DETAILED ACTION
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) filed 12/11/2025 and the Response and Amendment filed 11/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by cancellation of the claims: the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 2 over Tsuchiya has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1, 4, 7-10
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously cancelled claims: 3, 5-6, 11
Newly cancelled claims: 2
Amended claims: 1
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1, 4, 7-10
Currently rejected claims: 1, 4, 7-10
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites that the organic acid or a salt thereof is used at a concentration of 0.000021-0.21 mass% in the food. However, it is unclear as to how one is able to achieve all amounts within this concentration range when claim 1, from which claim 4 depends, recites that the mass ratio of adenylic acid or a salt thereof to the mass ratio of the organic acid or a salt thereof is 1:1 to 1:5 and that the adenylic acid or a salt thereof is used at a concentration of 0.000026-0.0026 mass% in the food. Therefore, claim 4 is indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the concentrations recited in claim 4 will be considered.
Claim 9 recites that the salt is used at a concentration of 0.60-0.90 mass% in the food. However, it is unclear as to how one is able to achieve all amounts within this concentration range when claim 1, from which claim 9 depends, recites that the mass ratio of salt to the mass ratio of adenylic acid or a salt thereof is 1:0.000031 to 1:0.0031 and that the adenylic acid or a salt thereof is used at a concentration of 0.000026-0.0026 mass% in the food. Therefore, claim 9 is indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the concentrations recited in claim 9 will be considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US 7,666,409 B2), hereinafter referred to as “Tsuchiya II”.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 9, Tsuchiya II teaches a method for enhancing salty taste in a food containing salt (column 3, lines 31-36), comprising: using, in a food containing salt (corresponding to liquid seasoning), adenylic acid or salts thereof acceptable for foods (column 8, lines 28-30); and an organic acid is selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, and a salt thereof (column 8, lines 53-56, 62-64; column 9, lines 14-16). Tsuchiya II teaches that the organic acid enhances salty taste in the food (column 9, lines 34-37). Adenylic acid is known in the art to be a bitter taste inhibitor. It is presumable that a reduction in bitter taste would lead to other tastes in the food product such as salty taste being more prevalent to the consumer; therefore, it would have been obvious for adenylic acid to have enhanced salty taste of the food product as presently claimed. Tsuchiya II discloses adenylic acid and organic acids as options in lists of suitable ingredients for nucleic acid seasoning and component (D) (column 8, lines 27-31, 53-56). The disclosure of these ingredients as suitable options for nucleic acid seasoning and component (D) means that Tsuchiya II provides a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP §2143.I.E.
Tsuchiya II further teaches that: (1) the concentration of adenylic acid or salt thereof in the food is 0-0.2 wt.% (column 8, lines 32-33), which encompasses the claimed concentration recited in present claim 1; (2) that the concentration of organic acid in the food is 0.004-2 wt.% (column 9, lines 25-48), which overlaps the claimed concentration recited in present claim 4; and (3) the concentration of salt in the food is 9 wt.% or less (column 3, lines 33-34), which encompasses the claimed concentration recited in present claim 9. These concentrations provide: (1) mass ratios of adenylic acid or salt thereof to organic acid, (2) mass ratios of salt to adenylic acid or salt thereof, and (3) mass ratios of salt to organic acid which at least overlap the claimed mass ratios of (1), (2), and (3) recited in present claim 1 (e.g., a food containing 0.9 wt.% salt, 0.002 wt.% adenylic acid, and 0.004 wt.% organic acid would have ratios which fall within the claimed ranges).
In regards to the encompassing and overlapping ranges disclosed in Tsuchiya II, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP §2144.05.I.
Regarding claim 7, Tsuchiya II teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the organic acid or a salt thereof is succinic acid or a salt thereof acceptable for foods (column 9, lines 28-30).
Regarding claim 10, Tsuchiya II teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the food is a food in the form of a liquid (corresponding to liquid seasoning) (abstract).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya II (US 7,666,409 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, as evidenced by Tao (Tao et al., “Yeast Extract: Characteristics, Production, Applications and Future Perspectives”, 2023, Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 33(2), pages 151-166; previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Tsuchiya II teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the food may comprise adenylic acid and salts thereof as well as yeast extract (column 8, lines 28-31). Yeast extract contains adenylic acid (corresponding to 5’-adenosine phosphate) as evidenced by Tao (page 156, 2nd paragraph). Since Tsuchiya discloses the inclusion of adenylic acid and yeast extract and yeast extract contains adenylic acid, it would have been obvious for a skilled practitioner to have used yeast extract as a source for adenylic acid.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 9-10 over Tsuchiya; claim 8 over Tsuchiya as evidenced by Tao: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, and 7-10 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. The rejection of claim 2 is moot due to cancelation of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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 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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791