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 Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 04/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by virtue of the amendment or cancellation of the claims and/or persuasive remarks: (1) the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection of claim 4 has been withdrawn; and (2) the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claim 4 over Tsuchiya II has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1, 7-10
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously cancelled claims: 2-3, 5-6, 11
Newly cancelled claims: 4
Amended claims: None
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1, 7-10
Currently rejected claims: 1, 7-10
Allowed claims: None
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is 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 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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US 7,666,409 B2; previously cited), hereinafter referred to as “Tsuchiya II”.
Regarding claims 1 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); 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; previously cited) 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 Amendment
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 04/29/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 4, and 7-10 based upon Tsuchiya II or Tsuchiya II as evidenced by Tao as set forth in the last Office action due to the following reasons.
The Declaration stated that its purpose is to verify that the salty taste enhancing effect does not occur under the conditions disclosed in Tsuchiya II. The Declaration stated that the salty taste enhancing effect was tested according to the method of Example 1 of the present application; and that the comments regarding sensory evaluation clarified the difference in the effects caused by the concentration range described in the present application and that of Tsuchiya II. The Declaration stated that in Sample 11, the salty taste enhancing effect was verified by the sensory evaluation shown in the Table on page 3 of the Declaration. The Declaration stated that in Sample 6, the salty taste was recognized as being slightly stronger than the base composition but that the salty taste did not reach the point of being significantly enhanced (Declaration, page 2, 1st paragraph – page 4, 1st paragraph).
The Examiner points out that it is unclear as to which of Samples 3-12 is/are meant to correspond the claimed composition and which is/are meant to correspond the composition(s) of Tsuchiya II, especially wherein Tsuchiya II discloses amounts of salt, adenylic acid or a salt thereof, and organic acid or a salt thereof which fall within the claimed concentrations/ratios due to Tsuchiya disclosing overlapping or encompassing ranges. Since the Declaration specifically mentions Samples 6 and 11, the Examiner will presume that Sample 6 corresponds to the composition of Tsuchiya II and that Sample 11 corresponds to the presently claimed composition. With this interpretation in mind, the Examiner points out that the present claims do not require any degree of salty taste enhancement using the claimed combination of salt, adenylic acid or a salt thereof, and organic acid or a salt thereof when compared to a base composition containing the same amount of salt but no adenylic acid or a salt thereof or organic acid or a salt thereof, let alone require a “significantly enhanced” salty taste. Therefore, any degree of salty taste enhancement above the salty taste of the base composition is considered to fulfill the claimed requirement of “enhancing salty taste in a food containing salt”.
In regard to the assertion in the Declaration that the composition(s) of Tsuchiya II do not display a salty taste enhancing effect, the Examiner points out Tsuchiya II 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); 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).
It is noted that since Sample 6 displays a salty taste enhancement, but does not contain salt, adenylic acid or a salt thereof, and organic acid or a salt thereof in the weight ratios or concentration recited in present claim 1, the criticality of the claimed concentration and weight ratios are not supported.
For at least these reasons, the Declaration is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1, 4, and 7-10 as set forth in the last Office action
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 4 and 9: Applicant canceled claim 4, thereby, rendering the rejection of claim 4 moot. Applicant argued that, even with a salt content of 0.6-0.9 mass% as recited in present claim 9, a combination of adenylate concentration and organic acid concentration can still satisfy all the features of present claim 1. Applicant pointed to two examples as demonstrating this position (Applicant’s Remarks, page 4, 2nd paragraph – page 5, 1st paragraph).
However, the Examiner points out that all values within the concentration range of salt recited in present claim 9 need to be achievable with the ratio range of salt to adenylic acid or a salt thereof and the adenylic acid or a salt thereof concentration range recited in present claim 1. The entirety of the salt concentration range of 0.6-0.9 mass% recited in present claim 9 is not achievable with the salt to adenylic acid or salt thereof ratio and the adenylic acid or a salt thereof concentration range recited in present claim 1. For example, a salt concentration of 0.6 mass% and an adenylic acid or salt thereof concentration of 0.0026 mass% provides a ratio of salt to adenylic acid or a salt thereof 1:0.0043, which is outside of the ratio range recited in present claim 1. In another example, a salt concentration of 0.9 mass% and an adenylic acid or salt thereof concentration of 0.000026 mass% provides a ratio of salt to adenylic acid or a salt thereof 1:0.000029, which is outside of the ratio range recited in present claim 1. In another example, a salt concentration of 0.9 mass% and an adenylic acid or salt thereof concentration of 0.0026 mass% provides a ratio of salt to adenylic acid or a salt thereof 1:0.0029, which is outside of the ratio range recited in present claim 1.
Since the entirety of the salt concentration in present claim 9 does not provide salt to adenylic acid or a salt thereof ratios which fall within the ratio range recited in present claim 9, it is unclear as to one is able to achieve all the amounts recited in present claim 9. Therefore, the rejection of claim 9 is maintained as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1, 4, 7, and 9-10 over Tsuchiya II; claim 8 over Tsuchiya as evidenced by Tao: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are considered unpersuasive.
Applicant canceled claim 4. Applicant argued that adenylic acid is not known as a bitter taste inhibitor as stated by the Examiner in paragraph 11 of the Office Action filed 12/29/2025 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 5, 2nd paragraph – page 6, 1st paragraph).
However, adenylic acid, also known as adenosine monophosphate (AMP) is “the first chemical known to inhibit the taste of bitterness by altering human perception”; and has been backed by the FDA as a bitter blocker for use in foods and beverages as evidenced by the 1st paragraph on page 1 and the 5th paragraph on page 2 of Navigator (“Bitter blocker backed by FDA”, 2004, Food Navigator, https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2004/09/20/Bitter-blocker-backed-by-FDA/). Therefore, the Examiner has demonstrated that adenylic acid is known in the art as bitter taste inhibitor. As such, Applicant’s arguments regarding adenylic acid not being known as a bitter taste inhibitor are not supported.
Applicant then argued that “reducing bitter taste” does not necessarily affect “salty taste” and does not necessarily lead to “enhancement of salty taste” as stated by the Examiner in paragraph 11 of the Office Action filed 12/29/2025. Applicant argued that reducing bitter taste can also lead to “reduction of salty taste” (Applicant’s Remarks, page 6, 2nd paragraph).
However, as evidenced by Navigator, adenylic acid blocks a taste receptor that is involved with registering bitter tastes in the mouth (page 2, 5th paragraph). With the blockage of bitterness taste receptors, tastes received by taste receptors other than the blocked bitterness taste receptors, such as salty taste at salty taste receptors, may be felt more strongly. Therefore, it would be obvious for the perception of salty taste to be enhanced in a consumer with blocked bitterness taste receptors. Applicant did not describe how blockage of bitterness taste receptors could lead to a “reduction of salty taste”; therefore, it is unclear as to how this asserted situation would happen. For at least these reasons, Applicant’s arguments regarding “reducing bitter taste” does not necessarily affect “salty taste” are not supported.
Applicant then stated that Tsuchiya II discloses that the addition of nucleic acid seasonings to reduced-salt foods containing potassium unexpectedly contributes to an improved salty taste in the food. Applicant stated that Tsuchiya II also discloses that adding nucleic acid seasonings to general salt-containing foods leads to the reduction of salty taste. Applicant argued that due to these disclosures at column 6, lines 49-55 and column 8, lines 23-27 in Tsuchiya II and due to Tsuchiya II only using inosine acid or 5’-ribonucleotides in its examples, a skilled practitioner reading Tsuchiya II would not conclude that adding adenylic acid to general salt-containing foods contributes to enhancing their salty taste. Applicant added that Tsuchiya II neither discloses nor suggests combining a specific nucleotide seasoning, adenylic acid, and an organic acid selected from the claimed organic acids in a specific ratio; or Tsuchiya II neither discloses nor suggests that such a combination contributes to any special effect (Applicant’s Remarks, page 6, 3rd paragraph – page 7, 1st paragraph; page 13, 4th-6th paragraphs).
