DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Amendment filed October 16, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-7 are pending examination. Claims 8-14 were previously withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voigt et al. (“5-Biochemistry of Cocoa Fermentation”, Cocoa and Coffee Fermentations, CRC Press LLC, October 2014, pp. 193-225) as evidenced by Salger et al. (“Taste Modulating Peptides from Overfermented Cocoa Beans”, J. Agric. Food Chem, 67, (2019), pp. 4311-4320).
Regarding claims 1-3, Voigt et al. disclose a overfermented cocoa beans (i.e., flavor composition- p. 195/Figure 5.1 demonstrating the cocoa beans comprising flavor components).
As evidenced by Salger et al.. the taste modulating peptides, pGlu-Glu-Glu (i.e., pyro-Glutamyl-glutamyl-glutamic acid), pGlu-Gln-Ala-Thr (i.e., pyro-Glutamyl-glutaminyl-alanyl-threonine), Arg-Met-Pro (i.e., Arginyl-methionyl-proline) and Asn-Asn-Ala-Leu (i.e., asparaginyl-asparaginyl-alanyl-leucine) have been identified in overfermented cocoa beans (p. 4313/Identification of Taste Modulators, p. 4315/Table 1). Moreover, the taste modulating peptides, pGlu-Glu-Glu, pGlu-Gln-Ala-Thr, Arg-Met-Pro and Asn-Asn-Ala-Leu are known to be salt enhancing (p. 4316/Table 2).
Regarding claim 5, Voigt et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. As evidenced by Salger et al. overfermented cocoa beans are known to comprise unami enhancing peptides, e.g., seryl-prolyl-valine (p. 4315/Table 1).
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinap et al. (“Flavour evaluation of chocolate formulated from cocoa beans from different countries”, Food Control, Vol. 5, No. 2, (1995), pp. 105-110) in view of Voigt et al. (“5-Biochemistry of Cocoa Fermentation”, Cocoa and Coffee Fermentations, CRC Press LLC, October 2014, pp. 193-225) and as evidenced by Salger et al. (“Taste Modulating Peptides from Overfermented Cocoa Beans”, J. Agric. Food Chem, 67, (2019), pp. 4311-4320).
Regarding claims 1-3, Jinap et al. disclose chocolate made with roasted dried and fermented cocoa beans (i.e., flavor composition -Abstract, p. 106/Bean samples and Chocolate formulation). Jinap et al. disclose flavor precursors are formed during prefermentation, fermentation and drying processes. Jinap et al. disclose these compounds react with each other during roasting to product chocolate flavor (p. 105/Introduction). Jinap et al. disclose the chocolate flavor could be described as strong, moderate or week and classified as acidic, bitter, fruity, burnt, hammy, musty, nutty and sweet (p. 106/Sensory evaluation).
Jinap et al. is silent with respect to roasted dried cocoa bean originating from overfermented cocoa beans.
Voigt et al. disclose a overfermented cocoa beans having ham-like flavor (i.e., hammy flavor- p. 195/Figure 5.1 demonstrating the cocoa beans comprising flavor components).
Jinap et al. and Voigt et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely cocoa products. 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 used overfermented cocoa beans in the chocolate of Jinap et al. to obtain a chocolate product having a desired sensory profile including one with ham-like flavor.
As evidenced by Salger et al.. the taste modulating peptides, pGlu-Glu-Glu (i.e., pyro-Glutamyl-glutamyl-glutamic acid), pGlu-Gln-Ala-Thr (i.e., pyro-Glutamyl-glutaminyl-alanyl-threonine), Arg-Met-Pro (i.e., Arginyl-methionyl-proline) and Asn-Asn-Ala-Leu (i.e., asparaginyl-asparaginyl-alanyl-leucine) have been identified in overfermented cocoa beans (p. 4313/Identification of Taste Modulators, p. 4315/Table 1). Moreover, the taste modulating peptides, pGlu-Glu-Glu, pGlu-Gln-Ala-Thr, Arg-Met-Pro and Asn-Asn-Ala-Leu are known to be salt enhancing (p. 4316/Table 2).
Given the overfermented cocoa beans of Voigt et al. comprise slat enhancing flavor modulators, the flavor modulators would necessarily impart a salty taste.
Regarding claim 5, modified Jinap et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. As evidenced by Salger et al. overfermented cocoa beans are known to comprise unami enhancing peptides, e.g., seryl-prolyl-valine (p. 4315/Table 1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jinap et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Voigt et al. teach overfermeted cocoa beans comprising the claimed peptides, the reference is silent with respect to how much peptide is in the beans.
