DETAILED ACTION
Applicants' arguments, filed 10/28/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
Priority
The instant application claims foreign priority to PCTCN2020101891 filed 07/14/2020 and EP20188441.8 filed 07/29/2020. The instant application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/069365 filed 07/12/2021.
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 (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 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 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prakash et al (US Patent Application Publication 20160029677A1, provided in the IDS filed 12/20/2022).
Prakash relates generally to novel glucosyl steviol glycosides, as well as compositions comprising such novel glucosyl steviol glycosides. The present invention further extends to methods of purifying such glucosyl steviol glycosides, methods for preparing compositions comprising such glucosyl steviol glycosides (e.g., consumables) and methods for enhancing the taste or sweetness of consumables using such glucosyl steviol glycosides (Prakash at [0002]). Prakash recites a composition further comprising glucosylated steviol glycosides wherein glucosylated steviol glycosides are selected from the group consisting of a GSG mixture prepared by enzymatic glucosylation of a stevia extract, where the stevia extract was prepared from Stevia rebuadiana (Bertoni) or a commercially available stevia extract; by-products of other glucosyl steviol glycosides' isolation and purification processes; a commercially available GSG mixture; individual glucosylated steviol glycosides and combinations thereof (Prakash at claim 20). Prakash recites wherein the at least one additional sweetener is selected from the group consisting of sucrose, fructose, glucose, high fructose corn syrup or starch, xylose, arabinose, rhamnose, erythritol, xylitol, mannitol, sorbitol, inositol, AceK, aspartame, neotame, sucralose, saccharine, naringin dihydrochalcone (NarDHC), neohesperidin dihydrochalcone (NDHC), rebaudioside A, rebaudioside B, rebaudioside C (dulcoside B), rebaudioside D, rebaudioside E, rebaudioside F, rebaudioside I, rebaudioside H, rebaudioside L, rebaudioside K, rebaudioside J, rebaudioside N, rebaudioside O, rebaudioside M, dulcoside A, rubusoside, stevia leaf extract, stevioside, glycosylated steviol glycosides, mogrosides, mogroside V, isomogroside, mogroside IV, Luo Han Guo fruit extract, siamenoside, monatin and its salts, curculin, glycyrrhizic acid and its salts, thaumatin, monellin, mabinlin, brazzein, hernandulcin, phyllodulcin, trilobatin and combinations thereof (Prakash as claim 22). Prakash recites a composition further comprising at least one additive selected from the group consisting of carbohydrates, polyols, amino acids and their corresponding salts, poly-amino acids and their corresponding salts, sugar acids and their corresponding salts, nucleotides, organic acids, inorganic acids, organic salts including organic acid salts and organic base salts, inorganic salts, bitter compounds, flavorants and flavoring ingredients, astringent compounds, proteins or protein hydrolysates, surfactants, emulsifiers, flavonoids, alcohols, polymers and combinations thereof (Prakash at claim 23). Prakash recites a composition further comprising at least one functional ingredient selected from the group consisting of saponins, antioxidants, dietary fiber sources, fatty acids, vitamins, glucosamine, minerals, preservatives, hydration agents, probiotics, prebiotics, weight management agents, osteoporosis management agents, phytoestrogens, long chain primary aliphatic saturated alcohols, phytosterols and combinations thereof (Prakash at claim 24). Prakash teaches that the composition may be a mouth freshening agents, gargling agents, mouth rinsing agents, toothpaste, tooth polish, dentifrices, mouth sprays, teeth-whitening agent, or dental floss (Prakash at [0332]). Prakash teaches that suitable base materials for embodiments of this invention include, but are not limited to, water, sodium lauryl sulfate or other sulfates, humectants, enzymes, vitamins, herbs, calcium, flavorings (e.g., mint, bubblegum, cinnamon, lemon, or orange), surface-active agents, binders, preservatives, gelling agents, pH modifiers, peroxide activators, stabilizers, coloring agents, or similar type materials, and combinations thereof (Prakash at [0336]).
Prakash teaches that the at least one sweetness enhancer is present in an amount ranging from about 0.5 ppm to about 1000 ppm (Prakash at [0116]). Prakash further teaches that the at least one sweetness enhancer may be present in an amount ranging from about 1 ppm to about 300 ppm, from about 0.1 ppm to about 75 ppm, or from about 500 ppm to about 3,000 ppm (Prakash at [0116]). Prakash further teaches that suitable sweeteners are selected from, but not limited to, the group consisting of sucrose, glyceraldehyde, dihydroxyacetone, erythrose, threose, erythrulose, arabinose, lyxose, ribose, xylose, ribulose, xylulose, allose, altrose, galactose, glucose, gulose, idose, mannose, talose, fructose, psicose, sorbose, tagatose, mannoheptulose, sedoheltulose, octolose, fucose, rhamnose, arabinose, turanose, sialose, rebaudioside A, rebaudioside B, rebaudioside C, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside E, rebaudioside F, rebaudioside I, rebaudioside H, rebaudioside L, rebaudioside K, rebaudioside J, rebaudioside N, rebaudioside O, dulcoside A, dulcoside B, rubusoside, stevia, stevioside, mogroside IV, mogroside V, Luo han guo, siamenoside, monatin and its salts (monatin SS, RR, RS, SR), curculin, glycyrrhizic acid and its salts, thaumatin, monellin, mabinlin, brazzein, hernandulcin, phyllodulcin, glycyphyllin, phloridzin, trilobatin, baiyunoside, osladin, polypodoside A, pterocaryoside A, pterocaryoside B, mukurozioside, phlomisoside I, periandrin I, abrusoside A, steviolbioside and cyclocarioside I, sugar alcohols such as erythritol, sucralose, potassium acesulfame, acesulfame acid and salts thereof, aspartame, alitame, saccharin and salts thereof, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone, cyclamate, cyclamic acid and salts thereof, neotame, advantame, glucosylated steviol glycosides (GSGs) and combinations thereof (Prakash at [0123]). Prakash teaches the use of menthol (Prakash at [0106]) and thymol (Prakash at [0171]). Prakash teaches the use of stannous fluoride as an anticaries agent (Prakash at [0334]).
Prakash differs from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. Prakash teaches the components of the instant recited composition and uses each component of their established function in the art but does not explicitly combine the components together into a single embodiment or a preferred composition. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Prakash to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 1, Prakash relates generally to novel glucosyl steviol glycosides, as well as compositions comprising such novel glucosyl steviol glycosides. The present invention further extends to methods of purifying such glucosyl steviol glycosides, methods for preparing compositions comprising such glucosyl steviol glycosides (e.g., consumables) and methods for enhancing the taste or sweetness of consumables using such glucosyl steviol glycosides (Prakash at [0002]). Prakash teaches that the at least one sweetness enhancer is present in an amount ranging from about 0.5 ppm to about 1000 ppm (Prakash at [0116]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of from 5ppm to 200ppm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Prakash teaches the use of menthol (Prakash at [0106]) and thymol (Prakash at [0171]).
Regarding instant claim 2, Prakash teaches that the composition may be a mouth freshening agents, gargling agents, mouth rinsing agents, toothpaste, tooth polish, dentifrices, mouth sprays, teeth-whitening agent, or dental floss (Prakash at [0332]).
Regarding instant claim 4, Prakash further teaches that suitable sweeteners are selected from, but not limited to, the group consisting of turanose, sialose, rebaudioside A, rebaudioside B, rebaudioside C, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside E, rebaudioside F, rebaudioside I, rebaudioside H, rebaudioside L, rebaudioside K, rebaudioside J, rebaudioside N, rebaudioside O, dulcoside A, dulcoside B, rubusoside, stevia, stevioside, abrusoside A, steviolbioside and cyclocarioside I, sucralose, saccharin and salts thereof, glucosylated steviol glycosides (GSGs) and combinations thereof (Prakash at [0123]).
Regarding instant claim 5, Prakash further teaches that suitable sweeteners are selected from, but not limited to, the group consisting of turanose, sialose, rebaudioside A, rebaudioside B, rebaudioside C, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside E, rebaudioside F, rebaudioside I, rebaudioside H, rebaudioside L, rebaudioside K, rebaudioside J, rebaudioside N, rebaudioside O, dulcoside A, dulcoside B, rubusoside, stevia, stevioside, abrusoside A, steviolbioside and cyclocarioside I, sucralose, saccharin and salts thereof, glucosylated steviol glycosides (GSGs) and combinations thereof (Prakash at [0123]).
Regarding instant claim 7, Prakash teaches the use of menthol (Prakash at [0106]) and thymol (Prakash at [0171]).
Regarding instant claim 8, Prakash teaches the use of cetylpyridinium chloride as a surfactant (Prakash at [0155]).
Regarding instant claim 9, Prakash teaches the use of stannous fluoride as an anticaries agent (Prakash at [0334]).
Regarding instant claim 10, Prakash teaches the dental composition may have a base of water. Prakash further teaches that suitable sweeteners are selected from, but not limited to, the group consisting of turanose, sialose, rebaudioside A, rebaudioside B, rebaudioside C, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside E, rebaudioside F, rebaudioside I, rebaudioside H, rebaudioside L, rebaudioside K, rebaudioside J, rebaudioside N, rebaudioside O, dulcoside A, dulcoside B, rubusoside, stevia, stevioside, abrusoside A, steviolbioside and cyclocarioside I, sucralose, saccharin and salts thereof, glucosylated steviol glycosides (GSGs) and combinations thereof (Prakash at [0123]). Prakash teaches the use of stannous fluoride as an anticaries agent (Prakash at [0334]). Prakash teaches that the at least one sweetness enhancer is present in an amount ranging from about 0.5 ppm to about 1000 ppm (Prakash at [0116]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of from 5ppm to 200ppm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Prakash teaches the use of menthol (Prakash at [0106]) and thymol (Prakash at [0171]).
Regarding instant claim 11, Prakash further teaches that suitable sweeteners are selected from, but not limited to, the group consisting of turanose, sialose, rebaudioside A, rebaudioside B, rebaudioside C, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside E, rebaudioside F, rebaudioside I, rebaudioside H, rebaudioside L, rebaudioside K, rebaudioside J, rebaudioside N, rebaudioside O, dulcoside A, dulcoside B, rubusoside, stevia, stevioside, abrusoside A, steviolbioside and cyclocarioside I, sucralose, saccharin and salts thereof, glucosylated steviol glycosides (GSGs) and combinations thereof (Prakash at [0123]).
Regarding instant claim 13, Prakash teaches the use of menthol (Prakash at [0106]) and thymol (Prakash at [0171]).
Regarding instant claim 14, Prakash teaches the use of cetylpyridinium chloride as a surfactant (Prakash at [0155]).
Regarding instant claim 15, Prakash teaches the use of stannous fluoride as an anticaries agent (Prakash at [0334]).
Regarding instant claim 16, Prakash teaches that the at least one sweetness enhancer is present in an amount ranging from about 0.5 ppm to about 1000 ppm (Prakash at [0116]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of from 200ppm to 5000ppm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 17, Prakash teaches the use of stannous fluoride as an anticaries agent (Prakash at [0334]).
Regarding instant claim 18, Prakash further teaches that suitable sweeteners are selected from, but not limited to, the group consisting of turanose, sialose, rebaudioside A, rebaudioside B, rebaudioside C, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside E, rebaudioside F, rebaudioside I, rebaudioside H, rebaudioside L, rebaudioside K, rebaudioside J, rebaudioside N, rebaudioside O, dulcoside A, dulcoside B, rubusoside, stevia, stevioside, abrusoside A, steviolbioside and cyclocarioside I, sucralose, saccharin and salts thereof, glucosylated steviol glycosides (GSGs) and combinations thereof (Prakash at [0123]).
Regarding instant claim 19, Prakash teaches that the at least one sweetness enhancer is present in an amount ranging from about 0.5 ppm to about 1000 ppm (Prakash at [0116]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of from 200ppm to 5000ppm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 20, Prakash teaches the use of stannous fluoride as an anticaries agent (Prakash at [0334]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that as amended, claims 1 and 10, including the claims dependent thereon, are directed to the reduction of undesirable tastes in flavored products caused by the presence of an unpleasant tastant using glucosylated natural steviol glycosides. Applicant submits that PRAKASH does not disclose or suggest that any of the recited tastants have undesirable tastes and does not disclose or suggest that such undesirable tastes can be ameliorated by the presence of glucosylated natural steviol glycosides. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have predicted that glucosylated natural steviol glycosides in certain amounts have the benefit of reducing the undesirable tastes caused by the presence of the recited tastants and would not have been motivated in such a way as to arrive at the presently claimed invention.
The Examiner does not agree. Prakash recites methods for enhancing the taste or sweetness of consumables using such glucosyl steviol glycosides (Prakash at [0002]). Prakash teaches that the at least one sweetness enhancer is present in an amount ranging from about 0.5 ppm to about 1000 ppm (Prakash at [0116]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of from 5ppm to 200ppm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I). Prakash teaches the use of menthol (Prakash at [0106]) and thymol (Prakash at [0171]). Prakash teaches the use of cetylpyridinium chloride as a surfactant (Prakash at [0155]). Prakash teaches the use of stannous fluoride as an anticaries agent (Prakash at [0334]). Therefore Prakash teaches methods for enhancing flavor using glucosyl steviol glycosides within compositions using tastants that are considered undesirable. The prior art does not need to teach the method of using glucosyl steviol glycosides within compositions using tastants that are considered undesirable for the same reason or to solve the same problem as the instant application. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2144(IV). The prior art need not describe that the thymol or menthol or stannous fluoride or cetylpyridinium chloride have a bad taste, the taste is an inherent feature of the component used in the composition. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP2112(II). The method taught by Prakarsh would by its use to enhance taste or sweeteness in the composition with the tastants that are considered undesirable would reduce undesirable tastes. Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) See MPEP 2112.02(I). As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection is maintained.
Relevant Prior Art
Park et al (US Patent Application Publication 20130039932A1)
Disclosed is a quickly soluble oral film dosage for masking a nasty taste, in particular, a quickly soluble oral film dosage comprising a stevioside based sweetener and a high potency sweetener in a ratio by weight (w/w) of 1:3 to 3:1, which may efficiently mask a bitter or nasty taste of a medicine and may be quickly dissolved in a mouth without water, thereby improving an aftertaste thereof thus enhancing dosage acceptability of a patient (Park at abstract).
The relevant prior art is presented for completeness of the record and compact prosecution. In selecting the references to be used in rejecting the claims, the examiner should carefully compare the references with one another and with the applicant’s disclosure to avoid an unnecessary number of rejections over similar references. The examiner is not called upon to cite all references that may be available, but only the "best." (See 37 CFR 1.104(c).) Multiplying references, any one of which is as good as, but no better than, the others, adds to the burden and cost of prosecution and should therefore be avoided. See MPEP 904.03, third paragraph in section. The examiner takes the position that Park appears to be just as good as Prakash. As such, no rejection over Park has been written in view of the provisions of MPEP 904.03.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,295,393 B2 in view of Prakash et al (US Patent Application Publication 20160029677A1, provided in the IDS filed 12/20/2022).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both teach flavor improving steviol glycoside sweetener.
Patent ‘393 recites a method of enhancing a sweetness profile of a flavored article, the method comprising:
providing a flavored article, wherein the flavored article comprises a steviol glycoside sweetener and citric acid; and
adding at least one cyclohexanecarboxylic acid to the flavored article at a concentration ranging from 50 ppm to 200 ppm, based on the weight of the flavored article, wherein adding the at least one cyclohexanecarboxylic acid to the flavored article enhances a sweetness profile of the flavored article by enhancing a perceived sweetness intensity relative to a perceived lingering sweetness.
The teachings of Prakash are discussed above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to have used the amount of glucosylated natural steviol glycosides as taught by Prakash in the reference applications as Prakash teaches that this range provides a good degree of increased sweetness for the composition. See MPEP2144.07. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Reference claims and prior art combine to produce a prima facie case of obviousness type non-statutory double patenting.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, and 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over;
claims 9, 13-14, and 17-22 of copending Application No. 17/995,734 (reference application),
claims 8,12, and 19-24 of copending Application No. 17/995,731 (reference application),
claims 12-13 and 18-28 of copending Application No. 18/251,425 (reference application),
claims 1-13 and 16-21 of copending Application No.18/562,700 (reference application),
claims 1 and 3-20 of copending Application No. 18/566,390 (reference application),
claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/684,925 (reference application), and
claims 22-37 of copending Application No. 18/847,742(reference application), in view of Prakash et al (US Patent Application Publication 20160029677A1, provided in the IDS filed 12/20/2022).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims recite the use of glucosylated natural steviol glycosides used or added in products. All of the above reference applications recites glucosylated natural steviol glycosides used or added in products for the benefit of the sweet flavor.
The teachings of Prakash are discussed above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to have used the amount of glucosylated natural steviol glycosides as taught by Prakash in the reference applications as Prakash teaches that this range provides a good degree of increased sweetness for the composition. See MPEP2144.07. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Reference claims and prior art combine to produce a prima facie case of obviousness type non-statutory double patenting.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims under reference patents and reference applications have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of reference patents and reference applications in view of Prakash.
Conclusion
No claims are presently allowable.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-6812. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-17:00 EST ALT Fridays.
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, Sahana S. Kaup, can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612