DETAILED ACTION
EXAMINER’S REMARKS
Examiner notes that Claim 10 recites the new limitation “for instant infusion” without a corresponding underlining of the phrase “for instant infusion” to indicate newly presented limitations. Claim 10 of the most recent amendment that was previously entered does not recite the limitations “for instant infusion.” The claim amendment filed August 18, 2025 is technically a non-compliant amendment. The proposed claim amendment filed June 10, 2025 that was not entered is not the most recent set of claims that was entered. However, the claim amendment filed August 18, 2025 has been entered in the interest of compact prosecution. Examiner notes that correct markings showing underlinings of newly presented limitations and strikethroughs against deletions of the most recent entered amendment are required in further amendment responses by applicant.
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the sweetening compound” in line 2. It appears the claims should recite “the at least one non-sugar sweetening compound” in order to maintain consistency with “at least one non-sugar sweetening compound” recited in Claim 1, line 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the composition consisting of at least one non-sugar sweetening compound…at least one flavoring compound…and exactly two effervescent compounds” in lines 4-8. There was not adequate written description at the time of filing for the specific embodiment of the composition consisting of, i.e. containing only, at least one non-sugar sweetening compound, at least one flavoring compound, and exactly two effervescent compounds. There was only adequate written description support at the time of filing for broader disclosure of the composition consisting of, i.e. only containing, at least one flavoring compound, exactly two effervescent compounds, and one or more ingredients including sugar, artificial sweeteners, powdered cream, and the like (Specification, Paragraph [0011]).
Claims 2-5 and 8-10 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a cold liquid” in line 1. The term “cold” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “cold” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what temperature(s) reads on the claimed “cold” liquid.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “for instant infusion.” The term “instant” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “instant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Clarification is required.
Claims 2-5 and 8-9 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the sodium bicarbonate is present in 24.08% w/w of the total weight composition” in lines 2-3. Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the sodium bicarbonate is present in a range comprised between 30%-60% w/w of the composition” in lines 11-12. The sodium bicarbonate concentration within the composition of 24.08% w/w recited in Claim 9 falls outside of the sodium bicarbonate concentration range within the composition of between 30%-60% w/w. Therefore, the sodium bicarbonate concentration recited in Claim 9 fails for further limit the sodium bicarbonate concentration recited in Claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padmanabhan et al. US 2017/0252295 as further evidenced by Gibson et al. US 2015/0296853.
Regarding Claim 1, Padmanabhan et al. discloses a composition for infusion (disintegration) in a cold liquid (at room temperature) (‘295, Paragraph [0052]) with controlled effervescence (‘295, Paragraph [0003]). The composition is not disclosed to contain tonic or quinine that is present in tonic in view of applicant’s disclosure (Specification, Paragraph [0005]). Therefore, the composition of Padmanabhan et al. serves as a tonic substitute since the composition does not contain tonic and/or quinine and since the composition is an effervescent composition (‘295, Paragraph [0003]). The composition consists essentially of an acid and a base (‘295, Paragraph [0039]) wherein the acid is only tartaric acid (‘295, Paragraphs [0037] and [0119]) and the base is only sodium bicarbonate (‘295, Paragraph [0038]). Padmanabhan et al. discloses an embodiment wherein an API is added subsequent to the formation of the effervescent composition (‘295, Paragraph [0043]) and a particular example wherein aspirin is added to exemplary granules, sucralose, and strawberry flavor (‘295, Table 6) (‘295, Paragraphs [0100]-[0101]) and that lubricant processing excipients are optional ingredients (‘295, Paragraphs [0121]-[0122]). Therefore, Padmanabhan et al. teaches an embodiment of Table 6 of Tablet 1 wherein no aspirin or sodium benzoate is present, i.e. an embodiment of a tablet containing only granules made of acid and base, sucralose, and strawberry flavor. In this embodiment that is envisaged, the composition contains the following concentrations:
Granules containing the acid component and the base component =
86.15
86.15
+
0.80
+
0.05
x 100% = 99.02% granules
At least one non-sugar sweetening compound =
0.80
86.15
+
0.80
+
0.05
x 100% = 0.009% at least one non-sugar sweetening compound
At least one flavoring compound =
0.80
86.15
+
0.80
+
0.05
x 100% = 0.0006% at least one flavoring compound
Gibson et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food art that sucralose such as that disclosed by Padmanabhan et al., is a type of artificial sweetener (‘853, Paragraph [0116]), i.e. an artificial sweetener is a type of non-sugar sweetening compound.
Therefore, the disclosure of the embodiment suggested by the entire disclosure of Padmanabhan et al. of Table 6 of Tablet 1 wherein no aspirin or sodium benzoate is present containing 99.02% granules made of only two effervescent compounds consisting of tartaric acid and sodium bicarbonate, overlaps the claimed concentration of two effervescent compounds in a combined percentage equal to or higher than 50% w/w of the composition. Additionally, the disclosure of the embodiment suggested by the entire disclosure of Padmanabhan et al. of Table 6 of Tablet 1 wherein no aspirin or sodium benzoate is present containing 0.009% of at least one non-sugar sweetening compound of sucralose and 0.0006% at least one flavoring compound falls within the claimed concentration of less than 3% w/w at least one non-sugar sweetening compound and less than 50% w/w of at least one flavoring compound, respectively. Where the claimed concentration of two effervescent compounds consisting of tartaric acid and sodium bicarbonate, at least one non-sugar sweetening compound, and at least one flavoring compound encompasses concentration of two effervescent compounds consisting of tartaric acid and sodium bicarbonate, at least one non-sugar sweetening compound, and at least one flavoring compound disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the concentration of two effervescent compounds consisting of tartaric acid and sodium bicarbonate, at least one non-sugar sweetening compound, and at least one flavoring compound of a composition will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of two effervescent compounds consisting of tartaric acid and sodium bicarbonate, at least one non-sugar sweetening compound, and at least one flavoring compound of the composition is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of flavoring used in the composition depending on the organoleptic effect desired (‘295, Paragraph [0046]) as well as the desired flavor intensity of the composition. Additionally, the amount of acid and the base in the composition varies wherein the amount of acid used ranges from 40% w/w to 50% w/w in the composition and the amount of base ranges from 20% w/w to 70% w/w in the composition (‘295, Paragraph [0039]), which overlaps the claimed concentration of sodium bicarbonate ranging between 30%-60% of the composition and the claimed concentration of tartaric acid ranging between 15%-40% w/w of the composition. The acid is only tartaric acid (‘295, Paragraph [0037]) and the base is only sodium bicarbonate (‘295, Paragraph [0038]). Where the claimed concentration of sodium bicarbonate and tartaric acid overlaps concentration of sodium bicarbonate and tartaric acid disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Further regarding Claim 1, Padmanabhan et al. discloses the composition containing sucralose and no other sweetening compounds (’295, Table 6) (‘295, Paragraphs [0100]-[0101]), which envisages not adding sugars thereto. With respect to the limitations regarding the composition not having gas added thereto,
Regarding Claim 2, Padmanabhan et al. is silent regarding the at least one non-sugar sweetening compound being present in a percentage of 2.77% 2/2 of the composition. However, differences in the concentration the at least one non-sugar sweetening compound of a composition will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of at least one non-sugar sweetening compound of the composition is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of the at least one non-sugar sweetening compound used in the composition depending on the desired sweetening intensity of the composition.
Regarding Claim 3, Padmanabhan et al. discloses the amount of flavoring compound present in the composition depending on the organoleptic effect desired (‘295, Paragraph [0046]). Although Padmanabhan et al. does not explicitly state that the flavoring compound amount is present in a percentage of 46.68% w/w of the composition, differences in the concentration the at least one flavoring compound of a composition will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of at least one flavoring compound of the composition is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of flavoring used in the composition depending on the organoleptic effect desired (‘295, Paragraph [0046]) as well as the desired flavor intensity of the composition.
Regarding Claim 4, Padmanabhan et al. discloses the flavoring compound being an aromatic vegetable (plant) and/or fruit extract (‘295, Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 5, Padmanabhan et al. discloses the aromatic vegetable and fruit extract being citrus fruits and/or vanilla (‘295, Paragraph [0046]).
