Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/798,348

CONTAINER-PACKED CARBONATED ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Aug 09, 2022
Examiner
LEBLANC, KATHERINE DEGUIRE
Art Unit
1791
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Suntory Holdings Limited
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
34%
Grant Probability
At Risk
3-4
OA Rounds
4y 0m
To Grant
69%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 34% of cases
34%
Career Allow Rate
201 granted / 596 resolved
-31.3% vs TC avg
Strong +35% interview lift
Without
With
+35.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 0m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
646
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
57.1%
+17.1% vs TC avg
§102
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 596 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 § 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. Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over English translation Matsubayashi(WO-2009104660A1) in view of full English translation of JP 2016-013115(provided by the office). Regarding claims 1,4, Matsubayashi teaches a packaged carbonated beverage having A content of carbon dioxide(example 4, beverage contains carbonated water) A pH of 3.0 to 4.5(p.8, 6th full paragraph) An alcohol content of greater than 9v/v%(p.4) Sodium and potassium content(p.6, 4th full paragraph, potassium and sodium malate). An acidity of 0.655g/100ml(example 8) Matsubayashi is silent on the pressure of the carbon dioxide gas, the sodium content and weight ratio of potassium content to sodium content. However, JP ‘115 teaches a packaged alcoholic carbonated beverage having A carbon dioxide gas pressure of from 0.8 to 3.5kgf/cm^2(claim 3) A sodium content of 0.03 to 1.1g/L(3 to 110mg/100ml)(claim 1) A molar ratio of sodium content of (Na/K) of 0.5 to 60(claim 1), which equates to a molar ratio of 2 to 0.017(1/0.5 to 1/60) for K/Na. This further equates to a weight ratio of K/Na of 0.03 to 3.39(K molar mass of 39g/mol and Na has molar mass of 23g/mol). JP ‘115 teaches that the carbonated beverage has an enhanced alcohol taste with “a complex taste composed of sweetness, bitterness, complex taste, weight, irritation, and the like peculiar to alcoholic beverages when drinking alcoholic beverages”( p.2, 1st full paragraph). It would have been obvious to modify Matsubayashi to have a carbon dioxide gas pressure of from 0.8 to 3.5kgf/cm^2, a sodium content of 0.03 to 1.1g/L(3 to 110mg/100ml), and a weight ratio of K/Na of 0.03 to 3.39 as taught in JP ‘115 in order to provide an enhanced alcohol taste with “a complex taste composed of sweetness, bitterness, complex taste, weight, irritation, and the like peculiar to alcoholic beverages when drinking alcoholic beverages.” Matsubayashi teaches forming the beverage by adjusting the acidity(in terms of citric acid) of the beverage to be 0.655mg/100ml(example 8). As stated above, it would have been obvious to adjust the sodium content and weight ratio of potassium content to sodium content of the beverage in view of JP ‘115. Regarding claim 2, Matsubayashi does not specifically teach a fruit juice content of 0 to 9w/w% but also states that “the amount of fruit juice or fragrance is not limited”(p.7,2nd full paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of fruit juice depending on the amount of fruit flavor desired. Regarding claims 3,5, Matsubayashi teaches the presence of potassium ions such as potassium chloride but does not require the use of potassium citrate(p.7, 1st full paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to use another form of potassium salt such as potassium chloride, which renders obvious a concentration of 0mg/100ml potassium citrate(i.e. less than 20mg/100ml as claimed). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that JP ‘115 does not teach an alcohol content of 5 to 16v/v% as now required in claims 1 and 4. However, please see the new reference Matsubayashi(WO-2009104660A1) and rejection above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE D LEBLANC whose telephone number is (571)270-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM EST M-F. 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. /KATHERINE D LEBLANC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 09, 2022
Application Filed
May 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 08, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Nov 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 11, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 17, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600802
CONVERTED STARCH AND FOOD COMPRISING SAID CONVERTED STARCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593859
HIGH LOAD FLAVOR PARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12532897
FROZEN CONFECTION MANUFACTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 27, 2026
Patent 12495822
Structuring Agent for Use in Foods
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 16, 2025
Patent 12478076
COFFEE COMPOSITION AND ITEMS MADE THEREFROM
2y 5m to grant Granted Nov 25, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
34%
Grant Probability
69%
With Interview (+35.1%)
4y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 596 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month