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 status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to the claims on 10/13/2025.
Claims 9-12 and 16-31 are pending in the application. Claim 9-10 are currently amended. Claims 11-12 are previously presented. Claims 13-15 are currently cancelled. Claims 16-31 are newly presented. Claims 9-12 and 16-31 are hereby examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-12, 16-18, 23-28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 9 and 25 recite a food or beverage that comprises less than 400 ppm steviol glycosides. The examiner does not find support for such a limitation in the disclosure as originally filed. The examiner notes that the page 4, line 14-20 and Example 1 of the instant specification recites a strawberry flavored water, a tropical juice or orange CSD containing 200 ppm a specific steviol glycoside formulation (e.g., SG95). However, there is no recitation of a generic food or beverage that comprises less than 400 ppm of generic steviol glycoside in the disclosure. Claims 16, 17, 23, 24, 26, 27, 30 and 31 are rejected for the same reason. Claims 10-12, 18 and 28 are rejected for their dependency from claim 9 or 25.
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 10 and 20 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 10 depends from claim 9 and recites enhancing the sweet taste of the food or beverage product by an amount of 1-2 °Bx relative to a comparable food or beverage product not prepared with hesperetin dihydrochalcone. It is unclear what the comparable food or beverage product comprises such they are “comparable”. For the purpose of examination, the comparable food or beverage product is a food or beverage product that has the same components as the food or beverage product of claim 9 but not prepared with hesperetin dihydrochalcone. Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9-12 and 16-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bell US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0342043 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Bell) in view of Krammer WO2017/186299 A1 (cited in the third party submission under 37 CFR 1.290 dated 03/21/2024, hereinafter referred to as Krammer).
Regarding claims 9-12 and 16-31, Bell teaches a food product such as a beverage that comprises water, an acidulant, a flavoring and a sweetener composition comprising a sweetening amount of Rebaudioside M (e.g., 100-600 ppm) and optionally one or more other sweeteners (0008-009). The amount of steviol glycosides (e.g., Rebaudioside M) as disclosed by Bell overlaps with the ranges as recited in claims 9, 16-17, 23-27 and 30-31. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding the limitation that the food or beverage product comprises only steviol glycosides as a sweetener as recited in claims 18, 19 and 28-29, Bell teaches that the sweetener composition in the beverage optionally comprises one or more sweetener (008), thus encompassing the embodiment that the beverage only comprises Rebaudioside M as the sweetener. MPEP 2123, reference disclosing optional inclusion of a particular component teaches compositions that both do and do not contain that component.
Bell is silent regarding introducing to the food product hesperetin dihydrochalcone in an amount of 2-50 ppm to improve the flavor profile of the food product.
Krammer teaches a method of enhancing a sweet taste and reducing a bitter taste of a food or beverage product, the method comprising introducing to a food or beverage product that comprises a steviol glycoside such as rebaudioside M a compound of hesperetin dihydrochalcone in an amount of 1 ppm to 10 ppm by weight, based on a total weight of the food or beverage product (abstract; 0045; 0051; 0065; 0072-0073; 0076; 0115; 00117; 0121).
Both Bell and Krammer are directed to beverages that comprises a steviol glycoside such as Rebaudioside M as a sweetener. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Bell by including 1 ppm to 10 ppm hesperetin dihydrochalcone in the beverage of Bell for enhancing a sweet taste and reducing a bitter taste of the beverage that comprises Rebaudioside M.
The amount of hesperetin dihydrochalcone as disclosed by Krammer overlaps with the ranges as recited in claims 9, 19, 25 and 29. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Further regarding claims 10 and 20, given that the amount of increase in the degree of sweetness (e.g., Brix or Bx) depends on the amount of hesperetin dihydrochalcone added to the food or beverage product, and Krammer teaches a hesperetin dihydrochalcone amount that overlaps with the range as recited in claims 9 and 19, it logically follows that prior art method will result in a °Bx increase that overlaps with the range of 1-2 °Bx increase of the sweet taste.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/13/2025 have been fully considered and the examiner’s response is shown below.
Regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection of claim 10, applicant argues on page 5 of the Remarks that amending the claim to recite that the control is a comparable food or beverage not prepared with hesperetin dihydrochalcone would overcome the rejection.
The examiner disagrees. It is unclear what the comparable food or beverage encompasses such that they are comparable. See para. 8 of the instant office action.
Applicant’s argument regarding Krammer fails to teach limitations about the steviol glycosides amount and about steviol glycosides being the only sweetener in the food or beverage has been considered but found moot over the new ground of rejection set forth in the instant office action.
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 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 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights