig. 1-5, specifically Fig. 3, see, SnagIt image below).
PNG
media_image2.png
427
1337
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention as a whole before the effective filing date of the invention was made by combining the teachings of Morell et al. and Rosenkranz et al. to use beverages including beer, cider, and red-wine for reducing wine astringency with physical measures, and oral tribology in the field of food sciences as it offers great opportunities to establish correlations between physical parameters, such as the coefficient of friction (COF), and sensory effects when interacting with components of the human mouth, wherein the important aspect of the astringency produced by wine to make beverages more tasty, bitterness perception and palatable taste as taught by Rosenkranz et al. and modify Morrell et al. for understanding role of starch and saliva in tribology studies and the sensory perception of protein-added yogurts, or beverages and using artificial saliva (AS) composition to arrive the claimed invention.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to make beverages including beer, cider, and red-wine for reducing wine astringency with physical measures, and oral tribology in the field of food sciences as it offers great opportunities to establish correlations between physical parameters, such as the coefficient of friction (COF), and sensory effects when interacting with components of the human mouth, which is commercially, industrially and financially beneficial.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Morrel et al. and Rosenkranz et al. could successfully produce food such as yogurt and beverages tastier and less astringency making a drinks or food having less bitterness.
Thus, the above references render the claims prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Status of the claims:
Claims 1-8 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IQBAL H CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-8137. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, at 9:00-5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Manjunath N. Rao, can be reached on 571-272-0939. 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).
Iqbal H. Chowdhury, Ph.D.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1656 (Recombinant Enzymes and Protein Crystallography)
US Patent and Trademark Office
Ph. (571)-272-8137 and Fax (571)-273-8137
/IQBAL H CHOWDHURY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1656
Prosecution Insights