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
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 1-10, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DuBois USPGPub 20190313669.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 10, DuBois teaches a formulation comprising [1139]:
a luo han fruit concentrate (which inherently comprises siratose)
additional sweeteners rebaudioside A; rebaudioside C; a glycosylated steviol glycoside as recited in claim 2
flavor modifying compound 3-[(4-amino-2,2-dioxido-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-5-yl)-oxy]-2,2-dimethyl-N-propylpropanamide (3rd structure in claim 3)
DuBois discloses that siratose can be present in the disclosed composition at a concentration of 0.1-3000 ppm which encompasses the proportions recited in claims 1 and 10. [0131] In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Therefore, DuBois renders obvious claims 1-3 and 10.
Regarding claims 4-8, DuBois teaches using the formulation in beverages such as energy drinks with added caffeine. [0268-0269]
Regarding claims 9, 13 and 14, the composition of DuBois comprises the same components as claimed and disclosed by applicant and therefore must satisfy the functional limitations of claims 9, 13 and 14. Additionally, 3-[(4-amino-2,2-dioxido-1H-2,1,3-benzothiadiazin-5-yl)-oxy]-2,2-dimethyl-N-propylpropanamide is identified by DuBois as a sweetness enhancer. [1236]
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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18271406 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the reference application teaches a formulation comprising siratose and one or more additional sweeteners as recited in present claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18271412 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the reference application teaches a formulation comprising luo han guo (fruit, powder, or extracts) (which inherently comprise siratose) and one or more additional sweeteners as recited in present claim 1.
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 pages 7-8, filed 3 March 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 3 March 2026 regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on page 8 of the remarks that the rejection fails to identify a motivation for selecting siratose from the list of sweeteners disclosed by DuBois. It is unclear what legal standard applicant is applying in asserting that a motivation must be provided to utilize a single reference for all that is fairly teaches. DuBois teaches siratose and teaches including the sweeteners taught in proportions of 0.1-3000 ppm. Relying on these teachings of DuBois does not require any modification of DuBois. As such, clearly, no motivation is required.
Applicant asserts on page 8 of the remarks that examples at 250 ppm and 500 ppm of siratose evidence that the claimed proportions of 1-1000 ppm and 30-600 ppm are critical. This is not found persuasive as no evidence or explanation has been provided to demonstrate that the unexpected results asserted are present over the claimed range and absent in ranges outside of the claimed range. Additionally, applicant’s results are only noted to be demonstrated in apple drink, a beverage that the current claims are not limited to. As such, applicant’s assertions regarding unexpected results are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s request on page 9 of the remarks that the double patenting rejections be held in abeyance is acknowledged.
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 Michele L Jacobson whose telephone number is (571)272-8905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10-6.
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 at (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.
/Michele L Jacobson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights