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 after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.114 has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/25/2026 has been entered.
Claim status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment to claims filed 06/25/2026 and 05/26/2026. The Claims filed 06/25/2026 are examined on the merits.
Claims 1-3 and 6-26 are pending in the application. Claims 3, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 are currently amended. Claims 4-5 are previously cancelled. Claims 20-26 are newly presented. Claims 6, 12 and 19 are previously presented. Claims 1-2 and 7-11 are withdrawn without traverse in response to the restriction requirement. Claims 3, 6 and 12-26 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim be found allowable, claims 12 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 706.03(k).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3, 12-13, 15 and 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawasaki JP 2006025706 A (cited in the IDS submitted 08/12/2022, hereinafter referred to as Kawasaki).
Regarding claims 3, 12-13, 15 and 17-26, Kawasaki teaches adding a flavor composition that comprises one or more perfume such as a ketone (e.g., cyclotene) or a furan (e.g., furfural, or 2-acetyl-5-methylfuran) to an oral product (e.g., food or beverage) that comprises an acidulant (e.g., citric acid), a fortifier (e.g., calcium chloride), and/or a sweetener such as stevia and aspartame, wherein the food or the beverage comprises a cola drink, a carbonated drink, soy milk, etc. (0001; 0013; 0023; 0036; 0041-0042). The citric acid reads on the off-taste substance that comprises a bacteriostatic agent as recited in claim 3, 13 and 17-19, the calcium chloride reads on the off-taste substance that comprises an inorganic salt as recited in claims 3, 13, 21-24 and 26, and the stevia or aspartame reads on the off-taste substance that comprises a high-intensity sweetener as recited in claim 15. Further, soy milk contains soy protein thus reading on the vegetable protein as recited in claims 13, 19 and 24-25.
The preamble language “for suppressing an off-taste of an oral product” recites the purpose of claims 3, 13 and 15, and the recited purpose does not result in a manipulative difference between the claim and prior art because Kawasaki teaches adding the same compound as recited in the instant claim (e.g., cyclotene, furfural or 2-acetyl-5-methylfuran) to an oral product comprising the same off-taste compound (e.g., a bacteriostatic agent, an inorganic salt, a high-intensity sweetener, or a vegetable protein) thus the actual step recited in the prior art and the instant claim is the same and will necessarily provide the purpose in the preamble of claims 3, 13 and 15.
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.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Kim US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0038212 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kim).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Kawasaki as recited above teaches adding a flavor composition that comprises furfural or cyclotene to an oral product (e.g., food or beverage) that comprises an acidulant (e.g., citric acid), wherein the food or the beverage comprises a cola drink, a carbonated drink, etc. (0001; 0013; 0023; 0041-0042). Kawasaki is silent regarding the amount of furfural or cyclotene by weight of the citric acid. What Kawasaki teaches is that the perfume such as furfural or cyclotene can be added to the food or beverage at an amount of 0.0001 to 30% by weight (0023; 0036; 0047).
Kim teaches that a carbonated drink should contain 0.05-0.3% citric acid (0076).
Both Kawasaki and Kim are directed to carbonated drinks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawasaki by including 0.05-0.3% citric acid in the carbonated drink of Kawasaki so as to enhance sour flavors, and lower pH to extend shelf life.
It is noted that modification of Kawasaki with Kim will result in a cyclotene concentration by weight of the citric acid that overlaps with the range as recited in claim 14 (calculation: if the carbonated drink comprises 0.0001% furfural or cyclotene and 0.3% citric acid, then the concentration of the former by weight of the latter is ~0.03% or ~300 ppm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Dewis US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0047379 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Dewis).
Regarding claim 16, Kawasaki as recited above teaches adding a flavor composition that comprises 2-acety-5-methylfuran to an oral product (e.g., food or beverage) that comprises a high-intensity sweetener (e.g., stevia or aspartame), wherein the food or the beverage comprises a cola drink, a carbonated drink, etc. (0001; 0013; 0036; 0041-0042). Kawasaki is silent regarding the amount of 2-acetylfuran by weight of the stevia or aspartame. What Kawasaki teaches is that the perfume such as 2-acetylfuran can be added to the food or beverage at an amount of 0.0001 to 30% by weight (0036; 0047).
Dewis teaches that a cola beverage should contain 300 ppm aspartame (Table 4).
Both Kawasaki and Dewis are directed to cola drinks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawasaki by including 300 ppm in the cola drink of Kawasaki with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that such an amount of aspartame is suitable for sweetening a cola drink.
It is noted that modification of Kawasaki with Dewis will result in a 2-acetylfuran concentration by weight of the aspartame that overlaps with the range as recited in claim 16 (calculation: if the cola drink comprises 0.0001% or 2-acetylfuran and 300 ppm or 0.03% aspartame, then the concentration of the former by weight of the latter is ~0.03% or ~3300 ppm). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been considered and the following are the examiner’s response:
The 35 USC 102 rejection of clam 3 over Echizenya is withdrawn in view of the amendment made to claim 3.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 13 over Kawasaki, applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that since the limitation about the pH adjusting agent has been cancelled, Kawasaki fails to anticipate claim 13.
The argument is considered. However, it is found that citric acid as recited by Kawasaki reads on the bacteriostatic agent as recited in claim 13.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 15 over Kawasaki, applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that since the limitation about 2-acetylfuran has been cancelled, Kawasaki fails to anticipate claim 15.
The argument is considered. However, it is found that Kawasaki teaches 2-acetyl-5-methylfuran, which is listed in claim 15. Therefore, Kawasaki still reads on claim 15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, NIKKI H DEES can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights