DETAILED ACTION
Amendments made May 6, 2026 have been entered.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are pending;
Claims 7 and 9-10 have been withdrawn.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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The previous rejections have been withdrawn in light of applicant’s arguments made September 24, 2026. Specifically, the combination of Ryoko et al (JP 2015-123008 machine translation) in view of Wright, John (“Flavor Bites: trans-2-Decenal”) and as evidenced by Lemon Juice, raw teach a beverage comprising 1,000-10,000ppb E-2-decenal, and not a beverage comprising 0.5-500ppb E-2-decenal as required by claim 1 as amended May 6, 2026.
Note: The term “citrus flavored beverage” would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as any beverage comprising citrus flavoring. It is noted that the term is not based on taste, i.e. a citrus tasting beverage, but is rather defined in terms of its components, and thus is considered definite. It is noted that a beverage comprising any amount of citrus flavoring would be encompassed by the term as the claim has not been limited to a specific amount of said flavoring.
Claims 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoko et al (JP 2015-123008 machine translation) in view of Kato et al (US 2020/0359644) and Hall et al (“Recent Progress in the Consideration of Flavoring Ingredients Under the Food Additives Amendment” Food Technology,1965, pages 1-50), and as evidenced by Lemon Juice, raw (www.nutritionvalue.org/Lemon_juice%2C_raw_nutritional_value.html?size=1+kg+%3D+1000+g, pages 1-9, printed January 2026)
Regarding claim 1, Ryoko et al (Ryoko) teaches lemon, i.e. citrus, flavored beverages in which deterioration of citrus flavor is suppressed, wherein the beverage comprises: lemon juice and 0.08-26ppm (80-260ppb) gamma-terpinene (page 1, overview, claim 4, and paragraphs 1, 6, 7, 18, 23, 25, and 35). As evidenced by Lemon Juice, raw, pages 4-6, lemon juice contains unsaturated fatty acids, and thus, the beverage of Ryoko which contains lemon juice would be a beverage comprising unsaturated fatty acids.
Ryoko is silent to the beverage as comprising 0.5-500ppb E-2-decenal.
Kato et al (Kato) teaches that beverages, including fruit beverages, carbonated beverages, and alcoholic beverages, and citrus aromas are improved with a composition comprising 2-decenal (E-2-decenal) (abstract and paragraphs 56, 61, and 62). Specifically, Kato teaches that the use of the composition enhances the savor and texture in the mouth, such as richness, full-bodiness of taste, volume, and on tongue texture (paragraphs 5, 6, and 28). Kato teaches that the composition comprises 8.5% or more ingredient A, wherein ingredient B comprises E-2-decenal and 2-octenal in any ratio, but preferably at least 30% each, and wherein ingredient B is included in an amount of 0.002-0.2 parts relative to 100 parts ingredient A (paragraphs 7-11 and 26). Thus, the teachings of Kato encompass a food additive composition comprising about 500ppb E-2-decenal (8.5% of ingredient A in the composition to be added to the food and beverage, wherein component A to B is in a ratio of 0.002 parts B to 100 parts A, and component B comprises about 30% of E-2-decenal).
Hall et al (Hall) teaches E-2-decenal is a flavoring ingredient (title and Survey of flavoring materials table page 7 and 20). Hall teaches that the average maximum use level of E-2-decenal which is considered generally recognized as safe in beverages is 3.4ppm (3,400ppb) (title and Survey of flavoring materials table page 7 and 20).
It would have been obvious for the beverage and citrus flavored product of Ryoko to comprise a composition comprising E-2-decenal in order to enhance the savor and texture of the beverage in view of Kato. It would have been further obvious to include the composition of Kato, and thus adjust the amount of E-2-decenal depending on the desired taste, savor, and texture impact. Furthermore, as Hall teaches that E-2-decenal is a flavoring ingredient which was known to be generally safe in beverages at levels of 3.4ppm (3,400ppb), it would have been obvious to use an amount of the composition that would include the E-2-decenal in a maximum amount of 3,400ppm. Thus, the claimed range is considered obvious over the teachings of the prior art. To use a known flavor/taste component for flavor/taste would have been particularly obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. It is additionally noted that as Kato teaches the E-2-decenal in an amount of about 500ppb in the enhancing component, when the component was added to the beverage, the beverage would necessarily comprise less than 500ppb E-2-decenal.
Regarding claim 6, Ryoko teaches the beverage is carbonated (paragraph 23).
Regarding the beverage as sugar-free as recited in claim 8, the term is defined in the instant specification as a beverage with a saccharide content of less than 0.5g per 100ml (paragraph 35). As Ryoko teaches the composition has 90-100% alcohol (paragraph 23) and does not require a saccharide ingredient, or any ingredient comprising saccharides at a level above 0.5% (all), the product of Ryoko encompasses, or alternatively, makes obvious a sugar-free product as claimed.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoko et al (JP 2015-123008 machine translation) in view of Kato et al (US 2020/0359644) and Hall et al (“Recent Progress in the Consideration of Flavoring Ingredients Under the Food Additives Amendment”) and as evidenced by Lemon Juice, further in view of Kodama et al (JP 2015-097513 machine translation).
As discussed above, Ryoko teaches lemon flavored beverages comprising: lemon juice and 0.08-26ppm (80-260ppb) gamma-terpinene. Ryoko is silent to the beverage as comprising sabinene from 2.5-500ppb in addition to the gamma-terpinene as recited in claim 3.
Kodama et al (Kodama) teaches improving the palatability of citrus beverages by including 0.1-15ppm (100-15,000ppb) sabinene (abstract, claims 1 and 2, and paragraphs 1, 8-10, 13, and 15).
It would have been obvious for the citrus beverage of Ryoko to comprise 100-15,00ppb sabinene in order to improve the palatability of the citrus beverage as taught by Kodama.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoko et al (JP 2015-123008 machine translation) in view of Kato et al (US 2020/0359644) and Hall et al (“Recent Progress in the Consideration of Flavoring Ingredients Under the Food Additives Amendment”) and Kodama et al (JP 2015-097513 machine translation), and as evidenced by Lemon Juice, further in view of Kazuki et al (JP 2020-089349 machine translation).
As discussed above, Ryoko teaches lemon flavored beverages comprising: lemon juice, i.e. citrus extract, and 0.08-26ppm (80-260ppb) gamma-terpinene, wherein it would have been obvious for the citrus beverage of Ryoko to comprise 100-15,00ppb sabinene in order to improve the palatability of the citrus beverage as taught by Kodama.
Ryoko is silent to the beverage as comprising a ratio of sabinene to gamma-terpinene of 1: 3-200 as recited in claim 4.
Kazuki et al (Kazuki) teaches of a beverage comprising flavor component A, which is in an amount of 0.0010-5.0ppm (1-5,000ppb) and is selected from the group including gamma-terpinene (overview, claim 2, and paragraphs 7, 20, and 24). Although Kazuki teaches the beverage as beer tasting, the beverage can also contain citrus flavors such as citrus extract and citric acid (paragraphs 45, 50, and 53), and thus is considered to encompass a citrus flavored beverage as claimed.
It would have been obvious for the beverage of Ryoko to comprise greater than 80-260ppb, including 1-5,000ppb gamma-terpinene in order to increase the flavor imparted by the component in view of Kazuki. As Kazuki teaches it was a known flavor component and was used for beverages within said amount, to do so would have been obvious and well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the product of the prior art encompasses one comprising 100-15,00ppb sabinene and 80-5,000ppb gamma-terpinene, and a product with an overlapping ratio as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05. The position is further supported as Ryoko teaches that the flavor materials and each component may be adjusted to a predetermined content by adjusting the flavor (paragraph 23).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoko et al (JP 2015-123008 machine translation) in view of Kato et al (US 2020/0359644) and Hall et al (“Recent Progress in the Consideration of Flavoring Ingredients Under the Food Additives Amendment”) and as evidenced by Lemon Juice, further in view of Fellows (Food processing technology Principles and practice 2nd Edition Woodhead Publishing Limited 2000, pages 466-467 and 479-481).
As discussed above, Ryoko teaches lemon flavored beverages. Ryoko teaches the beverage is packaged in a can (paragraph 23). Ryoko teaches that the invention reduces deterioration of citrus flavor which was known to be contributed by light (overview and paragraphs 2, 5, and 6).
Ryoko is silent to the beverage as packaged in a container with light transmission properties as recited in claim 5. Note: A container with light transmission properties is defined in the instant specification paragraphs 41 and 42 as a container which, at least in part, allows observation through the container.
Fellows, which is a textbook on food processing principles and practice teaches that glass was a known container [for foods] having the following advantages: impervious to moisture, gases, odors, and micro-organisms; inert and non-reactive with food products; similar filling speeds to cans; suitable heat processing when hermetically sealed; re-usable and recyclable; resealable; transparent to display contents; can be decorated; can be molded to a wide variety of shapes and colors; perceived by the consumer to add value to the product; and have good strength to allow stacking without damage (pages 479-481). Fellows teaches that light transmission is required in packages that intend to display contents, but known to be able to be restricted when foods are susceptible to deterioration by light with pigments, overwrap, and/or shipping containers (pages 466-467 Section 24.1.1 Light).
It would have been obvious for the beverage of Ryoko to be packaged in a glass container because of the many known benefits taught by Fellows, such as increased perception of value by the consumer; inert and non-reactive properties with foods; imperviousness; strength; and ability to display contents. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success as Fellows also teaches that light transmission is required in packages that intend to display contents, but that reduced light transmitting techniques can be used for foods susceptible to deterioration; and as Ryoko also teaches that the invention reduces deterioration of citrus flavor which was known to be contributed by light (overview and paragraphs 2, 5, and 6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 24, 2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejections have been withdrawn as the combination of Ryoko et al (JP 2015-123008 machine translation) in view of Wright, John (“Flavor Bites: trans-2-Decenal”) and as evidenced by Lemon Juice, raw teach a beverage comprising 1,000-10,000ppb E-2-decenal, and not a beverage comprising 0.5-500ppb E-2-decenal as required by claim 1 as amended May 6, 2026.
Regarding the argument of unexpected results, pages 5-6 of the remarks, the argument has been considered but it is not convincing. First it is noted that the evidence is limited to a specific composition that does not encompass the breadth of the claims; and second there is nothing to show that the argued result is nothing more than a cumulative result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Write shows that the primary name for tans-2-decenal is 2-decenal (page 1, column 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY BEKKER whose telephone number is (571)272-2739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 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.
KELLY BEKKER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1792
/KELLY J BEKKER/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights