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 .
Claim status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment to claims filed 01/16/2026.
Claims 1-3 and 6-19 are pending in the application. Claims 3, 13 and 15 are currently amended. Claims 4-5 are previously cancelled. Claims 17-19 are newly presented. Claims 6, 12, 14 and 16 are previously presented. Claims 1-2 and 7-11 are withdrawn without traverse in response to the restriction requirement. Claims 3, 6 and 12-19 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Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.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 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 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Echizenya WO 2019/230903 A1 (English translation relied upon for reference, hereinafter referred to as Echizenya).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 17-18, Echizenya teaches a method of suppressing an off-taste (beany odor) of an oral product (e.g., food) comprising an off-taste substance added thereto, the method comprising adding furfural to the food, wherein the off-taste or the beany odor is derived from a pulse or bean protein (0002; 0010; 0015; 0021; 0024; 0051).
Claims 13, 15 and 19 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 13 and 19, Kawasaki teaches adding a flavor composition that comprises one or more perfume such as a ketone (e.g., 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). The citric acid reads on the off-taste substance that comprises a pH adjusting agent or a bacteriostatic agent as recited in claim 13 (instant specification acknowledges that citric acid is a pH adjusting agent or a bacteriostatic agent (page 17, line 24-27)).
The preamble language “for suppressing an off-taste of an oral product” recites the purpose of claim 13, 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) to an oral product comprising the same off-taste suppressing compound (a bacteriostatic agent or a pH adjusting agent such as citric acid) 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 claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, Kawasaki teaches adding a flavor composition that comprises one or more perfume such as a furan (e.g., 2-acetylfuran) to an oral product (e.g., food or beverage) that comprises a sweetener such as stevia and aspartame, wherein the food or the beverage comprises a cola drink, a carbonated drink, etc. (0001; 0013; 0036; 0041-0042). The stevia or aspartame reads on the off-taste substance that comprises a high-intensity sweetener as recited in claim 15 (instant specification acknowledges that stevia or aspartame is a high-intensity sweetener (page 5, line 8-11)).
The preamble language “for suppressing an off-taste of an oral product” recites the purpose of claim 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., 2-acetylfuran) to an oral product comprising the same off-taste suppressing compound (a high-intensity sweetener such as stevia and aspartame) 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 claim 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Echizenya as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 6, Echizenya as recited above teaches the method in connection with claims 3 and 12. Further, Echizenya teaches that the mass ratio of furfural to the bean or pulse protein is 0.00000002 to 0.02: 10,000 (0034; 0051), which is equal to 0.002 ppb-2 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kim US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0038212 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Kim).
Regarding claim 14, Kawasaki as recited above teaches adding a flavor composition that comprises 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 cyclotene by weight of the citric acid. What Kawasaki teaches is that the perfume such as cyclotene can be added to the food or beverage at an amount of 0.0001 to 30% by weight (0023; 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% 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-acetylfuran 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 01/16/2026 with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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