DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated March 24, 2026 (amendment) amending claims 1, 8 and 13 has been entered. Claims 2-5, 7 and 10-11 have been canceled. Claims 1, 6, 8-9 and 12 as filed with the amendment have been examined. Claims 13-14 have been withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention. In view of the amendment, all outstanding claim objections have been withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20190094193 A to Jin et al. (Jin), as evidenced by US2018/0263269 A1 to Prakash et al. (Prakash), both of record.
All references to Jin refer to its Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which was included in a prior office action.
Regarding instant claim 1, 6 and 12, Jin discloses at Abstract on page 2 a health food (“ingestible composition”) comprising a 4′,5,7-trihydroxy-3′,6-dimethoxyflavone (flavone). Further, at Formulation Example 5,3. on page 20, Jin discloses making a fruit juice as its ingestible composition comprising adding to 1000 ml apple or grape juice an amount of 1 g of the flavone (just under 1000 ppm as in claim 6). Accordingly, Jin discloses a method of making an ingestible composition comprising introducing a compound to the ingestible composition. At Formulation Example 5,1. on pages 19-20 Jin discloses a method of making a fruit juice drink ingestible composition comprising combining 2 g of a plum concentrate, 900 ml of water and 100 g of oligosaccharides by adding thereto 0.1 mg (1 ppm as in claim 6) of the flavone. At page 8, 5th full paragraph, Jin discloses that its compositions further comprise sweeteners including stevia extracts and polysaccharides like dextrins, which are oligosaccharides. The Office considers the recited sweetener in claim 12 as including the oligosaccharides of Example 5.1 of Jin.
Further, Jin does not disclose that its methods comprise enhancing a sweet taste, reducing a bitter taste, reducing a sour taste or reducing astringency of an ingestible composition. However, Prakash discloses at Abstract ingestible compositions comprising steviol glycosides including (at [0359]) fruit juice, coffee or tea and juice drinks as well as methods of sweetening them, wherein (at [0069]) the methods of making the ingestible compositions comprise adding flavones to enhance the sweetness of the compositions. Further, at Example 5 and [0416] Prakash discloses methods for reducing a bitter taste of a fruit flavored drink by adding the flavones as a flavor modulator.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Jin to enhance the sweet taste of its ingestible composition as a coffee, tea or fruit juice because, as shown at [0067] of Prakash, the flavones of Jin provide a sweetness enhancing property to ingestible compositions including those of Jin.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20190094193 A to Jin et al. (Jin), as evidenced by US2018/0263269 A1 to Prakash et al. (Prakash) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US2009/0175995 A1 to Havekotte et al. (Havekotte).
As applied to claim 1, Jin at Abstract and Formulation Examples 5,1. and 5,3. as evidenced by Prakash at [0067] discloses methods of enhancing a sweet taste, reducing a bitter taste, reducing a sour taste or reducing astringency of an ingestible composition comprising adding a flavone selected from the group consisting of: 5,7-dihydroxy-6,8,4'-trimethoxyflavone; 4',5,7-trihydroxy-3',6-dimethoxyflavone; 5,7-dihydroxy-6,3',4'-trimethoxyflavone; 5-methoxy-7-hydroxyflavanone; 3,6,7,4'-tetramethoxy-5,3'-dihydroxyflavone; comestibly acceptable salts of the foregoing; and combinations thereof to (at [0359]) a coffee, tea, fruit juice or their combination.
Regarding instant claims 8-9, Jin does not disclose a method wherein the ingestible composition comprises one or more bitter compounds selected from the group consisting of limonin, nomilin, naringin, and any combinations thereof as in claim 8. Further, Jin does not disclose making a citrus fruit juice as an ingestible composition as in claim 9. However, at page 8, 3rd to last full paragraph Jin discloses fruit juice and fruit juice drinks; and Prakash at [0067] discloses that the flavones of Jin enhance the sweetness of Jin’s fruit juices.
Havekotte at [0029]-[0030] and [0048] discloses that citrus juice comprises bitter compounds and that orange juice comprises limonin and nomilin. Further, Havekotte at [0049] discloses blending juices or varieties of citrus and orange juice to reduce the bitter flavor of a product to reduce their bitter flavor.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Havekotte for Jin to make a citrus fruit drink as its fruit drink including one or more bitter compounds selected from the group consisting of limonin, nomilin, naringin, and any combinations thereof in its citrus fruit drink. Both references disclose methods of making fruit drinks comprising a Flavone compound. The ordinary skilled artisan in Jin would have desired to formulate its fruit juices or fruit juice drinks as in Havekotte to include a citrus fruit juice having the claimed bitter compound by adding a flavone as in Jin as evidenced by Prakash to improve the flavor and reduce the bitterness of its citrus fruit drink.
Response to Arguments
In view of the amendment dated March 24, 2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn as moot:
The rejections of claims 1, 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0211088 A1 to Wu et al.;
The rejections of claims 1, 6, 9 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2010/0075005 A1 to Roy;
The rejections of claims 1, 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0263269 A1 to Prakash et al.;
The rejections of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2018/0263269 A1 to Prakash et al. in view of US2009/0175995 A1 to Havekotte et al.;
The rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2010/0075005 A1 to Roy, as evidenced by US2009/0175995 A1 to Havekotte et al.; and,
The rejections of claims 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2022/0211088 A1 to Wu et al. and US2009/0175995 A1 to Havekotte et al.
The positions taken with respect to claims 1, 6, 8-9 and 12 with respect to Roy, Wu and Prakash, taken alone or in combination with other secondary reference(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding the positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated March 24, 2026 (Reply), the Office has fully considered the positions taken and does not find the positions persuasive for the following reasons:
Prakash is not relied upon for its disclosure of specific flavone compounds; and,
Havekotte is not relied upon for its disclosure of the flavone compounds of claim 1; rather, the rejection relies on Havekotte for its disclosure of citrus juices as fruit juices that comprise various astringent compounds recited in claim 8.
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 ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
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 H 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.
/A.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights