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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: please update the priority statement at paragraph [0001] of the Specification. Appropriate correction is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
204
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Structures at paragraphs [0020], [0022] have blurry numbers.
PNG
media_image2.png
439
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
510
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al. (US 2015/0327584) in view of Spelman et al. (US 2013/0209658).
Regarding Claim 1, Shi (‘584) teaches a liquid sweetener (See Claims, paras. 13, 27, 39, 46-47, 52, 99, 158, 179-181, 186, 190-192, 196, 203.) comprising rebaudioside-M (See Claims 14-16, paras. 52, 99, 181, 203.), and less than 0.5% water (See claim 9 where the composition can be in an amorphous form, thus, interpreted as being substantially free of water. A specific water limitation is not set forth in the claim.)., wherein the liquid sweetener does not comprise propylene glycol (See Claims 14-16, paras. 13, 27, 39, 46-47, 52, 99, 158, 179-181, 186, 190-192, 196, 203.), however, fails to expressly disclose 1,3-propanediol.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date that the selection of solvents depended on price, availability, other production considerations such as tank availability, ease of handling, safety and regulatory issues.
The selection of one alcohol/solvent over another would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date. It would have been reasonably foreseeable that alternatively using a 1,3-propanediol as taught by Spelman (‘658) would provide a sweetened product that is substantially as effective as if an ethanol solvent is used.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious and within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to substitute 1,3-propanediol alcohol as taught by Spelman (‘658) for other alcohols/solvents including ethanol as taught by Shi (‘584) and Spelman (‘658) to provide a solubilized sweetener composition that can be added to other food ingredients where people desire a sweet sensation at reduced caloric content.
Regarding Claim 2, Shi (‘584) teaches the liquid sweetener further comprising one or more flavourings (See para. 57.).
Regarding Claim 3, Shi (‘584) teaches the sweetener discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the one or more flavourings are selected from a group comprising white sugar flavouring, brown sugar flavouring, cane sugar flavouring, beet sugar flavouring, or any combination thereof.
Spelman (‘658) discloses that the composition can include sucrose (See para. 29.), which is known in the art as white table sugar.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Shi (‘584) and Spelman (‘658) before them to include sugar flavoring in the composition of Shi (‘584) depending on the intended food composition and the desired taste profile as different food compositions require different types of flavoring and sweeteners.
Regarding Claim 4, Shi (‘584) teaches wherein the liquid sweetener comprises one or more steviol glycosides (See Claims, paras. 52, 99, 181, 203.).
Regarding Claim 5, Shi (‘584) teaches the sweetener discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the liquid sweetener is substantially free of sweetening agents other than rebaudioside-M.
Spelman (‘658) discloses that the composition only must include one steviol glycoside and 1,3-propaneiol (See para. 3.).
Therefore, it would have been foreseeable and obvious with Shi (‘584) in view of Spelman (‘658) that the composition is substantially free of sweetening agents other than the steviol glycoside component, which is rebaudioside M.
Regarding Claim 6, Shi (‘584) teaches the sweetener discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the liquid sweetener further comprises glycerol.
Spelman (‘658) discloses that the composition can include glycerol to adjust the solubility and thus viscosity of the ingredients (See paras. 9, 19, 30, 39.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Shi (‘584) and Spelman (‘658) before them to include glycerol in the composition of Shi (‘584) depending on the desired solubility and viscosity of the composition. The selection of types and combination of solvents, including glycerol, would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 7, Shi (‘584) and Spelman (‘658) teach the sweetener discussed above including 1,3-propanediol; and rebaudioside-M, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the liquid sweetener comprises: 25% to 99.5% 1,3-propanediol; and 0.5% to 75% rebaudioside-M, by weight of the liquid sweetener as a whole.
The claimed ranges are very broad and include virtually all conceivable amounts. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to use more or less of these ingredients based on the targeted flavor profile, viscosity and performance requirements of the mixture. The selection of amounts of the ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 8, Shi (‘584) and Spelman (‘658) teach the sweetener discussed above including 1,3-propanediol; and rebaudioside-M and flavoring, however, fail to expressly disclose wherein the liquid sweetener comprises: 20% to 85% 1,3-propanediol; 0.5% to 75% rebaudioside-M; and 5% to 35% flavouring, by weight of the liquid sweetener as a whole.
The claimed ranges are very broad and include virtually all conceivable amounts. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to use more or less of these ingredients based on the targeted flavor profile, viscosity and performance requirements of the mixture. The selection of amounts of the ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 9, Shi (‘584) teaches the sweetener discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein further comprising a preservative selected from a group comprising: potassium sorbate, sodium sorbate, citrus extracts, potassium benzoate, sodium benzoate, sodium hexa-meta-phosphate, EDTA, nisin, natamycin, polylysine, benzoic acid, sorbic acid, and any combination thereof.
Spelman (‘658) teaches including benzoic acid, sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate to provide a desired flavor an increase the solubility of the sweetener in the solvent (See paras. 37-19.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Shi (‘584) and Spelman (‘658) before them to include benzoic acid, sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate in Shi’s (‘584) composition depending on the desired flavor, solubility and viscosity of the composition. The selection of types and combination of additives would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 10, Shi (‘584) teaches wherein the liquid sweetener is in a form of a clear liquid suspension (See Claims, paras. 13, 27, 39, 46-47, 52, 99, 158, 179-181, 186, 190-192, 196, 203.).
Regarding Claim 11, Shi (‘584) teaches the sweetener discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose further comprising a natural emulsifier to enhance stability and prevent separation of the suspension.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing a natural emulsifier. Since Shi’s (‘584) composition and including numerous additives, it would have been foreseeable and obvious to keep the ingredients in suspension and emulsifiers are known to be capable of achieving this objective. It thus would have been foreseeable and obvious to incorporate a gum into Shi’s (‘584) composition to provide a liquid composition that can be used as intended. The selection of types and emulsifier would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Emily Le can be reached on 571-272-0903. 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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
January 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights