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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 09/15/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 2-133 are cancelled. Claims 134-149 are new. Claims 1 and 134-149 are presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
Modified Objections/Rejections As Necessitated by the Amendment Filed 09/15/2025
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 150-151 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, step c), please put a space between “step” and “(c)” for consistency.
In the last lines of Claims 150 and also Claim 151, the word weight is misspelled as “wight”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 134-136, 139-140, and 149-150 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parady (US 2018/0271113 A1, cited in the IDS), hereinafter Parady, in view of Fuchs et al. (WO 2012/031720 A1), hereinafter Fuchs.
Parady teaches a chewing gum composition comprising crystalline allulose particles and optionally an aqueous allulose syrup (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 1, step a) Parady teaches aqueous allulose syrup, which reads on the liquid allulose composition, containing at least 95% allulose, based on total syrup dry weight [0024]. Because Parady teaches an aqueous syrup, the remaining 5% would necessarily comprise water within the claimed amount range.
Regarding Claim 1, step b) Parady teaches its allulose syrup is prepared by epimerization of D-fructose, passed through microfiltration to remove any insoluble particles, then subjected to carbon filtration to remove its color, demineralized to further remove minerals and other impurities, and concentrated using a conventional evaporator [0020]-[0021]. Parady expressly teaches an example preparation of allulose syrup wherein part of the resulting syrup was evaporated and concentrated to 85% dry substance using a conventional evaporator, then fed into a pilot batch cooling crystallizer to produce crystalline allulose wherein the crystallization conditions were 50 °C at the start of crystallization and 20 °C for 90 hours (Example 1).
Regarding Claim 1, step c), Parady teaches that sugars and/or sweeteners and the additives are mixed with the gum base in a mixing bowl, and kneaded until the dough reaches a temperature of about 50 °C, and then then extruded into sheets which are cut into strips or cores ([0002], [0035]). However, Parady does not expressly teach feeding the allulose composition into the extruder at a specific water content.
Fuchs is also in the field of chewing gum composition (Abstract; Claim 10). Fuchs teaches the invention relating to a process for preparing a solidified sugar alcohol mixture comprising bringing the moisture content to below 5%, followed by extrusion; in a specific embodiment, the sugar alcohol solidifying in the extruder (p. 2, lines 20-24; p. 8, lines 9-14; Claim 8). As such, Fuchs also renders obvious Claim 1, step d)-f).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Fuchs to Parady, and reduce the moisture content to facilitate solidification of the sugar alcohol. One would start at the moisture content taught by Parady, and the moisture content optimize as needed depending on the desired hardness of the product.
Regarding Claims 134 and 135, Parady teaches the preparation of allulose syrup from fructose at 99% purity and water ([0024, [0038]). In one embodiment, the allulose syrup was concentrated to 85%, which would indicate that the water content is about 15%, reading on the amounts of allulose and water in these claims [0040].
Regarding Claim 136, Parady has taught 95% aqueous allulose syrup indicating that the 5% comprises water [0024].
Regarding Claim 139-140, Fuchs teaches the invention relating to a process for preparing a solidified sugar alcohol mixture comprising bringing the moisture content to below 5%, followed by extrusion, which encompasses the claimed ranges (p. 2, lines 20-24; Claim 8). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claims 149-150, Fuchs teaches an embodiment wherein the composition is mixed in the extruder for about 5 to 30 mins, and solidifies in the extruder (p. 8, lines 9-14). The extrudate is then aged in ambient temperature for a maximum of 15 mins (p. 8, lines 20-23). Fuchs also teaches that after extrusion, a white, crystalline ropes of solidified material were obtained and subjected to milling; the material was sifted and the fraction <900 µm was dried further to give a dry substance of 99.5 % that is a fine powdery material, and implies a water content of at most 0.5% (p. 13, lines 10-23). Because the moisture content is within 2.5% and 1%, within the claimed ranges in Claims 149 and 150 respectively, the crystalline solidified material is interpreted to read on the “solidified completely” feature.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of Fuchs with that of Parady and use extrusion technique and conditions according to the method of Fuchs, e.g. starting with a moisture content taught and aging/drying time by Fuchs, because Parady uses extrusion process for its composition. Obviousness is established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. See MPEP § 2143.01 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Claims 137-138, 141-148, and 151-152 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parady in view of Fuchs, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kawashima D. (US 5,354,856; Of record), hereinafter Kawashima, as evidenced by Kimura et al. (Twin-screw Extruder TEX for New Fields." Japan Steel Works Technical Report 67 (2016): 52-61. Machine Translated in Google Translate), hereinafter Kimura.
Parady recognizes the use of extrusion for preparing chewing gum compositions ([0002], [0035]). However, Parady is silent on the type of extruder.
Regarding Claim 137, Kawashima is in the same field and teaches that a commercially available extruder can be advantageously used for its method, such as a twin screw extruder, and expressly teaches the use of twin-screw extruder for foods (Col. 5, lines 36-44; Example 1). Kawashima teaches an extruder structure having kneading, cooling and conveying functions includes a structure of a single screw extruder, a structure of a twin-screw extruder, a rotary gear pump, etc. (Col. 5, lines 18-34).
Parady and Kawashima both teaches extrusion. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a single or twin screw extruder taught by Kawashima as types of extruder to use in preparing the chewing gum composition of Parady. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding Claim 138, Kawashima teaches specifically using a twin-screw extruder model TEX-38 FSS, and also teaches that the magma is discharged in a form of an elongated rod (Example 1; Col. 8, lines 11-16). In general TEX twin screw extruders are have intermeshing and counter-rotating rollers, as evidenced by Kimura (p. 2, 1st paragraph; p. 4, 2nd paragraph; p. 5, Section 3.1.3). As such, Kawashima teaches the contrarotating screw configuration claimed.
Regarding Claims 142-144 and 152, Kawashima teaches supplying an aqueous solution of 93.5% maltitol to the first zone of a twin-screw extruder for foods, wherein the maltitol solution is subjected to a first zone temperature of 80 ˚C; then to a second zone of the extruder at a temperature of 60° C.; a crystalline mixture solid containing maltitol was supplied to form a maltitol magma; cooling was conducted at a temperature of 40° C in the third zone in the extruder, and the maltitol magma extruded had a temperature of 69° C and a water content of 3.9% with no stickiness and could be easily broken by bending it by hand; the extruded maltitol magma extruded was matured in a circulating hot air oven at 60° C; and finally, the product was grounded and dried to give a crystalline mixture solid containing maltitol having 0.5% of a water content and improved physical properties, and kept a good powder state without any caking (Example 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the extrusion temperatures taught by Kawashima as guide when extruding the composition of Parady. The conclusion of obviousness is grounded on the rationale that some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings and arrive at the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2143.01 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Kawashima has taught specific temperatures useful in the extrusion process. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to adjust the temperature as a matter of experimentation and optimization. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions (e.g., determining result effective amounts of the ingredients beneficially taught by the cited references) is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Regarding Claims 145, 146, 147 and 148, which require the elevated extrusion temperature to be at most 65 ˚C, at most 55 ˚C, within the range of 53 ± 20 °C, and within the range of 53 ± 8.0 °C respectively, Kawashima teaches that after the aqueous solution of maltitol is introduced to the extruder, it is cooled and kneaded in the first zone at a temperature preferably in the range of 50 °C-90 °C, and that exceeding 90 °C is not preferable as a maltitol magma cannot be expected to be formed (Col. 6, lines 31-37). The resulting composition is then conveyed to the second zone where seed crystal is introduced at a temperature of not less than 50° C. due to viscosity issues and slow crystallization, and not exceeding 80 °C as higher temperature may dissolve the seed crystal (Col. 6, lines 47-62). The third and/or final zone comprises cooling and kneading, and extruding the magma (Col. 7, lines 19-27). One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to adjust the temperature as a matter of experimentation and optimization starting with the temperature taught by Kawashima. The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions, e.g. temperature, is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. Accordingly, this type of modification would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan and no more than an effort to optimize results.
Regarding Claim 141, Kawashima discloses supplying seed crystals to form a maltitol magma, and extruding continuously the said magma from a nozzle (Col. 3, lines 47-53). Kawashima relates that the raw materials, irrelative to the sources, are continuously introduced in the extruder, and a seed crystal is also introduced continuously or intermittently to form a plastic maltitol magma (Col. 5, lines 18-50). The seed crystal is preferably added continuously to obtain a homogeneous dispersion of the seed crystal in the aqueous solution of maltitol, which would form the magma in a short time (Col. 7, lines 5-12).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Kawashima to Parady and Fuchs, and introduce seed crystals continuously during the extrusion of the allulose composition of Parady in order to obtain a homogeneous dispersion of the seed crystal and facilitate the magma formation in a short time.
Regarding Claim 151, Parady has rendered obvious the allulose composition comprising an allulose content of at least 81% and a water content of at least 10% by teaching an embodiment wherein the allulose syrup was concentrated to 85%, indicating a water content of about 15% [0040]. Kawashima as evidenced by Kimura has taught the twin screw extruder with contrarotating screw configuration (Example 1); Fuchs has taught bringing the moisture content of the composition to below 1% before extrusion (Claim 8); Kawashima has also taught the use of seed crystals and rendered obvious the extrusion temperature conditions to obtain magma of desired hardness (Col. 6, line 31 to Col. 7, line 31); Kawashima teaches an example where the average residence time of the content from the first to final zone was 1.5 mins. (Col. 9, lines 21-22); Fuchs has taught an extrusion method wherein a dry substance of 99.5 % solid (Examples 1 and 2). Using a twin screw extruder with contrarotating screw configuration is a known technique in the art; drying to almost completion to obtain a solidified product and crystal seeding are known techniques in the art; the temperature conditions for extrusion are known and are optimizable. One with ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known techniques of Fuchs and Kawashima before the effective filing date to the process of Parady and expect successful extrusion of the allulose composition. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Response to Remarks:
Applicant traversed the 102 rejection over Boit and the 103 rejection over Prakash.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment does not rely on Boit or Prakash for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6 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 on (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.
/J.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792