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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114), the Response and Amendment filed 03/16/2026 is acknowledged.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-17, 20, and 21
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously canceled claims: 18 and 19
Newly canceled claims: None
Amended claims: 1, 6, 8-10, 16, 17, 20, and 21
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-17, 20, and 21
Currently rejected claims: 1-17, 20, and 21
Allowed claims: None
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-17, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jackson (U.S. 2017/0006906 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jackson discloses a sweetener composition ([0002], [0113]) comprising SG348 ([0117], “Rebaudioside M G2”; p. 11, column 1, figure, where Rebaudioside M G2 may comprise “-9H, -glucosyl” at R1 and “-9H, -glucosyl” at R2, with the two glucosyl moieties being at carbon atoms that causes the compound to be equivalent to that claimed in SG348, see label A in the figure below).
MPEP 2131.02 II states: “when the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named.” The disclosure of Jackson is considered to clearly name a compound that is equivalent to SG348 due to there being 10 instances of each of the “R1” and “R2” positions, any two of which (i.e., one R1 and one R2) may individually be the position at which the two “-glucosyl” substituents are added.
[AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: textbox (A)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
726
418
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox ()]
As for claim 2, Jackson discloses the sweetener as further comprising rebaudioside D ([0113], [0103]).
As for claim 3, Jackson discloses the sweetener as further comprising rebaudioside A ([0113], [0103]).
As for claim 4, Jackson discloses the sweetener as comprising rebaudioside D in an amount in the range of 10-500 times greater than any of the supplementary steviol glycosides ([0127]-[0128]), where there may be multiple glycosylated steviol glycosides ([0113]), and where one of the glycosylated steviol glycosides may be “Rebaudioside M G1” that may comprise hydrogen at all ten R1 positions and one -glucosyl substituent at the carbon that causes the compound to be equivalent to that claimed for SG102 ([0117], p. 11, column 1, rebaudioside M figure).
As for claim 5, Jackson discloses the sweetener as comprising rebaudioside D in an amount in the range of 20-200 times greater than any of the supplementary steviol glycosides ([0127]-[0128]), where there may be multiple glycosylated steviol glycosides ([0113]), and where one of the glycosylated steviol glycosides may be “Rebaudioside M G1” that may comprise hydrogen at all ten R1 positions and one -glucosyl substituent at the carbon that causes the compound to be equivalent to that claimed for SG102 ([0117], p. 11, column 1, rebaudioside M figure).
As for claim 6, Jackson discloses a beverage comprising a glucosylated steviol glycoside ([0132]) that may be SG348 as was detailed previously in relation to claim 1.
As for claim 7, Jackson discloses the beverage as having a total steviol glycoside amount in the range of 50-1,000 ppm ([0127]).
As for claim 8, Jackson discloses the compound may be in an amount ranging from about 0 to about 2000 ppm ([0127]), which includes amounts that would be below the sweetness perception threshold.
As for claim 9, Jackson discloses the compound may be in an amount ranging from about 0 to about 2000 ppm ([0127]), which includes amounts that would have a SEV of <1.0.
Regarding claim 10, Jackson discloses a method of modifying a sensory characteristic of a composition, comprising adding a sensory modifying amount of a glycosylated steviol glycoside and an amount of rebaudioside A to provide a first composition, wherein the sensory modifying amount alters a sensory characteristic of the first composition relative to a second composition having the same amount of rebaudioside A without the sensory-modifying amount (specifically, “improved sweetness in comparison to each component separately”) ([0127]), where the glycosylated steviol glycoside may be SG348 as was detailed previously in relation to claim 1.
As for claim 11, Jackson discloses the sensory characteristic is sweetness ([0127]).
As for claim 12, Jackson discloses the sensory characteristic is “improved sweetness” ([0127]), which is considered to include an improvement in sweetness linger ([0010]).
As for claim 13, Jackson discloses the sensory characteristic is “improved sweetness” ([0127]), which is considered to include an improvement in sweetness linger ([0010]), for rebaudioside M ([0127]).
As for claim 14, Jackson discloses the composition as being a beverage ([0132]).
As for claim 15, Jackson discloses rebaudioside D and/or rebaudioside M as being present in the beverage in an amount ranging from 0.05-1.0 g/L (specifically, about 0-2000 ppm, or 0-2.0 g/L) ([0127]).
As for claim 16, Jackson discloses the compound may be in an amount ranging from 0.001-0.1 g/L (specifically, about 0-2000 ppm, or 0-2.0 g/L) ([0127]-[0128]).
As for claim 17, Jackson discloses the compound, and the total glycoside concentration, may be in an amount ranging from 0.001-0.1 g/L (specifically, about 0-2000 ppm, or 0-2.0 g/L) ([0127]-[0128]).
As for claim 20, Jackson discloses the sweetener composition of claim 1, comprising a sensory modifying amount of a glycosylated steviol glycoside that alters at least one sensory characteristic of the composition relative to a composition that lacks the glycosylated steviol glycoside (specifically, “improved sweetness in comparison to each component separately”) ([0127]), where the glycosylated steviol glycoside may be SG348 as was detailed previously in relation to claim 1.
As for claim 21, Jackson discloses a method of altering a sensory characteristic of a composition comprising adding a sensory modifying amount of a glycosylated steviol glycoside to provide a first composition, wherein the sensory modifying amount alters at least one sensory characteristic of the composition relative to a composition that lacks the glycosylated steviol glycoside (specifically, “improved sweetness in comparison to each component separately”) ([0127]), where the glycosylated steviol glycoside may be SG348 as was detailed previously in relation to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) of claims 1-17, 20, and 21 over Jackson as evidenced by Prakash et al.: Applicant’s argument that Jackson does not disclose any of the claimed steviol glycosides (Applicant’s Remarks, p. 6, ¶6) is not persuasive. Jackson et al. discloses SG348 as detailed previously herein.
The rejections of claims 1-17, 20, and 21 have been maintained herein.
Conclusion
Claims 1-17, 20, and 21 are rejected.
No claims are allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG whose telephone number is (571)270-5272. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793