DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 24 November 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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Higuchi et al. JPH 02200161 in view of Applicant’s Admission of the Prior Art (AAPA) as further evidenced by Kaneko et al. JP 2014083032A in view of Muranaka et al. JPS 61-37085 as further evidenced by Iwasaki.
Regarding claim 1, Higuchi discloses a soy sauce which comprises a content of ethyl decanoate (ethyl n-caprate) of 1000 parts per billion (preferably 1 ppm) (translation page 2, <Means for solving the problems>). While Higuchi teaches soy sauce and koji and fermentation (page 2, <Means for solving the problems>), the claim differs from Higuchi in specifically reciting the soy sauce is a yeast fermented liquid derived from a lactic acid fermented soy sauce material. Nonetheless, AAPA discloses that the normal and conventional process by which soy sauce is produced is by the yeast fermentation of a liquid derived from a lactic acid fermented soy sauce raw material (moromi) (specification paragraphs [0002] – [0003]) thereby making it obvious that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have done so.
Claim 1 differs from Higuchi in view of AAPA in the content of homofuraneol (HEMF) in the soy sauce.
Kaneko provides further evidence that HEMF is an important and extremely effective aroma component in all brewed soy sauce which is produced by the action of the fermentation process (page 2, paragraph 2) and that the normal content found in soy sauce is more than 20 parts per million (50 to 100 ppm) (page 4, paragraph 8, continuing to page 5). Since HEMF is an important and extremely effective aroma component in all brewed soy sauce it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to increase the amount of HEMF present in the soy sauce of Higuchi in view of AAPA to 20 parts per million or more to improve the aroma and/or flavour as desired as further evidenced by Kaneko.
Further, AAPA discloses that the HEMF content of soy sauce is normally in the range of 20 ppm or more (specification, table 28).
Claim 1 differs from Higuchi in view of AAPA as further evidenced by Kaneko in the soy-sauce is a soy sauce in which insoluble solid content derived from a soy sauce raw material has been removed. Muranaka discloses that by filtering a soy sauce-like liquid seasoning (solid-liquid separation) (page 3, ln 17 – 23), that is, removing the insoluble solid content, it is possible to get a more efficient contact between the soy sauce-like liquid seasoning and the yeast to complete fermentation in a shorter period of time as well as improve the quality of the aromatic components of a finished soy sauce (page 5, ln 3 – 8). To therefore modify Higuchi in view of AAPA as further evidenced by Kaneko and remove the insoluble solid content from a soy sauce-like liquid seasoning as taught by Muranaka to have a more efficient contact between the soy sauce-like liquid seasoning and the yeast as well as improve the quality of the aromatic components of finished soy sauce would have been an obvious matter of choice and/or design to the ordinarily skilled artisan. Iwasaki provides further evidence that it was old and conventional in the art to remove the insoluble solid content from soy sauce-like liquid seasoning prior to further processing into a finished soy sauce (page 2202, Feed solution - pressing the pre-fermented soy sauce mash and filtering it through a 0.45 micron membrane to remove microbial cells) which is to say that the soy sauce is a soy sauce in which insoluble solid content derived from a soy sauce raw material has been removed. AAPA (specification, paragraph [0073]) discloses that “a method for obtaining the soy sauce moromi soup by removing the insoluble solid content is not particularly limited, but is, for example, a generally known solid-liquid separation method” thereby providing further evidence that removal of the insoluble solid content to create a soy sauce-like liquid seasoning was known in general and the applicant was not the first to do so. Further, AAPA further discloses that a soy sauce would normally be manufactured by subjecting an aged moromi, that is a soy sauce raw material “to a pressing treatment and or a filtration treatment” to obtain the soy sauce (paragraph [0002]).
Claim 1 recites “the soy sauce has an ethanol content of 1.5% or more.
Higuchi in view of AAPA as further evidenced by Kaneko in view of Muranaka as further evidenced by Iwasaki specifically disclose “that it is generally known that the concentration of ethanol in a soy sauce moromi after yeast fermentation”, that is in a finished soy sauce, exceeds 1.5%” (‘701 specification paragraph [0229]) making it obvious that the soy sauce as claimed would have a concentration of ethanol that exceeds 1.5%.
Regarding claim 2, Higuchi in view of AAPA as further evidenced by Kaneko in view of Muranaka as further evidenced by Iwasaki are disclosing a fermented soy sauce and do not disclose that any 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine was detected therefore the content of 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine is seen to be less than 10 parts per billion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 24 November 2025 have been fully and carefully 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 06 January 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792