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
Status of Claims
Note: The amendment of April 29th 2025 has been considered.
Claims 1, 4 and 12 have been amended.
Claims 2, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20 and 23 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10-12, 14, 17, 18, 21 and 22 are pending in the current application.
Claims 12, 14, 17, 18, 21 and 22 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1, 3-7, 10 and 11 are examined in the current application.
Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 3-7, 10 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al. (US 2007/0128311 A) in view of NPL Deis, “Customizing Sweetness Profiles” (from Food Product Design Vol. 15, No. 11, November 2006).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 10: Prakash discloses a low-caloric, or non-caloric sweetener composition that emulates natural sugar to be used in fruit juice beverages and concentrates (e.g., apple, cranberry and/or grape) (see Prakash abstract; paragraphs [0006]-[0011], [0046] and [0079]; examples B37-B40). Prakash disclose the sweetener composition comprises a high intensity sweetener (e.g., rebaudioside E and/or rebaudioside D) (see Prakash paragraph [0048]), a carbohydrate (e.g,. glucose, sucrose, fructose, maltose, an oligosaccharide, a high-fructose corn syrup, lactose, psicose, allose, tagatose) (see Prakash paragraph [0083]) and a flavor improving sodium salt (e.g., sodium chloride, sodium bicarbonate, sodium gluconate and/or sodium lactate) (see Prakash paragraphs [0096], [0102] and [0115]). While Prakash fails to disclose the ratio of constituents recited in claims 1, 4 and 10 Prakash discloses adjusting the relative contents of the constituents to attain desired temporal and flavor profiles (see Prakash paragraphs [0117]-[0911]). Moreover, Deis discloses adjusting the relative concentrations of constituent sugars/sweeteners with different sweetness intensities, to attain a sweetening composition with the desired sweetness/sensory profile (See Deis whole document). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to combine the constituents (i.e,. high intensity sweetener, carbohydrate, and flavor improving sodium salt) and to adjust their relative contents in order to attain a fruit juice beverage composition with the desired sweetness/sensory profile, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations. As set forth in MPEP §2144.05 discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3: Prakash discloses combining fruit juice and an aqueous sweetener solution at 1:1 ratio (see Prakash examples B37-B40), wherein the sweetener is low-caloric, or non-caloric (see Prakash abstract; paragraphs [0006]-[0011], [0046] and [0079]; examples B37-B40), which encompasses the claimed energy concentration.
Regarding claim 5: Prakash discloses combining fruit juice and an aqueous sweetener solution at 1:1 ratio (see Prakash examples B37-B40).
Regarding claim 11: Prakash discloses packing the product in conventional packages (see Prakash paragraphs [0899] and [0900]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 29th, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the “Remarks” the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because Applicant had discovered the optimal concentration of the sweeteners, juice and flavor improving sodium salt in Prakash. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The fact that Applicant had discovered the optimal concentration of the sweeteners, juice and flavor improving sodium salt from Prakash does not provide patentable subject matter in view of the prior art. As set forth in MPEP §2144.05 discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable, involves only routine skill in the art.
Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the “Remarks” the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because Deis fails to identify sodium as a result-effective variable as the experimental data showing that the addition of sodium does not increase the intensity of saltiness or odd taste, but increases the intensity of sweetness and intensity of flavor. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Prakash discloses a sweetener composition comprising sweeteners and sweet taste improving composition (see Prakash abstract, paragraph [0007]), wherein the taste improving composition comprises amino acids or sodium salts thereof, and other sodium salts (i.e., sweet taste improving additives) (see Prakash paragraphs [0096]-[0099], [0102], [0103], [0106], [108], [0114], [0115], [0833]-[0842] and [0851]-[0853]). Prakash also discloses of adjusting the relative content of the sweet taste improving composition to impart a maximum sweetness intensity equivalent to that of sucrose (see Prakash paragraphs [0118]; claim 2). Accordingly, Prakash discloses the relative content of the sweet taste improving composition, which comprises sodium, as a result effective variable that improves the sweet taste or flavor, and not the saltiness or odd taste, as contemplated by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792