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 .
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 1/9/2026
acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 10, and 15-16 are cancelled in the response filed 1/9/2026. Claims 4-9, 11-14, and new Claims 17-26 are examined herein.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takihara (JP 2012183026 A), taken with evidentiary reference of Goncalves (“An Overview on Cardamonin”, DOI: 10.1089/jmf.2013.0061)
Regarding Claims 4, 7, and 11, Takihara teaches a method for making a vinegar drink (Page 5, Paragraph 5). Note that vinegar is the same as acetic acid. Takihara teaches adding cardamom extract (Page 4, Paragraph 2).
It would have been obvious to have added a cardamom extract to a vinegar drink, as Takihara teaches a vinegar drink as an example of a beverage to which the cardamom extract can be added.
Takihara does not specifically address the addition of cardamonin.
Goncalves teaches that cardamonin is found in cardamom spice (Page 683, Column 2, Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to formulate the vinegar beverage of Takihara with cardamonin, as claimed, since Takihara teaches the addition of cardamom extract and cardamonin is a known component of cardamom.
Regarding the limitation that the food or beverage product have “reduced acid irritation”, given that the prior art teaches the limitations of cardamonin and acetic acid, the beverage of the prior art is interpreted to have the property of “reduced acid irritation” as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5 and 8, given that the prior art teaches the limitations of cardamonin and acetic acid, the beverage of the prior art is interpreted to have the property of “[reduced] throat irritation due to acetic acid”.
Regarding Claim 19, Takihara teaches the use of the composition as a seasoning (Page 4, Paragraph 5).
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takihara with evidentiary reference of Goncalves as applied to Claims 4 and 7, above, taken with evidentiary reference of Manandhar (“Phytochemical and Antioxidant Activity of Common Spices and Their Mix”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339367248_PHYTOCHEMICAL_AND_ANTIOXIDANT_ACTIVITY_OF_COMMON_SPICES_AND_THEIR_MIX_Phytochemical_and_Antioxidant_Activity_of_Common_Spices_and_their_Mix, reference is made to the provided excerpt) and Wang, et al. (“Cardamonin, a natural flavone, alleviates inflammatory bowel disease by the inhibition of NLRP3 inflammasome activation via an AhR/Nrf2/NQO1 pathway”, DOI: 10.1016/j.bcp.2018.07.039)
Regarding Claim 6 and 9, Takihara teaches the addition of cardamonin to a vinegar containing food or beverage product as addressed above in regards to Claims 4 and 7. Modified Takihara teaches that the cardamom extract is added at .0003-.0035 wt% (Page 4, Paragraph 3), which is 0.1-3.5 ppm. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the method of Takihara is interpreted to add “1x10-10 ppm or more and 100 ppm or less” of cardamonin, as claimed. Given that the claimed range spans 18 orders of magnitude, and additionally noting that 1x10-10 ppm (which is 1 part per 1x1016) lies outside the limits of detection for most modern scientific instrumentation, and additionally noting that 100 ppm is the same as .01%, one having ordinary skill would expect the addition of measurable amounts of a flavonoid to result in a beverage having the cardamonin content as claimed.
Note that Manandhar teaches that the total flavonoid content of a cardamom extract ranges from 55.6-84.5 mg/g, where the mg of flavonoid is measured as quercetin equivalents (Table 4.3). Note that cardamonin is a flavonoid, see evidentiary reference of Wang, Section 4, Paragraph 1). Therefore, the amount of cardamonin within a cardamom extract, such as the one taught by Takihara, is expected to lie within the claimed range.
Note that 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Claims 12, 13, 14, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takihara taken with evidentiary reference of Goncalves as applied to Claim 11, above, taken with evidentiary reference of Manandhar and in view of Nagel (US 2012/0177799).
Regarding Claim 12, modified Takihara teaches the method for making a “vinegar containing drink” comprising cardamom extract and cardamonin as discussed above in regards to Claim 11.