Given the peptides are known flavor modulators, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust, in routine processing, the amount of overfermented cocoa beans (and therefore the amount of the flavor modulating peptides) in the chocolate of Jinap et al. to obtain a desired flavor profile.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinap et al. (“Flavour evaluation of chocolate formulated from cocoa beans from different countries”, Food Control, Vol. 5, No. 2, (1995), pp. 105-110) in view of Voigt et al. (“5-Biochemistry of Cocoa Fermentation”, Cocoa and Coffee Fermentations, CRC Press LLC, October 2014, pp. 193-225) and as evidenced by Salger et al. (“Taste Modulating Peptides from Overfermented Cocoa Beans”, J. Agric. Food Chem, 67, (2019), pp. 4311-4320) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Seasoned Advice (“What is the function of salt in chocolate”, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82574/what-is-the-function-of-salt-in-chocolate, June 23, 2017, downloaded August 27, 2025).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jinap et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jinap et al. is silent with respect sodium chloride or potassium chloride.
Seasoned Advice teaches the idea of adding sea salt (i.e., sodium chloride) to chocolate. Seasoned Advice teaches salt tends to enhance tastes and makes flavor pop. Seasoned Advice also teaches sea salt is a flavor enhancer, i.e., enhances the flavor of the chocolate.
Jinap et al. and Seasoned Advice are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, chocolate compositions. 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 salt, as taught by Seasoned Advice, to the chocolate of Jinap et al. to enhance and taste and flavor of the chocolate.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jinap et al. (“Flavour evaluation of chocolate formulated from cocoa beans from different countries”, Food Control, Vol. 5, No. 2, (1995), pp. 105-110) in view of Voigt et al. (“5-Biochemistry of Cocoa Fermentation”, Cocoa and Coffee Fermentations, CRC Press LLC, October 2014, pp. 193-225) and as evidenced by Salger et al. (“Taste Modulating Peptides from Overfermented Cocoa Beans”, J. Agric. Food Chem, 67, (2019), pp. 4311-4320) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Wijayasekara et al. (“Uses, effects and properties of monosidum glutamate (MSG) on food & nutrition”, International Journal of Food Science, Volume 2, Issue 3, May 2017, pp. 132-143).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jinap et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Jinap et al is silent with respect to monosodium glutamate (MSG).
Wijayasekara et al. teach MSG is a flavor enhancer which exhibits little or no flavor at typical usage level (p. 132/Table 1). Wijayasekara et al. teach MSG enhances sweet and salty taste impressions in food products (p. 132/Table 1).
Jinap et al. and Wijayasekara et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely comprising flavor components. 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 MSG to the chocolate of Jinap et al. to enhance the sweet and salty taste impressions of the chocolate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants submit “the Examiner has failed to demonstrate that the composition of Voigt necessarily include the peptides of Salger at least because he overfermentation method of Voigt and Salger are different.” Applicant explain that the overfermentation process of Voigt is followed by drying and roasting while the overfermentation process of Salger is followed by drying only.
Here, claims 1-6 are directed to a flavor composition. There is no requirement that the flavor composition be obtained from a particular form of overfermented cocoa beans. In the case, Voigt et al. is considered to disclose not only overfermented cocoa beans that are then roasted and dried, but also overfermented cocoa beans. disclose a overfermented cocoa beans.
In the alternative, given, as evidenced by Sager et al. overfermented and dried cocoa beans are known to comprise the taste modulating peptides, pGlu-Glu-Glu (i.e., pyro-Glutamyl-glutamyl-glutamic acid), pGlu-Gln-Ala-Thr (i.e., pyro-Glutamyl-glutaminyl-alanyl-threonine), Arg-Met-Pro (i.e., Arginyl-methionyl-proline) and Asn-Asn-Ala-Leu (i.e., asparaginyl-asparaginyl-alanyl-leucine) (p. 4313/Identification of Taste Modulators, p. 4315/Table 1), one of ordinary skill in the art would understand roasting would not necessarily eliminate all of the taste modulating peptides of the overfermented cocoa bean. There is no evidence on the record to demonstrate the destruction or breakdown of these peptides in the roasting process.
Applicants argue “the skilled in the art would not be motivated to use overfermented cocoa beans at least because both Jinap and Vogt teach that overfermentation lead to unpleasant flavors.”
While flavors, e.g., hammy flavor, associated with overfermented cocoa beans have been labeled as “off-notes”, Jinap et al. teaches beans from different origins have been associated with distinct flavor characteristics, including acidic and hammy (p. 106/Column 1). While the flavors associated with overfermentation of cocoa beans may be considered “off-notes” in some regions of the world, in other regions they may be considered a distinct or regular part of the chocolate profile. Preference for a particular sensory profile is subjective.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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