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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/26/26 has been entered. Claims 1 and 6-18 are pending in this U.S. Patent Application, with claims 1, 6-8, and 17-18 being examined, claims 2-5 previously canceled, and claims 9-16 previously withdrawn. Applicant amended claims 1 and 17 for the defoaming agent to be citric acid or trisodium citrate and deleted the other types of defoaming agents. Support for the citric acid can be found through the specification, for example in page 26, Table 6, and for trisodium citrate in page 28, Table 8, samples 36-37. Further, Applicant’s amendment to claim 7 overcomes the objection of record as stated in the last Office action mailed on 2/25/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. [US 20110189360 A1], hereinafter Yoo, in view of Admix® [Rotosolver® Cutsheet, 2016], hereinafter Admix, and Bell et al. [US 20140342043 A1], hereinafter Bell, evidenced by NIH [Trisodium citrate, 2005].
Regarding claim 1, Yoo teaches methods for producing saturated aqueous solutions of rebaudioside D and products comprising the rebaudioside D composition [Title, 0001], wherein the concentration of rebaudioside D in the supersaturated solution may be from about 500ppm or more [0018]. The rebaudioside D concentration when dissolved in water may be from at least 50% to 99% or more [0018-0019], (equivalent to steviol glycoside component is more than 50% by weight of rebaudioside D based on a total weight of the steviol glycoside component since Yoo teach rebaudioside D may be the only steviol glycoside present, i.e., 100% rebaudioside D). The method teach dispersing the steviol glycoside component comprising rebaudioside D in liquid such as water [0016-0019, 0030] at temperatures from 60°C to 100°C [0019] under high shear [0008, 0010, 0012, claim 6]. In some embodiments of Yoo’s invention, the steviol glycoside is stirred/dispersed in water in the presence of citric acid [0008, 0010, 0012], or sodium citrate [0045, 0055] (also known as trisodium citrate, see NIH, p.1, synonyms, and as disclosed on par.0026 of the instant specification “defoaming agent is sodium citrate”, therefore equivalent to stirring for dispersing the steviol glycoside component and water in the presence of a defoaming agent).
Regarding the claimed rotor tip speed:
Yoo teach using an Admix® high shear mixer with a Rotosolver® disperser for the stirring, mixing and/or dispersion of the steviol glycoside component (rebaudioside D) in water [0062, 0067], but is silent regarding performing the stirring at a tip speed of 15 m/s or more.
Admix (mixer manufacturer) disclose that the Rotosolver® high shear mixer provides a variety of Rotosolver® models having different mixing speeds ranging from 900-3600 RPM and different mixing head diameters ranging from 2.4-11.8 inches (about 61-300 mm) [Admix, Table, p.2]. Admix teach various Rotosolver® models capable of providing stirring with a tip speed of 15 m/s or more, for example model 112RS88 with a mixing head diameter of 3.5 inches or 88.9 mm, at a speed of 3600 RPM would provide for a tip speed of about 17 m/s based on the tip speed formula provided by applicant on page 2 of the Affidavit filed 7/22/25.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed stirring tip speed into the invention of Yoo in view of Admix, since Yoo already disclosed mixing using a Rotosolver®, but simply did not mention a tip speed, and since the claimed stirring tip speed would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as the ratios of the various ingredients (i.e., sweetener, water, antifoam agents, etc.), the temperature of the water in which the sweetener is being dissolved, and/or the total time of stirring in the method of Yoo in view of Admix, and since Yoo does not teach an upper or lower limit for stirring speeds. Doing so would provide methods for producing sweetener aqueous compositions comprising rebaudioside D, where a skilled artisan can select a suitable Rotosolver® model with a suitable mixing head diameter and mixing speeds according to the ingredients and ratios or amounts of ingredients being used, which may require higher/lower tip speeds accordingly for best performance where different mixer selection may also be necessary for optimum mixer configuration based on the particular application [Admix, p.2, par.1].
