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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, species carbonated sugar-free and beverages in the reply filed on November 14, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 7, 9, and 10 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ryoko et al (JP 2015-123008 machine translation) 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 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.
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 a sugar-free product as claimed.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kazuki et al (JP 2020-089349 machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Kazuki et al (Kazuki) teaches 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), thus encompassing a beverage comprising 1-5,000ppb gamma-terpinene. As Kazuki teaches that the beverage comprises coffee-extract (paragraph 50), which contains unsaturated fatty acids, the beverage of Kazuki comprises unsaturated fatty acids.
Regarding claim 5, Kazuki teaches that the beverage is packaged in order to provide easy transportation and that cans or bottles, including colorless transparent bottles, i.e. containers having light transmission properties, can be used since there are not sunlight sensitive ingredients (paragraph 43). It is noted that 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.
Regarding claim 6, Kazuki teaches that the beverage is carbonated (paragraphs 10 and 54).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoko et al (JP 2015-123008 machine translation) as evidenced by Lemon Juice, further in view of (JP50000770 B1 machine translation).
As discussed above, Ryoko teaches lemon flavored beverages in which deterioration of citrus flavor is suppressed comprising: lemon juice and 0.08-26ppm (80-260ppb) gamma-terpinene. Ryoko is silent to the beverage as comprising 0.5-500ppb E-2-decenal as recited in claim 2.
JP50000770 B1 (‘770) teaches in the claims that the flavor enhancement method for beverages includes adding E-2-decenal from 0.02-400ppb. ‘770 teaches the addition of wasabi flavor has been shown to develop products with higher palatability and added value (Description, last paragraph).
Regarding the beverage as comprising 0.5-500ppb E-2-decenal as recited in claim 2, it would have been obvious for the beverage of Ryoko to comprise 0.02-400ppb E-2-decenal for flavor enhancement and product development with higher palatability and added value in view of ‘770.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoko et al (JP 2015-123008 machine translation) 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 in which deterioration of citrus flavor is suppressed 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.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryoko et al (JP 2015-123008 machine translation) as evidenced by Lemon Juice in view of Kodama et al (JP 2015-097513 machine translation), further in view of Kazuki et al (JP 2020-089349 machine translation).
As discussed above, Ryoko teaches lemon flavored beverages in which deterioration of citrus flavor is suppressed comprising: lemon juice 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 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 comprising a ratio of sabinene to gamma-terpinene of 1: 3-200 as recited in claim 4, and to the beverage as packaged in a container with light transmission properties as recited in claim 5.
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). Kazuki teaches that the beverage is packaged in order to provide easy transportation and that cans or bottles, including colorless transparent bottles can be used since there are not sunlight sensitive ingredients (paragraph 43).
Regarding the beverage as comprising a ratio of sabinene to gamma-terpinene of 1: 3-200 as recited in claim 4, 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).
Regarding the beverage as packaged in a container with light transmission properties as recited in claim 5, although Ryoko teaches the beverage as packaged, it would have been further obvious for the beverage to be packaged for ease of transportation in view of Kazuki. 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. It would have been obvious to use known beverage packaging containers including a container with light transmission properties as taught by Kazuki in order to allow the consumer to see the product. As Ryoko teaches the product has suppressed deterioration of the citrus flavor, and as Kazuki teaches of a similar beverage that can also be stored in a container with light transmission properties, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
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