Regarding Claim 8, Padmanabhan et al. discloses the amount of acid in the composition varies wherein the amount of acid ranges from 20% w/w to 70% w/w in the composition (‘295, Paragraph [0039]), which encompasses the claimed concentration of tartaric acid being present in 24.08% w/w of the total weight of the composition. The acid is only tartaric acid (‘295, Paragraph [0037]). Where the claimed concentration of sodium bicarbonate and tartaric acid overlaps concentration of tartaric acid disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Regarding Claim 9, Padmanabhan et al. discloses the amount of base in the composition varies wherein the amount of base ranges from 20% w/w to 70% w/w in the composition (‘295, Paragraph [0039]), which encompasses the claimed concentration of sodium bicarbonate being present in 24.08% of the total weight of the composition. The base is only sodium bicarbonate (‘295, Paragraph [0038]). Where the claimed concentration of sodium bicarbonate overlaps concentration of sodium bicarbonate and tartaric acid disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padmanabhan et al. US 2017/0252295 as further evidenced by Gibson et al. US 2015/0296853 as applied to claim 1 above in view of Wehling US 2003/0170301.
Regarding Claim 2, Padmanabhan et al. is silent regarding the at least one non-sugar sweetening compound being present in a percentage of 2.77% w/w of the composition.
Wehling et al. discloses a composition (effervescent agent) comprising an effervescent couple comprising at least one non-sugar sweetening compound (stevia) (‘301, Paragraph [0007]), an acid and a carbonate base wherein the acid is tartaric acid and the carbonate base is sodium bicarbonate (‘301, Paragraph [0010]) and at least one flavoring compound (flavor agent) (‘301, Paragraph [0009]) wherein acid is present in the composition in an amount of from about 25% by weight to about 40% by weight (‘301, Paragraph [0025]), which falls within the claimed tartaric acid concentration range of between 15%-40% w/w of the composition, or the acid is present in an amount of from 10% by weight to 60% by weight. In the embodiment wherein acid is present in about 60% by weight, the at least one flavoring compound is necessarily present in an amount of less than about 40% w/w of the composition, which falls within the claimed amount of at least one flavoring compound being present in a percentage of less than 50% w/w of the composition. The tablet includes from about 0.5% by weight to about 3% by weight stevia (‘301, Paragraph [0012]), which encompasses the claimed concentration of non-sugar sweetening compound being present in a percentage of 2.77% w/w of the composition.
Both Padmanabhan et al. and Wehling are directed towards the same field of endeavor of effervescent compositions comprising at least one non-sugar sweetening compound, at least one flavoring compound, and effervescent compounds containing tartaric acid and sodium bicarbonate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the composition of Padmanabhan et al. and incorporate stevia as the at least one non-sugar sweetening compound in the claimed concentration amounts since where the claimed ranges of non-sugar sweetening compound amounts overlaps ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Wehling teaches that there was known utility in the effervescent composition art to incorporate a non-sugar sweetening compound of stevia in an effervescent compound containing tartaric acid and sodium bicarbonate in the claimed amount ranges. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the composition of Padmanabhan et al. and incorporate stevia as the non-sugar sweetening compound in the claimed concentration as taught by Wehling based upon the desired sweetness of the effervescent composition.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padmanabhan et al. US 2017/0252295 as further evidenced by Gibson et al. US 2015/0296853 as applied to claim 1 above in view of Opheim US 2010/0215758.
Regarding Claim 3, Padmanabhan et al. as further evidenced by Gibson et al. is silent regarding the flavoring compound being present in the composition in a percentage of 46.68% w/w of the composition.
Opheim discloses an effervescent composition (‘758, Paragraph [0012]) containing at least one non-sugar sweetening compound (stevia) (‘758, Paragraph [0037]), effervescent compounds containing tartaric acid (‘758, Paragraph [0015]) and sodium bicarbonate (‘758, Paragraph [0017]), and at least one flavoring compound (flavor agents) that constitute from about 5% to about 50% by weight of the effervescent compound (‘758, Paragraph [0035]), which encompasses the claimed amount of at least one flavoring compound being present in a percentage of 46.68% w/w of the composition.
Both modified Padmanabhan et al. and Opheim are directed towards the same field of endeavor of effervescent compounds containing at least one non-sugar sweetening compound of stevia, at least one flavoring compound, and effervescent compounds containing tartaric acid and sodium bicarbonate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the composition of modified Padmanabhan et al. and incorporate the at least one flavoring compound in the claimed concentration amounts since where the claimed ranges of at least one flavoring compound amounts overlaps ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Opheim teaches that there was known utility in the effervescent composition art to incorporate at least one flavoring compound in the claimed amount ranges. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the amount of at least one flavoring compound depending on the desired flavor intensity of the at least one flavoring compound.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Padmanabhan et al. US 2017/0252295 as further evidenced by Gibson et al. US 2015/0296853 as applied to claim 1 above in view of Whyte et al. US 4,025,655.
Regarding Claim 10, Padmanabhan et al. discloses the composition being packaged (‘295, Paragraph [0074]). However, Padmanabhan et al. as further evidenced by Gibson et al. is silent regarding the composition being packed in single dose paper bags for “instant” infusion.
Whyte et al. discloses a molecular sieve beverage carbonation process comprising a water and gas permeable container in which molecular sieves and dry beverage mix can be enclosed comprising an overwrap of material substantially impervious to water and water vapor wherein the container is a flexible net of paper (‘655, Column 12, lines 4-50), which reads on the claimed composition being packed in single dose paper bags.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to package the effervescent composition of modified Padmanabhan et al. into single dose paper bags in the form of flexible net of paper as taught by Whyte et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Whyte et al. teaches that there was known utility in the effervescent composition art to package effervescent tablet compositions into a single dose paper bags.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the previous new matter rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that the previous indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that new new matter rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been made in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that new indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been made in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the obviousness rejections of Claims 1-5 and 8-9 under 35 USC 103(a) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The new prior art combination of references was necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Golan US 2017/0360067 discloses an alcohol free base beverage which forms the liquid base for an alcoholic beverage substitute emulating the taste of tonic water (‘067, Paragraph [0215]).
Trifonov et al. US 2014/0186458 discloses a coffee substitute or other beverage with tonic properties (‘458, Paragraph [0003]).
Stout et al. US 2020/0015488 discloses an agglomeration method that does not promote binding through incorporation of a binding agent but instead utilized the melting, drying, and deformation of the flake particle itself to provide unique binding characteristics without requiring the use of binders, fats, etc. (‘488, Paragraph [0015]).
Vargas Velsco et al. US 2017/0232360 discloses a tablet comprising an alkaline earth metal salt (‘360, Paragraph [0010]) either with or without a binder (‘360, Paragraph [0065]).
Marius et al. US 2016/0271067 discloses a carbohydrate tablet (‘067, Paragraph [0003]) without adding protein, fillers or hydrophobic or PEG containing lubricants (‘067, Paragraph [0026]).
Vallini et al. US 2016/0050959 discloses a tablet comprising at least 60% by weight fructose derived from fruit with respect to the total weight of the tablet (‘959, Paragraph [0026]) wherein the tablet is substantially without binders or anti-adherent lubricants (‘959, Paragraphs [0055] and [0058]).
Faella et al. US 2010/0104695 discloses a dry packaged water soluble beverage material that is dry formed and does not require the use of a binder or carrier vehicle that alters the taste and appearance of the finished beverage (‘695, Paragraph [0004]).
Shibata US 2009/0175998 discloses a method of making solid milk from powdered milk without additives such as lubricant (‘998, Paragraph [0019]).
Walsh US 5,686,632 discloses a powder comprising tocopheryl succinate without binders.
Fuisz et al. US 5,654,003 discloses a compressed tablet (‘003, Column 1, lines 15-16) without a processing aid such as a flow agent, binder, disintegrant, etc. (‘003, Column 3, lines 40-44).
Reijonen US 2024/0188614 discloses sucralose is a type of artificial sweetener that can replace natural sugars (‘614, Paragraph [0228]).
D’Hoore et al. US 2020/0170288 discloses an effervescent tablet composition comprising at least one further sweetening agent of sucralose (‘288, Paragraph [0096]).
George US 8,383,169 discloses an effervescent tablet including an optional effervescent dissolvable additive of tartaric acid, sodium bicarbonate, and flavoring (‘169, Column 4, lines 35-51).
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 ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792