Regarding the claimed ratio of a weight of the defoaming agent (Wdef) to a weight of rebaudioside D (Wreb) (Wdef/Wreb) being 0.1 to 1:
Yoo teach that the acid (defoaming agent as explained above) may be used in the solution or aqueous composition in amount of 0.01% to 1.0% (acid or defoaming agent in amount of 100 ppm to 10000 ppm) by weight of the beverage (solution or aqueous composition) [0034], and that the concentration of rebaudioside D in the aqueous composition may be from about 500 ppm to about 3000 ppm [0018] or from about 1000 ppm to about 5000 ppm [0027]. Therefore, based on the concentration amounts of acid (defoaming agent) and rebaudioside D present in Yoo’s sweetener composition, there is a reasonable basis to conclude that the sweetener composition of Yoo would have a ratio of a weight of the defoaming agent (Wdef) to a weight of rebaudioside D (Wreb) (Wdef/Wreb) within 0.1 to 1. For example, a composition of Yoo’s invention comprising 0.0279% by weight of solution of acid (defoaming agent), which is 279 ppm of defoaming agent (between the ppm range of 100-10000 ppm disclosed by Yoo) and 500 ppm of rebaudioside D would have a ratio of defoaming agent to rebaudioside D of 0.558 which falls within the claimed ratio of 0.1 to 1 (as disclosed on page 24, Table 4, Sample 18 of the instant specification).
Moreover, Bell teach rebaudioside sweetener compositions [Title] for use in beverage products [Abstract], wherein rebaudioside D may be used in amounts of 70% in combination with other rebaudiosides such as 30% of rebaudioside A (i.e., Reb D to Reb A ratio of 7:3) to obtain a composition with an advantageous sweetening and taste profile [0020, 0033]. Bell teach the sweetening composition may be liquid concentrate [0047] and may comprise citric and/or malic acids (defoaming agent(s)) [0065]. Bell further explicitly teach a ratio of acid defoaming agent to rebaudioside on Example 2, wherein a rebaudioside D containing aqueous composition “Variant 2” comprise 1.63 g of citric acid and 4.8 g of rebaudioside D [0088, Table 4], providing for a weight of the defoaming agent (Wdef) to a weight of rebaudioside D (Wreb) (Wdef/Wreb) of 0.34, which falls within the claimed ratio (Wdef/Wreb) of 0.01 to 1.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed defoaming agent to rebaudioside D ratio in the invention of Yoo in view of Bell, since the claimed amount of rebaudioside D is already taught by Yoo, but simply did not specifically recited the term ratio, and because the amount of defoaming agent (acid) would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of Yoo in view of Bell, due to factors such as the type and quantities of the various ingredients, the desired taste of the final product, and/or the desired degree of sweetness or acidity, and since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the amount and/or types of acids (defoaming agent) to use according to the particular application or beverage being prepared to obtain the desired results [Yoo, 0035]. Furthermore, it would also provide methods for making aqueous rebaudioside compositions characterized by having advantageous sweetening and taste profile, because Bell teaches that acidic aqueous beverages may be prepared with the method [Bell, 0020], wherein at least one acid is used to lend tartness to the taste of the beverage [Bell, 0065], and wherein a desired ratio of different rebaudiosides (i.e., rebaudioside M, D, and A) may be employed as well as acids [Bell, 0068], in order to achieve cost-effective sweetening compositions with a desirable taste profile which may be further used for making beverages and other foods, as well as obtaining substantial sweetening from the different rebaudioside components of the combination without incurring the unwanted lingering or bitter aftertaste typically associated with the use of some rebaudioside sweeteners [Bell, 0033].
Regarding claim 6, Yoo teach in some embodiments a concentration of rebaudioside D in the rebaudioside D-containing aqueous composition is from about 1000 ppm to about 5000 ppm by weight [0027].
Regarding claim 8, Yoo teach the rebaudioside D aqueous composition of the invention may be a concentrated liquid for a drink [0001, 0024, 0026, 0030, 0054].
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Admix, and Bell, evidenced by NIH as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Browne et al. [US 20190208803 A1], hereinafter Browne.
Regarding claim 7, modified Yoo teach the methods and concepts discussed above in claim 1 rejection, and further teach that the rebaudioside D containing aqueous composition [0011] (i.e., beverages and/or concentrates) [0024-0027] may be subjected to further processes including cooling, refrigeration and/or freezing [0028] and are suitable for long term storage [0055].
Yoo does not explicitly recites “when the rebaudioside D-containing aqueous composition is stored in an environment of atmospheric pressure and a temperature of 10°C after production, a ratio of a concentration of rebaudioside D in the rebaudioside D-containing aqueous composition on day 38 after the production (C1) to a concentration of rebaudioside D in the rebaudioside D-containing aqueous composition on day 0 of the production (Co) (C1/Co) is 0.75 or more.”
Browne teach sweetener compositions and methods of making the same [Abstract] comprising the steviol glycoside rebaudioside D [0008, 0041-0045] and the rebaudioside D may be present in amounts of from 0.5 wt% to 1.5 wt% (5000 to 15000 ppm) in the aqueous steviol glycoside composition [0046]. In some embodiments, the aqueous sweetener composition comprising rebaudioside D may be stored at a temperature range of from about 10°C to about 65°C [0253], (equivalent to the rebaudioside D-containing aqueous composition is stored in an environment of atmospheric pressure and a temperature of 10°C after production), for a time range of from about a few hours to at least about 5 weeks or 6 weeks (35 days or 42 days or more) [0254], (equivalent to rebaudioside D-containing aqueous composition on day 38 after the production), and the rebaudioside D may be present in amounts of from 0.5 wt% to 1.5 wt% (5000 to 15000 ppm) or from 1.4 wt% to 1.5 wt% (14000 to 15000 ppm) in the aqueous steviol glycoside composition [0262].
Regarding the ratio of a concentration of rebaudioside D in the rebaudioside D-containing aqueous composition on day 38 after the production (C1) to a concentration of rebaudioside D in the rebaudioside D-containing aqueous composition on day 0 of the production (Co) (C1/Co) being 0.75 or more, Yoo in view of Browne are silent in regard to the claimed concentration ratios. However, given that the process of preparing the aqueous rebaudioside D composition based on the disclosure in Yoo, as well as in Yoo combined with the teachings in Browne is substantially similar to that in instant claims, it is the examiner's position that the aqueous rebaudioside D composition made by the process of Yoo and Yoo in view of Browne would inherently have the instantly claimed ratio of a concentration of rebaudioside D in the rebaudioside D-containing aqueous composition on day 38 after the production (C1) to a concentration of rebaudioside D in the rebaudioside D-containing aqueous composition on day 0 of the production (Co) (C1/Co) of 0.75 or more. Since PTO cannot conduct experiments the proof of burden is shifted to the applicants to establish an unobviousness difference, see In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
“Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP §2112.01.
"[I]t is elementary that the mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, inherently possessed by things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art". In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP 2114. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed storage time period (days) at an environment of atmospheric pressure and a temperature of 10°C after production into the invention of Yoo in view of Browne and achieve the claimed concentration ratio of rebaudioside D on day 38 after production (C1) to a concentration of rebaudioside D on day 0 (Co) (C1/Co) of 0.75 or more, since the claimed amount of rebaudioside D, preparation methods and dissolution temperatures of the rebaudioside D in water as claimed are disclosed by Yoo as explained in claim 1 rejection, since Yoo also teach the rebaudioside D composition may be subjected to further processes including cooling, refrigeration and/or freezing [Yoo, 0028] and are suitable for long term storage [Yoo, 0055], thus the claimed concentration ratio would have been achieved during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of Yoo, due to factors such as the pH of the composition, type and quantities of the various ingredients, the desired taste of the final product, and/or the desired degree of sweetness, and since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the storage of compositions under reduced (refrigerated/freezing) temperatures would aid in preservation of the rebaudioside D aqueous composition [Yoo, 0035, 0055], and further because Browne teach that the flavor of steviol glycosides can be modified by storage temperature and storage time periods/conditions to obtain a sweetener composition with the desired taste properties (i.e., reduced bitterness and/or astringency, and/or improved sweet quality (i.e., sugar like taste and roundness)) [Browne, 0235].
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. [US 20110189360 A1], hereinafter Yoo in view of Bell et al. [US 20140342043 A1], hereinafter Bell, evidenced by NIH [Trisodium citrate, 2005].
Regarding claim 17, Yoo teach the concentration of rebaudioside D in the supersaturated solution of the invention in some embodiments may be about 500 ppm or more (500-3000 ppm, or 1000-5000 ppm) [0008, 0018, 0027], and the steviol glycoside is stirred/dispersed in water in the presence of (defoaming agents) citric acid [0008, 0010, 0012] or sodium citrate [0045, 0055] (also known as trisodium citrate, see NIH, p.1, synonyms, and as disclosed on par.0026 of the instant specification “defoaming agent is sodium citrate”, therefore equivalent to stirring for dispersing the steviol glycoside component and water in the presence of a defoaming agent). Yoo further teach that the acid (defoaming agent as explained in claim 1 rejection above) may be used in the solution or aqueous composition in amounts of 0.01% to 1.0% (acid or defoaming agent in amount of 100 ppm to 10000 ppm) by weight of the beverage (solution or aqueous composition) [0034].
While Yoo does not explicitly recites “wherein a ratio of a weight of the defoaming agent (Wdef) to a weight of rebaudioside D (Wreb) (Wdef/Wreb) is 1 to 10” as instantly claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the aqueous composition of Yoo comprising rebaudioside D and acids (defoaming agents) in the various concentrations disclosed in the different embodiments of Yoo’s invention would produce a composition wherein a ratio of a weight of the defoaming agent (acid) to a weight of rebaudioside D is within 1 to 10. For example, a composition of Yoo’s invention comprising 0.05% by weight of solution of acid (defoaming agent), which is 500 ppm of defoaming agent (acid between the ppm range of 100-10000 ppm disclosed by Yoo) and 500 ppm of rebaudioside D would have a ratio of defoaming agent to rebaudioside D of 1, and/or a composition of Yoo’s invention comprising 0.06% by weight of solution of acid (defoaming agent), which is 600 ppm of defoaming agent (between the ppm range of 100-10000 ppm disclosed by Yoo) and 500 ppm of rebaudioside D would have a ratio of defoaming agent to rebaudioside D of 1.2, which is a (Wdef/Wreb) ratio that falls within 1 to 10 as instantly claimed.
Moreover, Bell teach rebaudioside sweetener compositions [Title] for use in beverage products [Abstract], wherein rebaudioside M may be used in combination with at least one other edible ingredient or food ingredient [Abstract], such as other rebaudiosides like rebaudioside A and rebaudioside D (i.e., Reb D to Reb A ratio of 7:3) [0020, 0033], and with edible acids including citric and/or malic acids (defoaming agent(s)) [0065], to produce liquid or aqueous sweetener compositions such as beverages and/or liquid sweetener concentrates [0047]. Bell further explicitly teach a ratio of acid defoaming agent to rebaudioside on Example 7, wherein a rebaudioside (rebaudioside M) containing aqueous composition comprise 3.98 g of citric acid and 0.5 g of rebaudioside (rebaudioside M) [0098, Table 9], providing for a weight of the acid defoaming agent (Wdef) to a weight of rebaudioside (Wreb) (Wdef/Wreb) of 7.96, which falls within the claimed (Wdef/Wreb) of 1 to 10.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed defoaming agent to rebaudioside D ratio in the invention of Yoo in view of Bell since the claimed amount of rebaudioside D is already taught by Yoo and the amount of defoaming agent (acid) would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of Yoo in view of Bell, due to factors such as the type and quantities of the various ingredients, the desired taste of the final product, and/or the desired degree of sweetness or acidity, and since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the amount and/or types of acids (defoaming agent) to use according to the particular application or beverage being prepared to obtain the desired results [Yoo, 0035]; since the substitution of one known form (i.e., rebaudioside M) for another (i.e., rebaudioside D) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly since both Yoo and Bell teach using rebaudioside D. Further, based on Bell’s teaching one would modify Yoo to provide methods for making aqueous rebaudioside compositions characterized by having advantageous sweetening and taste profile, because Bell teaches that acidic aqueous beverages may be prepared with the method [Bell, 0020], wherein at least one acid is used to lend tartness to the taste of the beverage [Bell, 0065], and wherein a desired ratio of different rebaudiosides (i.e., rebaudioside M, D, and A) may be employed as well as acids [Bell, 0068], in order to achieve cost-effective sweetening compositions with a desirable taste profile which may be further used for making beverages and other foods, as well as obtaining substantial sweetening from the different rebaudioside components of the combination without incurring the unwanted lingering or bitter aftertaste typically associated with the use of some rebaudioside sweeteners [Bell, 0033].
Regarding claim 18, modified Yoo teach the rebaudioside D concentration when dissolved in water may be from at least 50% to 99% or more [0018-0019], (equivalent to steviol glycoside component is more than 50% by weight of rebaudioside D based on a total weight of the steviol glycoside component since Yoo teach rebaudioside D may be the only steviol glycoside present, i.e., 100% rebaudioside D).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 17 would be allowable if amended to read “the concentration of rebaudioside of 500 ppm” (to be commensurate with the data showing unexpected results in tables 6-7) and delete “trisodium citrate” (since there is now sufficient data showing unexpected results for trisodium citrate if no further data similar to citric acid can be provided).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Upon further examination, and reconsideration of the prior art of record, and the data provided by Applicant, particularly Tables 4-9, pages 24-29 of the instant specification, the Examiner notes the following:
Concentration of Rebaudioside D
Claims 1 and 17 recites “rebaudioside D at a concentration of 500 ppm by weight or more”.
While Applicant provides showing that there is a particular ratio range in which the unexpected result of the defoaming action of the defoaming agent is optimal (see Tables 6-7, samples 25-28, where time of defoaming is significantly reduced), the data shown is only for samples that have a rebaudioside D concentration of 500 ppm by weight and not more than 500 ppm by weight. The Examiner recognizes Table 4 data for samples 19-20 with rebaudioside D concentrations of 1,500ppm and 3,000ppm (rebaudioside D concentration of more than 500ppm) and a ratio of Wdef/Wreb= 0.93 and 0.465 respectively, which are ratios and concentrations as claimed in claim 1, however, these samples are treated under different variable/conditions (dissolved at two different temperatures, 50°C for sample 19, and 70°C for sample 20). Additionally, samples 19-20 under hand shaking test Table 5 show an out of range for the height column and there is no description of what this out of range means in relation to their corresponding defoaming time and the Wdef/Wreb ratio. The Examiner suggests amending the claimed concentration to be commensurate in scope with the data points that specifically shows unexpected results, or provide additional data of samples having the same concentration (i.e., 1,500ppm and 3,000 ppm) treated under same test conditions (i.e., temperature) with multiple points where the Wdef/Wreb ratio is gradually increased and how the time of defoaming is affected as shown on Tables 6-7. MPEP 716.02(d) II. states, “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).”.
Trisodium citrate
Claims 1 and 17 were amended to include the specific citrate trisodium citrate.
The Examiner notes that while there is support in the instant specification for the inclusion of trisodium citrate, there is no sufficient data providing unexpected results for trisodium citrate (i.e., similar data as Table 6 of citric acid specifically for trisodium citrate). Table 8 only shows two points of data (samples 36-37) for trisodium citrate, with sample 36 having a defoaming agent to reb. D ratio of 2.9 and a time of defoaming of 72 seconds (Table 8, and Fig.5), and sample 37 having a defoaming agent to reb. D ratio of 3.2 and a time of defoaming of 35 seconds (Table 8, and Fig.5), which is not unexpected as sample 36 has less amount of defoaming agent than sample 37, hence taking more time to reduce foaming in sample 36 compared to sample 37. Additionally, while does not explicitly mention the use of trisodium citrate (also known as sodium citrate, see NIH, p.1, synonyms) nonetheless Yoo teaches that the Reb. D composition of the invention may comprise sodium citrate in amounts of from about 0.005% by weight to about 0.02% by weight or from about 0.005% by weight to about 0.01% by weight [Yoo, 0045]. Therefore, because the Reb. D composition of Yoo may comprise Reb. D in an amount of 500 ppm, and sodium citrate in amounts from about 0.005% by weight (50 ppm sodium citrate) to about 0.02% by weight (200 ppm sodium citrate), there is reasonable basis to conclude that some compositions in Yoo would have a Def/Reb. D ratio in the range of 50ppm Def/500ppm Reb. D=0.1 to 200ppm Def/500ppm Reb. D=0.4, which are values that are within the claimed ratio of Def/Reb.D of 0.1 to 1 in claim 1. There is no evidence provided of trisodium citrate having the same defoaming action or effect as that of citric acid at the same Wdef/Wreb ratio, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize these two different substances (citric acid having a low pH or high level of acidity, and trisodium citrate having a higher pH and higher alkalinity or basic activity). The Examiner suggests amending the claim to delete “trisodium citrate”, or if available, to provide similar data for trisodium citrate as shown for citric acid showing unexpected results in Tables 6-7. MPEP 716.02(d) II. states, “To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960).”.
Ratio lower limit of 0.1-1 in claim 1
Regarding the ratio lower limit of 0.1 in claim 1, the Examiner notes that there are no data points between sample 24 having the ratio of Wdef/Wreb=0.1 and sample 25 having the ratio of Wdef/Wreb=1, (i.e., 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5….) in Table 6. However, the examiner notes Table 4, sample 18 provides data for a sample having rebaudioside D at a concentration of 500 ppm, dissolution temperature of 50°C and a Wdef/Wreb=0.558, and a defoaming time in Table 5 of 34 seconds, which shows that the time of defoaming between a ratio of 0.1 to 1 does not increase as shown in samples 22-24 (where sample 22 at a ratio of 0.01 has a defoaming time of 71 seconds, then sample 23 the ratio is increased to 0.05 and the defoaming time decrease to 57 seconds, and sample 24 the ratio is increased to 0.1 however the defoaming time increase again to 63 seconds). However, because the claim recites trisodium citrate, claim 1 is being rejected for the same reasons stated above under “Trisodium citrate” discussion. The Examiner suggests amending the claim to delete “trisodium citrate”, or if available, to provide similar data for trisodium citrate as shown for citric acid showing unexpected results in Tables 6-7.
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 LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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.
/LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights