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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 17, 2026 has been entered.
Claim 15 is new. Claims 8-14 were previously withdrawn. Claims 1-7 and 15 are pending examination.
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 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).
Given the overfermented cocoa beans of Voigt et al. comprise taste modulating peptides as required by claim 1, inherently the peptides would impart a salty taste (MPEP §2112.01 II).
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, 7 and 15 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, 7 and 15, 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. teach overfermented cocoa beans having ham-like flavor (i.e., hammy flavor- p. 195/Figure 5.1 demonstrating the cocoa beans comprising flavor components). Moreover, 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 taste modulating peptides as required by claim 1, inherently the peptides would impart a salty taste (MPEP §2112.01 II).
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 a portion of overfermented cocoa beans, as taught by Voigt et al., in the chocolate of Jinap et al. to obtain a chocolate product having a desired sensory profile including one with ham-like flavor or salty taste.
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.
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).
Claim 4 is 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) 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 Jinap et al. (“Flavour evaluation of chocolate formulated from cocoa beans from different countries”, Food Control, Vol. 5, No. 2, (1995), pp. 105-110).
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 Voigt 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 April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits “the cited art contains no teaching or suggestion that a skilled artisan would eliminate the roasting step when producing flavor composition from cocoa.” Applicant notes “Voigt clarifies that the Maillard reaction and other browning reactions are essential for the development of characteristic cocoa and chocolate flavors and that these reactions occur during roasting.” Moreover, Applicant submits “Jinap’s teachings are consistent with Voigt’s statements.” Jinap et al. teach chocolate flavor is a combination of sub-flavors that are developed during fermentation and roasting.
While the flavor of roasted cocoa beans are desired or “essential” to provide characteristic cocoa and chocolate flavors, given Voigt et al. teach overfermented cocoa beans can exhibit a ham-like flavor (i.e., hammy flavor- p. 195/Figure 5.1 demonstrating the cocoa beans comprising flavor components) and, as evidenced by Salger et al., comprise 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) known to be salt enhancing (p. 4316/Table 2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to consider adding a portion of unfermented cocoa beans to make the chocolate of Jinap et al. with a reasonable expectation of producing a chocolate with desired roasted and chocolate flavor but also the unique flavors associated with overfermented cocoa beans.
Applicant argue the compositions of Voigt do not and cannot necessarily include the peptides of Salger et al.
Here, Voigt et al. teaches overfermented cocoa beans. At page 195/.Figure 5.1, Voigt et al. teaches that overfermented (and unroasted) cocoa beans comprise flavor components. Salger et al. clearly establishes overfermented cocoa beans comprise 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).
Applicant also argues “at the time of filing the skilled artisan understood that a minimal variation in the cocoa bean processing would likely affect the peptide composition.” As evidence, Applicant provides Appendix B, Rawel et al. to show the proteins in cocoa beans are affected by ripening, maturation and post-harvest processing. Therefore, Applicant concludes that overfermented cocoa beans would not necessarily present the claimed peptides.
While the protein profile of a cocoa bean may vary during pre-harvest ripening and maturation, proteins are known to be present in the cocoa beans prior to fermentation. Salger et al. teaches that during fermentation acetic acid is formed, enzymatic degradation of the pulp and hydrolysis of protein and peptides occur. Salger et al. found overfermented cocoa beans to be a rich sources of taste enhancing peptides (Abstract). While the protein profile may vary prior to fermentation, the skilled artisan would still expect the formation of taste modulating peptides to occur during fermentation. Here, there is no evidence on the record demonstrating that the formation of taste modulating peptides would be significantly affected by differences in ripening and maturation.
Applicant argues the assertion “[w]hile flavors associated with overfementation 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” and that “[p]reference for a particular sensory profile is subjective, without providing any evidentiary support.
This assertion was made as part of the Response to Argument in the Final Office Action mailed November 19, 2025. The Examiner cites Jinap et al. which shows that cocoa beans from different regions of the world exhibit distinct flavor profiles, including acidic and hammy (p. 106/Column 1). Jinap et al. also states that the cocoa beans displaying distinct flavor profiles are often used in a limited amount and blended with other sources (p. 106/Column 1).
Given taste preferences are individual and subjective, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make a chocolate with any desired and distinct flavor profile. Moreover, in this case, a skilled artisan might be motivated to add a portion of overfermented cocoa beans in a process of making chocolate to realize the benefits of taste modulating peptides.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zyzelewicz et al. (“The effect on bioactive components and characteristics of chocolate by functionalization with raw cocoa beans”, Food Research International, 113, (2018) pp. 234-244) teach chocolate made with raw unroasted cocoa beans.
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