However, the Examiner points out that Tsuchiya II discloses that its invention is a liquid seasoning having a sufficient salty taste despite the liquid seasoning having a low concentration of common salt and potassium (abstract). Tsuchiya II discloses that the “low concentration” of common salt in its liquid seasoning is 9 wt.% or less; and that the combination of 9 wt.% or less of common salt, 0.5-4.2 wt.% potassium, and at least 1.6 wt.% nitrogen provides a stronger salty taste despite the low concentration of common salt in the liquid seasoning (column 2, lines 40-64; column 6, lines 51-55; column 8, lines 23-24). Tsuchiya II discloses that the nitrogen content of at least 1.6 wt.% in the liquid seasoning may be achieved by the addition of a nucleic acid seasoning to the liquid seasoning wherein the nucleic acid seasoning may be adenylic acid (column 8, lines 23-30). From these disclosures, it would be obvious for adenylic acid in the liquid seasoning having a low concentration of common salt of Tsuchiya II to contribute to enhancing the salty taste of the liquid seasoning of Tsuchiya II since Tsuchiya II specifically discloses that the nitrogen content of at least 1.6 wt.% improves salty taste and that the nitrogen content of at least 1.6 wt.% may be achieved by the inclusion of nucleic acid seasoning such as adenylic acid in the liquid seasoning. As such, Applicant’s arguments regarding a skilled practitioner reading Tsuchiya II not concluding that adding adenylic acid to general salt-containing foods contributes to enhancing their salty taste are unpersuasive, especially wherein Applicant has not provided a salt concentration for determining what foods are “general salt-containing foods” and present claim 1 does not limit the food containing salt to a “general salt-containing food”.
In response to Applicant’s assertion that Tsuchiya II only uses inosine acid or 5’-ribonucleotides in its examples so that it is unclear as to whether adding nucleic acid seasonings other than inosine acid or 5’-ribonucleotides would enhance the salty taste of reduced-salt foods containing potassium, “[d]isclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” MPEP 2123.II. Even though Tsuchiya II may not use adenylic acid in its examples, this does not mean that adenylic acid is not suitable for enhancing salty taste of the liquid seasoning of Tsuchiya II since Tsuchiya II broadly discloses that adenylic acid is suitable for such a purpose (column 8, lines 27-30). Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding it being unclear as to whether adding nucleic acid seasonings other than inosine acid or 5’-ribonucleotides would enhance the salty taste are unpersuasive.
In response to Applicant’s assertion that Tsuchiya II neither discloses nor suggests combining a specific nucleotide seasoning, adenylic acid, and an organic acid selected from the claimed organic acids in a specific ratio; or Tsuchiya II neither discloses nor suggests that such a combination contributes to any special effect, as described above in the rejection of present claim 1, Tsuchiya II teaches that its liquid seasoning contains 9 wt.% or less of common salt (column 1, lines 49-51; column 2, lines 46-48); and may further contain 0-0.2 wt.% adenylic acid or salts thereof acceptable for foods (column 8, lines 28-30); and 0.004-2 wt.% of an organic acid selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, and a salt thereof (column 8, lines 32-33, 53-56, 62-64; column 9, lines 14-16, 25-48). 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). 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).
The disclosure of adenylic acid and organic acid(s) 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. Furthermore, Tsuchiya II discloses that this combination of ingredients provides a stronger salty taste despite the low concentration of common salt in the liquid seasoning (abstract; column 2, lines 40-64; column 6, lines 51-55; column 8, lines 23-24). For at least these reasons, Tsuchiya II at least suggests that combining a nucleic acid seasoning comprising adenylic acid with salt and at least one of the claimed organic acids in specific ratios has the special effect of enhancing the salty taste of the liquid seasoning. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments regarding Tsuchiya II neither disclosing nor suggesting combining a specific nucleotide seasoning, adenylic acid, and an organic acid selected from the claimed organic acids in a specific ratio; or Tsuchiya II neither disclosing nor suggesting that such a combination contributes to any special effect are unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that the inventors of the present application newly found that the combination of adenylic acid and organic acid in weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:5 lead to a synergistic enhancement of salty taste in food containing salt, even in foods without potassium like the liquid seasoning of Tsuchiya II. Applicant pointed to Tables 1 and 2 of the present specification for support in this stance. Applicant argued that the inclusion of sodium adenylate alone or sodium succinate alone does not increase salty taste when compared to a base composition not containing sodium adenylate or sodium succinate, but that the combination of sodium adenylate and sodium succinate to the composition synergistically increased the salty taste of the composition when compared to the base composition. Applicant argued that Table 2 demonstrated that the combination of adenylic acid with citric acid, acetic acid, tartaric acid, and malic acid also synergistically increases the salty taste of a composition when compared to a base composition (Applicant’s Remarks, page 7, 2nd paragraph – page 11, Table 3).
However, the Examiner points out that the present claims do not exclude any ingredient from the composition, including potassium. Therefore, whether or not the claimed composition works with or without potassium is moot. The Examiner also points out that the samples in Tables 1-3 test the sodium salt of adenylic acid and sodium salts of organic acids; the samples do not test adenylic acid or organic acids themselves. Therefore, Applicant does not demonstrate that any combination of adenylic acid and organic acid. As such, the scope of the claims is broader than the data.
In response to Applicant’s assertion that a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:5 is critical to synergistic enhancement of salty taste in food containing salt, “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).” MPEP §716.02(d)II. The samples in Tables 1-2 only provide a weight ratio of adenylic acid salt to organic acid salt of 1:4.9, which is a single value within the claimed range, which is not a sufficient number of tests within the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. The samples do not test any weight ratio outside of the claimed range and thus also do not provide a sufficient number of tests outside of the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. Therefore, Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the claimed weight ratio; and the scope of the claims is broader than the data.
In regard to the synergistic enhancement of the claimed combination of adenylic acid or a salt thereof and organic acid or a salt thereof, as described above in the rejection of present claim 1, Tsuchiya II teaches that its liquid seasoning contains 9 wt.% or less of common salt (column 1, lines 49-51; column 2, lines 46-48); and may further contain 0-0.2 wt.% adenylic acid or salts thereof acceptable for foods (column 8, lines 28-30); and 0.004-2 wt.% of an organic acid selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, and a salt thereof (column 8, lines 32-33, 53-56, 62-64; column 9, lines 14-16, 25-48). These concentrations provide: mass ratios of adenylic acid or salt thereof to organic acid which at least overlap the claimed mass ratio of adenylic acid or salt thereof to organic acid recited in present claim 1 (e.g., a food containing 0.002 wt.% adenylic acid and 0.004 wt.% organic acid would have a mass ratio of adenylic acid or salt thereof to organic acid of 1:2, which falls within the claimed range). Regarding product claims, when the ingredient recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be present in the product. “The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art' s function, 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).
Applicant then pointed to Samples D-H in Example 6 and Tables 7-8 of the present specification for support in demonstrating that the claimed mass ratios of salt to adenylic acid or a salt thereof and the claimed mass ratios of salt to organic acid or a salt thereof are limited to a range wherein the synergistic effect of the enhancement in salty taste is more effectively exerted. Applicant stated that Sample D and Sample H established the claimed minimum and maximum mass ratios of salt to adenylic acid or a salt thereof and claimed minimum and maximum mass ratios of salt to organic acid or a salt thereof as the ratios within this range are more effective for salty taste enhancement in food (Applicant’s Remarks, page 11, paragraph).
First, the Examiner notes that the present specification states that Sample D and Sample H contain Sample A; and that Sample A is the same seafood soup as Sample 4 in Example 4 [0065]. Example 4 does not discuss a seafood soup. Example 4 discusses saline solutions comprising yeast extracts [0051]. Therefore, it is unclear as to what Sample A in Example 6 is.
Second, it is unclear as to from where Applicant obtained the values for the mass ratios in Sample D and Sample H. Based upon the information in Example 6, the present specification states that Sample D and Sample H contain 66.1 wt.% of the seafood base raw material (page 21, Table 7); and that the seafood base raw material contains 61.1 wt.% salt (page 19, Table 5). From these values, Sample D and Sample H would contain 40.4. wt.% salt (i.e., 0.661 x 0.611 = 0.404; 0.404 x 100 = 40.4). The present specification also states that Sample D contains 0.025 wt.% Himax AG and that Sample H contains 2.5 wt.% Himax AG (page 21, Table 7). The present specification states that Himax AG contains 10 wt.% of adenylic acid salt [0054]. From these values, Sample D would contain 0.0025 wt.% adenylic acid salt (i.e., 0.00025 x 0.10 = 0.000025; 0.000025 x 100 = 0.0025). From these values, Sample H would contain 0.25 wt.% adenylic acid salt (i.e., 0.025 x 0.10 = 0.0025; 0.0025 x 100 = 0.25). The adenylic acid salt content of 0.25 wt.% in Sample H lies outside of the range recited in present claim 1; therefore, Sample H does not meet the limitations of present claim 1. Example 6 states that the Sample D and Sample H were dissolved in water prior to being subjected to the sensory evaluation. However, Example 6 does not recite how much water was used and thus, the actual concentration of any ingredient in the composition containing water and Samples D-H used for sensory evaluation is unclear.
