DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa et al (JP 2019165668 A) in view of Wilson et al (US 20020018840 A1).
In regard to claim 6, Kanazawa et al discloses a method for suppressing “ejection” of carbonated beverage ([0001]).
In regard to the recitation of carbonated beverages and the suppression of effervescence in the carbonated beverage, Kanazawa et al discloses:
Carbonated beverages are generally known as palatability beverages that allow consumers to taste a unique carbonation due to carbon dioxide gas in beverages when they drink. On the other hand, in carbonated beverages, carbon dioxide gas is dissolved in a supersaturated state, and carbonated beverages may foam and erupt when filling a container such as a plastic bottle or when a consumer opens the bottle ([0002]).
Carbonated beverages are generally known as palatability beverages that allow consumers to taste a unique carbonation due to carbon dioxide gas in beverages when they drink. On the other hand, in carbonated beverages, carbon dioxide gas is dissolved in a supersaturated state, and carbonated beverages may foam and erupt when filling a container such as a plastic bottle or when a consumer opens the bottle ([0004]).
Kanazawa et al discloses that effervescence is suppressed by addition of the compound having LogP of 3 or more:
According to the present invention, the following aromatic components (a) and (b) are contained, and the mass ratio ((a) / (b)) between the aromatic component (a) and the aromatic component (b) is 0.1 or more, A carbonated beverage that is 5 or less is provided. (A) LogP is 3 or more, Comprising : The total amount of the aromatic component contained in the said carbonated beverage 0.5ppm or more. (B) LogP is 0.5 or more and less than 3, and the total amount of aromatic components contained in the carbonated beverage by 0.5 ppm or more ([0005]).
LogP can be calculated based on, for example, a database "ChemSpider" (URL: http://www.chemspider.com/) on a website [0013].
The aromatic component (a) has a Log P of 3 or more and is contained in the carbonated beverage by 0.5 ppm or more. Examples of the fragrance component having LogP of 3 or more include fragrance components having LogP of 3 or more detected by the above-mentioned "ChemSpider". Specific examples thereof include citral , limonene, nootkaton, geraniol , and linalool. It is done. Among these, it is preferable that it is 1 type, or 2 or more types selected from citral, limonene, nootkatone, and linalool [0014].
In regard to the concentration of LogP of 3 or more compounds, Kanazawa et al discloses:
The total amount of the fragrance component (a) is preferably 1 ppm or more, more preferably 3 ppm or more, and further preferably 5 ppm or more in the carbonated beverage, while preferably 25 ppm or less, more preferably 20 ppm or less [0015].
Kanazawa et al does not disclose specific compounds as recited in claim 6.
Wilson et al discloses addition of octanol to beer as an anti-foaming agent ([0029]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kanazawa et al in view of Wilson et al and to employ octanol as an anti-foaming agent/additive to a carbonated beverage in order to improve its foam properties as suggested by Wilson et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Reply to the Non-Final Office action mailed October 1st, 2025, filed October 30, 2025, with respect to claim 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The rejection of claim(s) 5 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanazawa et al (JP 2019165668 A) has been withdrawn because claim 5 has been canceled.
The rejection of claim(s) 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa et al (JP 2019165668 A) in view of Pisnjachevskij et al (RU 2140175 C1) because claim 6 has been amended to exclude benzyl benzoate. Pisnjachevskij et al was relied upon as a teaching of addition of benzyl benzoate.
Claim(s) 6 is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanazawa et al (JP 2019165668 A) in view of Wilson et al (US 20020018840 A1). Wilson et al discloses addition of octanol to beer as an anti-foaming agent ([0029]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kanazawa et al in view of Wilson et al and to employ octanol as an anti-foaming agent/additive to a carbonated beverage in order to improve its foam properties as suggested by Wilson et al.
Conclusion
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 VERA STULII whose telephone number is (571)272-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30AM-3:30PM.
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.
/VERA STULII/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791