Takihara teaches that the cardamom extract is added at .0003-.0035 wt% (Page 4, Paragraph 3), which is 0.1-3.5 ppm. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the method of Takihara is interpreted to add “1x10-10 ppm or more and 100 ppm or less” of cardamonin, as claimed. Given that the claimed range spans 18 orders of magnitude, and additionally noting that 1x10-10 ppm (which is 1 part per 1x1016) lies outside the limits of detection for most modern scientific instrumentation, and additionally noting that 100 ppm is the same as .01%, one having ordinary skill would expect the addition of measurable amounts of a flavonoid to result in a beverage having the cardamonin content as claimed.
Note that Manandhar teaches that the total flavonoid content of a cardamom extract ranges from 55.6-84.5 mg/g, where the mg of flavonoid is measured as quercetin equivalents (Table 4.3). Note that cardamonin is a flavonoid, see evidentiary reference of Wang, Section 4, Paragraph 1). Therefore, the amount of cardamonin within a cardamom extract, such as the one taught by Takihara, is expected to lie within the claimed range.
Note that 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Modified Takihara additionally does not discuss a specific amount of acetic acid.
Nagel teaches a vinegar drink comprising 0.1-1.5% acetic acid, which overlaps the claimed range. Nagel teaches that this creates a “smoothened” flavour and “digestible” beverage [0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the amounts of vinegar in the vinegar drink of Nagel in the vinegar beverage of Takihara. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Nagel teaches that the ratios provide for a beverage with good flavor and digestibility.
Regarding Claim 13, where Takihara is interpreted to teach a beverage comprising the claimed amounts of cardamonin as discussed above in regards to Claim 12, and additionally where it would be obvious to include the vinegar amounts as claimed as discussed above in regards to Claim 12, and given the range of the claimed amounts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included the claimed ratio of cardamonin to acetic acid in the vinegar beverage of Takihara.
Regarding Claim 14, modified Takihara teaches the method for making a “vinegar containing drink” as discussed above in regards to Claim 11.
Takihara teaches the addition of cardamonin to a vinegar containing food or beverage product as addressed above in regards to Claim 11. Modified Takihara does not address the amount of added cardamonin.
Manandhar teaches that the total flavonoid content of a cardamom extract ranges from 55.6-84.5 mg/g, where the mg of flavonoid is measured as quercetin equivalents (Table 4.3). Note that cardamonin is a flavonoid, see evidentiary reference of Wang, Section 4, Paragraph 1).
Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the method of Takihara is interpreted to add “1x10-10 ppm or more and 100 ppm or less”, as claimed. Given the range of the claimed amounts, and additionally noting that 1x10-10 ppm (which is 1 part per 1x1016) lies outside the limits of detection for most modern scientific instrumentation, and additionally noting that 100 ppm is the same as 0.1 mg/g, one having ordinary skill would expect the addition of measurable amounts of a flavonoid to result in a beverage having the cardamonin content as claimed. Additionally, Examiner notes that the instant Specification teaches the use of an extract of cardamom (Page 5, [0013]) prepared by combining cardamom with a solvent, which is the same method as the extraction of Manandhar. The extract of Manandhar is therefore interpreted to the composition limitations of the instant Claim.
Note that 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Additionally, where Takihara is interpreted to teach a beverage comprising the claimed amounts of cardamonin as discussed above, and additionally where it would be obvious to include the vinegar amounts as claimed as discussed above, and given the range of the claimed ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included the claimed ratio of cardamonin to acetic acid in the vinegar beverage of Takihara.
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Takihara teaches the addition of cardamonin to a vinegar containing food or beverage product as addressed above in regards to Claim 4. Modified Takihara does not address the amount of added cardamonin, acetic acid, or their ratios.
Regarding the amount of cardamonin, Takihara teaches that the cardamom extract is added at .0003-.0035 wt% (Page 4, Paragraph 3), which is 0.1-3.5 ppm. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the method of Takihara is interpreted to add “1x10-10 ppm or more and 100 ppm or less” of cardamonin, as claimed. Given that the claimed range spans 18 orders of magnitude, and additionally noting that 1x10-10 ppm (which is 1 part per 1x1016) lies outside the limits of detection for most modern scientific instrumentation, and additionally noting that 100 ppm is the same as .01%, one having ordinary skill would expect the addition of measurable amounts of a flavonoid to result in a beverage having the cardamonin content as claimed.
Note that Manandhar teaches that the total flavonoid content of a cardamom extract ranges from 55.6-84.5 mg/g, where the mg of flavonoid is measured as quercetin equivalents (Table 4.3). Note that cardamonin is a flavonoid, see evidentiary reference of Wang, Section 4, Paragraph 1). Therefore, the amount of cardamonin within a cardamom extract, such as the one taught by Takihara, is expected to lie within the claimed range.
Note that 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding the amount of acetic acid, Nagel teaches a vinegar drink comprising 0.1-1.5% acetic acid, which overlaps the claimed range. Nagel teaches that this creates a “smoothened” flavour and “digestible” beverage [0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the amounts of vinegar in the vinegar drink of Nagel in the vinegar beverage of Takihara. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Nagel teaches that the ratios provide for a beverage with good flavor and digestibility.
Regarding the ratio of acetic acid to cardamonin, where Takihara is interpreted to teach a beverage comprising the claimed amounts of cardamonin as discussed above, and additionally where it would be obvious to include the vinegar amounts as claimed as discussed above, and given the range of the claimed ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included the claimed ratio of cardamonin to acetic acid in the vinegar beverage of Takihara.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Takihara teaches the addition of cardamom extract (Page 4, Paragraph 2) to a vinegar containing food or beverage product such as a vinegar drink (Page 5, Paragraph 5). Modified Takihara does not address the amount of added cardamonin, acetic acid, or their ratios, or the specific type of vinegar.
Regarding the amount of cardamonin, Takihara teaches that the cardamom extract is added at .0003-.0035 wt% (Page 4, Paragraph 3), which is 0.1-3.5 ppm. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the method of Takihara is interpreted to add “1x10-10 ppm or more and 100 ppm or less” of cardamonin, as claimed. Given that the claimed range spans 18 orders of magnitude, and additionally noting that 1x10-10 ppm (which is 1 part per 1x1016) lies outside the limits of detection for most modern scientific instrumentation, and additionally noting that 100 ppm is the same as .01%, one having ordinary skill would expect the addition of measurable amounts of a flavonoid to result in a beverage having the cardamonin content as claimed.
Note that Manandhar teaches that the total flavonoid content of a cardamom extract ranges from 55.6-84.5 mg/g, where the mg of flavonoid is measured as quercetin equivalents (Table 4.3). Note that cardamonin is a flavonoid, see evidentiary reference of Wang, Section 4, Paragraph 1). Therefore, the amount of cardamonin within a cardamom extract, such as the one taught by Takihara, is expected to lie within the claimed range.
Note that 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding the amount of acetic acid and the type of vinegar, Nagel teaches a vinegar drink comprising 0.1-1.5% acetic acid, which overlaps the claimed range. Nagel teaches that this creates a “smoothened” flavour and “digestible” beverage [0031]. Nagel teaches the use of vinegar derived from, e.g. rice wine (which is rice wine vinegar) [0005]. Nagel teaches that rice vinegar is appropriate for a “digestible” and “pleasant” soft drink.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize rice wine vinegar in the amounts taught by Nagel in the vinegar beverage of Takihara. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Nagel teaches that the ratios provide for a beverage with good flavor and digestibility, and the selection of rice wine vinegar provides for a digestible and pleasant soft drink.