Even with the actual concentration of each ingredient in the composition containing water and Samples D-H used for sensory evaluation being unclear, the amount of water used to dissolve Samples D-H does not change the weight ratio that each ingredient has with other ingredients in the Sample. As such, Sample D contains 40.4 wt.% salt, 0.0025 wt.% adenylic acid salt, as calculated in the paragraph above, and 0.015 wt.% succinic acid salt (specification, page 21, Table 7). Therefore, Sample D has: (1) a weight ratio of adenylic acid salt to organic acid salt of 1:6; (2) a weight ratio of salt to adenylic acid salt of 1:00006; and (3) a weight ratio of salt to succinic acid salt of 1:0.00037. This weight ratio of adenylic acid salt to organic acid salt of 1:6 in Sample D is outside of the range recited by present claim 1. Therefore, Sample D does not meet the limitations of present claim 1. As such, Applicant’s arguments regarding Sample D establishing the boundaries of the claimed mass ratios of salt to adenylic acid or a salt thereof and claimed mass ratios of salt to organic acid or a salt thereof as the ratios are not supported.
Sample H contains 40.4 wt.% salt, 0.25 wt.% adenylic acid salt, as calculated in the paragraph above, and 1.5 wt.% succinic acid salt (specification, page 21, Table 7). Therefore, Sample H has: (1) a weight ratio of adenylic acid salt to organic acid salt of 1:6; (2) a weight ratio of salt to adenylic acid salt of 1:006; and (3) a weight ratio of salt to succinic acid salt of 1:0.037. This weight ratio of adenylic acid salt to organic acid salt of 1:6 in Sample H is outside of the range recited by present claim 1. This weight ratio of salt to adenylic acid salt of 1:006 in Sample H is outside of the range recited by present claim 1. This weight ratio of salt to succinic acid salt of 1:0.037 in Sample H is outside of the range recited by present claim 1.Therefore, Sample H does not meet the limitations of present claim 1. As such, Applicant’s arguments regarding Sample H establishing the boundaries of the claimed mass ratios of salt to adenylic acid or a salt thereof and claimed mass ratios of salt to organic acid or a salt thereof as the ratios are not supported.
Applicant then argued that Example 6 of the present specification demonstrates the criticality of the claimed adenylic acid and organic acid concentrations. Applicant stated Samples C-I in Table 8 demonstrate that the more effective range of adenylic acid at the time of eating of the food was determined to be 0.00002647-0.002647% in terms of sodium adenylate equivalent amount; and the more effect range of organic acid at the time of eating of the food was determined to be 0.000021-0.21% as sodium succinate equivalent (Applicant’s Remarks, page 12, 2nd paragraph; page 13, 2nd-3rd paragraph).
However, as discussed in Examiner’s responses above, it is unclear as to how Applicant arrived at these amounts of adenylic acid and organic acid, especially wherein (1) the data does not provide any testing for adenylic acid or organic acid, but only tests sodium salts of adenylic acid and sodium salts of organic acids; (2) the claims require a specific concentration of adenylic acid or a salt thereof in the food, not a salt equivalent amount of adenylic acid or organic acid in the food (i.e., sodium adenylate equivalent amount, succinate equivalent amount); and (3) at least Samples D and H contain a concentration of adenylic acid salt and/or mass concentrations outside of the claimed ranges. For at least these reasons, Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the claimed concentrations and mass ratios so that Applicant’s arguments regarding such criticality are unpersuasive.
Applicant pointed to the Declaration filed 04/29/2026 to demonstrate the criticality of the mass ratio of organic acid and adenylic acid (Applicant’s Remarks, page 13, 4th paragraph – page 14, 1st paragraph).
See the section labeled “Response to Amendment” above.
Applicant argued that Tsuchiya II does not provide a working example that falls within the scope of the claimed invention and that the concentration ranges recited in Tsuchiya II are significantly broader than the claimed ranges (Applicant’s Remarks, page 12, 1st, 3rd paragraphs).
However, as stated in the responses above, “[d]isclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” MPEP 2123.II. As described in the rejection of present claim 1 and in the responses above, Tsuchiya II broadly teaches embodiments containing concentrations of ingredients which fall within the ranges of the claimed invention. Tsuchiya II does not need to provide a working example using such concentrations in order to render the present claims obvious.
With regard to Applicant’s assertion that the concentration ranges recited in Tsuchiya II are significantly broader than the claimed ranges, Applicant has not demonstrated criticality of the claimed concentrations for the reasons provided above. Therefore, the broad ranges of concentrations recited in Tsuchiya II sufficiently render the claimed concentrations and mass ratios obvious. MPEP 2144.05.I.
Since the prior art has been shown to render the present claims obvious and Applicant’s arguments have been shown to be unpersuasive, the rejections of the claims are maintained as written herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights