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 of Group I, claims 1, 2, 6 and 11-17 in the reply filed on 10/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 29, 62 and 65 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Further, because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim status
Claims 1, 2, 6, 11-17, 29, 62 and 65 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 2, 6 and 11-17 are previously presented. Claims 29, 62 and 65 are withdrawn without traverse in response to the restriction requirement. Claims 1, 2, 6 and 11-17 and are hereby examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a product” in line 2 should read “the product”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the concentrations of the first, the second and third taste modulator components. It is unclear whether the concentrations as recited are by weight of the taste modulator composition, or by weight of the product. For the purpose of examination, the concentrations are considered to be by weight of the product. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2, 6 and 11-17 ultimately depend from claim 1 and therefore necessarily incorporate the indefinite subject matter therein. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 recited that the bitterness in the product is diminished by at least 100% compared to the baseline product. However, while the bitterness in the product is diminished by 100% can be interpreted to mean that the bitterness of the product is 100% neutralized, it is unclear what the bitterness in the product is diminished by more than 100% is referring to. Does it mean that the product is sweeter than the baseline product? Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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, 2, 6 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dubois WO 2019/202402 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Dubois).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 6 and 11-12, Dubois teaches a sweetener composition comprising a sweetening agent (for example, a non-caloric sweetener the example of which is a steviol glycoside such as Reb A, 0131), and a taste modulator composition; wherein the latter could mitigate bitter off-taste associated with the former and improve sweetness (0007; 0136); and wherein the taste modulator composition comprises a first salt having a first cation selected from Na+, K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+ and a first anion (e.g., citrate, phosphate, chloride, carbonate, sulfate, etc.); (optionally), a second salt having a second cation selected from Na+, K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+ and a second anion (e.g., citrate, phosphate, chloride, carbonate, sulfate, etc.); and (optionally), a third salt having a third cation selected from Na+, K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+ and a third anion (e.g., citrate, phosphate, chloride, carbonate, sulfate, etc.) (0049-0051); and specifically, Dubois includes an embodiment teaching the combination of K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+ as the first, second and third cations (0054).
Further, Dubois teaches a food product, a beverage including fruit juice and lemonade, see para. 0256; 0424; 1201; 1222) or a medicament (e.g., pharmaceutical and nutraceutical) comprising the sweetening composition that comprises the sweetener and the taste modulator composition (0011-0012; 0424; 0255), wherein the concentration of Mg2+ is 1-5 mM (0440), the concentration of Ca2+ is 1-5 mM (0445), and the concentration of K+ (or Na+) is 1-10 mM (0431;0435); for example, a beverage comprises the sweetener agent and the taste modulator composition, wherein the concentration of Mg2+ is 0.1 -5 mM or narrowly 1-5 mM, the concentration of Ca2+ is 0.1 -5 mM or narrowly 1-5 mM, and the concentration of K+ is 0.1- 10 mM or narrowly 1-10 mM (0200; 0213; 0216; 1034; 1062; 1082). Dubois further teaches the step of adding the taste modulator composition to the product (1201; 1222). Further, Dubois teaches a method of increasing the taste and flavor intensity of a food product (e.g., comestible) comprising the step of combining the comestible product with the taste modulator composition (0236).
Alternatively, where Dubois teaches that the aforementioned taste modulator composition is able to mitigate a bitter off-taste associated with a noncaloric sweetener such as Reb A, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have added the taste modulator composition to a food or a medicament comprising the noncaloric sweetener so as to mitigate bitter off-taste associated with the noncaloric sweetener present in the food or the medicament and improve the sweetness. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for doing so because prior art has established that the aforementioned taste modulator composition is able to mitigate a bitter off-taste associated with a noncaloric sweetener
A food product, a beverage or a medicament that comprises a non-caloric sweetener such as Reb A is known to be associated with a bitter taste (see Dubois para. 0003-0006). Further, a lemonade is known to be associated with a bitter taste, due to the presence of natural bitter compounds in lemon juice.
Dubois as recited above teaches a taste modulator composition comprises a first taste modulator component which is a Mg2+ salt, (optionally) a second taste modulator component which is a Ca2+ salt and (optionally) a third taste modulator component is a K+ salt, thus reads on the claim limitation that the taste modulator composition “consists essentially of” 3 taste modulator components each of which consisting essentially of one salt.
Given that Dubois teaches a product (e.g., food product, beverage and medicament) that contains the same amounts of K+, Ca2+ and Mg2+ as that recited in the claim, it logically follows that the product that comprises the taste modulator composition has a bitterness that is at least 10%, 50% and 100% diminished compared to a baseline product that is devoid of the taste modulator composition, when measured by a sensory panel. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2112.01 II).See MPEP 2112.01 I, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 13, Dubois includes an embodiment teaching the assessment of the effect of a taste modulator composition that is formed of 3.4 mM MgCl2, 6.4 mM CaCl2 and 12 mM KCl on a lemonade that comprises lemon juice and Reb A (Example 9.2, e.g., para. [1222-1223].
Regarding claim 14, Dubois includes an embodiment teaching the assessment of the effect of a taste modulator composition that is formed of 3.4 mM MgCl2, 6.4 mM CaCl2 and 12 mM KCl on a lemon-lime flavored beverage that comprises Reb A (Example 8.1, e.g., para. [1201-1202]).
Regarding claim 15-17, Dubois teaches a medicament (a pharmaceutical formulation) formulated as a pill (e.g., tablet), or a suspension for enteral application (0258). Enteral application encompasses an oral administration. Further, incorporation of a sweetener such as steviol glycoside in a pharmaceutical formulation suggests that the formulation in for oral administration. See also para. [0225), which teaches that the taste modulator composition is for orally administered medicinal or nutraceutical products.
Double Patenting
Claims 2 and 6 of this application are patentably indistinct from claims 1 and 6 respectively of Application No. 18/640,711. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
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.
Claims 1, and 11-13, 15-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 13, 15-19, 21, 23, 25 and 28 of copending Application No. 18/640,711 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because aforementioned claims of ‘711 teaches a method of inhibiting bitterness in a product comprising adding the same taste modulator composition as recited in the instant claim at the same amounts to the product.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 2, 6 and 11-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 93-112 of copending Application No. 18/676,083 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of ‘083 teaches a method of inhibiting bitterness in a beverage comprising adding the same taste modulator composition as recited in the instant claim at the same amounts to the beverage.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Pertinent art
-The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure
Vasquez (US 2005/0123670), which teaches savory compositions comprising a taste modulator composition that consists essentially of a combination of potassium chloride, calcium chloride and a magnesium salt that is preferably magnesium chloride (0039, 0042, 0050). Regarding the amounts of the taste modulators, Vasquez does teach 1-3% magnesium salt, 2-15% calcium chloride and 5- 15% potassium chloride in the taste modulator composition that is added to the savory composition [0039, 0042].
-Prakash (US2008/0292765), which teaches that inorganic salts including potassium chloride, potassium sulfate, magnesium sulfate, magnesium chloride, calcium sulfate, calcium phosphate, etc. are able to enhance the sweetness of a sweetener such as Reb A, stevia, mogroside IV, et., and also teaches a sweetener composition comprising a sweetener above and 25-5000 ppm sweet taste improving inorganic salt (0833-0834).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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 Dees can be reached on 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791