Regarding the ratio of acetic acid to cardamonin, where Takihara is interpreted to teach a beverage comprising the claimed amounts of cardamonin as discussed above, and additionally where it would be obvious to include the vinegar amounts as claimed as discussed above, and given the range of the claimed ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included the claimed ratio of cardamonin to acetic acid in the vinegar beverage of Takihara.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takihara taken with evidentiary reference of Goncalves as applied to Claim 11, above, taken with evidentiary reference of Manandhar and in view of Science Buddies (https://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project-ideas/Chem_p045/chemistry/measuring-the-amount-of-acid-in-vinegar-by-titration-with-an-indicator-solution, reference is made to the provided archival version)
Regarding Claim 24, Takihara teaches the food product comprising cardamonin as discussed above in regards to Claim 11. Note that Takihara teaches a seasoning and dressing (Page 5, Paragraph 5).
Takihara does not address a specific amount of cardamonin, acetic acid, or their ratio.
Regarding the amount of cardamonin, Takihara teaches that the cardamom extract is added at .0003-.0035 wt% (Page 4, Paragraph 3), which is 0.1-3.5 ppm. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the method of Takihara is interpreted to add “1x10-10 ppm or more and 100 ppm or less” of cardamonin, as claimed. Given that the claimed range spans 18 orders of magnitude, and additionally noting that 1x10-10 ppm (which is 1 part per 1x1016) lies outside the limits of detection for most modern scientific instrumentation, and additionally noting that 100 ppm is the same as .01%, one having ordinary skill would expect the addition of measurable amounts of a flavonoid to result in a beverage having the cardamonin content as claimed.
Note that Manandhar teaches that the total flavonoid content of a cardamom extract ranges from 55.6-84.5 mg/g, where the mg of flavonoid is measured as quercetin equivalents (Table 4.3). Note that cardamonin is a flavonoid, see evidentiary reference of Wang, Section 4, Paragraph 1). Therefore, the amount of cardamonin within a cardamom extract, such as the one taught by Takihara, is expected to lie within the claimed range.
Note that 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding the amount of acetic acid, Science Buddies teaches that vinegar is used in dressings (Abstract) and “table vinegar”, such as vinegar derived from rice, typically contains 4-6% acetic acid (Introduction, Paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a table vinegar derived from rice in the dressing of Takihara. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Science Buddies teaches that such a vinegar is appropriate for use in a dressing.
Regarding the ratio of acetic acid to cardamonin, where Takihara is interpreted to teach a beverage comprising the claimed amounts of cardamonin as discussed above, and additionally where it would be obvious to include the vinegar amounts as claimed as discussed above, and given the range of the claimed ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included the claimed ratio of cardamonin to acetic acid in the vinegar beverage of Takihara.
Claim 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takihara taken with evidentiary reference of Goncalves, Manandhar, and Wang, and in view of Nagel, taken with evidentiary reference of Science Buddies.
Regarding Claims 25 and 26, modified Takihara teaches the addition of cardamom extract (Page 4, Paragraph 2) to a vinegar containing food or beverage product such as a vinegar drink (Page 5, Paragraph 5).
Takihara does not specifically address the addition of cardamonin.
Goncalves teaches that cardamonin is found in cardamom spice (Page 683, Column 2, Paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to formulate the beverage of Takihara with cardamonin, as claimed, since Takihara teaches the addition of cardamom extract and cardamonin is a known component of cardamom.
Regarding the limitation that the food or beverage have the quality of “reduced acid irritation”, given that the prior art teaches the limitations of cardamonin and acetic acid, the beverage of the prior art is interpreted to have the property of “reduced acid irritation” as claimed.
Takihara does not address the amount of added cardamonin, acetic acid, or their ratios, or added water.
Regarding the amount of cardamonin, Takihara teaches that the cardamom extract is added at .0003-.0035 wt% (Page 4, Paragraph 3), which is 0.1-3.5 ppm. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, the method of Takihara is interpreted to add “1x10-10 ppm or more and 100 ppm or less” of cardamonin, as claimed. Given that the claimed range spans 18 orders of magnitude, and additionally noting that 1x10-10 ppm (which is 1 part per 1x1016) lies outside the limits of detection for most modern scientific instrumentation, and additionally noting that 100 ppm is the same as .01%, one having ordinary skill would expect the addition of measurable amounts of a flavonoid to result in a beverage having the cardamonin content as claimed.
Note that Manandhar teaches that the total flavonoid content of a cardamom extract ranges from 55.6-84.5 mg/g, where the mg of flavonoid is measured as quercetin equivalents (Table 4.3). Note that cardamonin is a flavonoid, see evidentiary reference of Wang, Section 4, Paragraph 1). Therefore, the amount of cardamonin within a cardamom extract, such as the one taught by Takihara, is expected to lie within the claimed range.
Note that 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding the amount of acetic acid, Nagel teaches a vinegar drink comprising 0.1-1.5% acetic acid, which overlaps the claimed range. Nagel teaches that this creates a “smoothened” flavour and “digestible” beverage [0031].
Nagel additionally teaches the addition of water [0031] to adjust the acetic acid in “table vinegar” acetic acid concentration to 0.1-1.5%.
Note that “table vinegar” typically contains 4-6% acetic acid (see evidentiary reference of Science Buddies, Introduction, Paragraph 1). Nagel therefore teaches the addition of 2.6-60 (4/1.5 to 6/0.1) parts water to vinegar, which encompasses the claimed range. Nagel teaches that this creates a “smoothened” flavour and “digestible” beverage [0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize vinegar in the amounts taught by Nagel in the vinegar beverage of Takihara. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Nagel teaches that the ratios provide for a beverage with good flavor and digestibility.
Regarding the ratio of acetic acid to cardamonin, where Takihara is interpreted to teach a beverage comprising the claimed amounts of cardamonin as discussed above, and additionally where it would be obvious to include the vinegar amounts as claimed as discussed above, and given the range of the claimed ratio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to have included the claimed ratio of cardamonin to acetic acid in the vinegar beverage of Takihara.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takihara taken with evidentiary reference of Goncalves, as applied to Claim 4, above, in view of Nagel, taken with evidentiary reference of Science Buddies.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Takihara teaches a vinegar beverage as discussed above in regards to Claim 4, but does not discuss a specific amount of acetic acid.
Nagel teaches the addition of water [0031] to adjust the acetic acid concentration to 0.1-1.5%.
Note that “table vinegar” typically contains 4-6% acetic acid (see evidentiary reference of Science Buddies, Introduction, Paragraph 1). Nagel therefore teaches the addition of 2.6-60 (4/1.5 to 6/0.1) parts water to vinegar, which encompasses the claimed range. Nagel teaches that this creates a “smoothened” flavour and “digestible” beverage [0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the ratios of the vinegar drink of Nagel in the vinegar beverage of Takihara. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Nagel teaches that the ratios provide for a beverage with good flavor and digestibility.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takihara taken with evidentiary reference of Goncalves as applied to Claim 4, above, in view of Nagel.
Regarding Claim 18, modified Takihara teaches a vinegar beverage as discussed above in regards to Claim 4, and additionally teaches the addition of fruit extracts (Page 3, “Advantage of the Invention”, Paragraphs 3-5) but does not specifically discuss the addition of fruit juice.
Nagel teaches the addition of fruit juice [0030] to a vinegar beverage provides a natural colour and antioxidant source to the vinegar beverage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize fruit juice in the beverage of Takihara as taught by Nagel. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to utilize a natural source of colour and antioxidants to the beverage.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Takihara teaches a vinegar beverage as discussed above in regards to Claim 4, but does not discuss a specific source of the vinegar.
Nagel teaches the use of vinegar derived from, e.g. rice wine (which is rice wine vinegar) [0005]. Nagel teaches that rice vinegar is appropriate for a “digestible” and “pleasant” soft drink.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a rice wine vinegar in the vinegar beverage of Takihara. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to formulate a digestible and pleasant soft drink.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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 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.
/D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights