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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/23/26 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 07/23/26 is acknowledged. Claims 14-15 are cancelled. Claims 22-23 are new. Claims 1-13, 16-23 are under examination in this Office Action.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-13, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satoh et al. (US 5,264,421), hereinafter Satoh, as evidenced by Ingredi.com (What is Citric Acid and How is it Used? - Ingredi. Obtained on 08/12/2026 from URL:< https://ingredi.com/blog/what-is-citric-acid-and-how-is-it-used-/?srsltid=AfmBOoopEhf91_X-0VViwIa2uDYDtApWgLmkb2UigHZqJBYNJxQlySz9>. Published Dec 11, 2018), and Van Beek et al. (Journal of Chromatography A 464 (1991): 375-386.)
Satoh discloses a food composition which comprises a fermentation solution obtained from the lactic acid fermentation of an aqueous liquorice extract, which contains, per part by weight of isoliquiritin, 16 to 500 parts by weight of lactic acid and to 30 parts by weight of glycyrrhizin ( Claim 1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 11, Satoh teaches food compositions comprising a composition for food comprising 16 to 500 parts by weight of lactic acid, per 1 part by weight of isoliquiritin, 1/3 to 30 parts by weight glycyrrhizin based on 1 part by weight of isoliquiritin (Table 3; Example 2-Example 4). Looking at Example 4, the isoliquiritin is calculated to be 0.75% of the composition I for a food. Satoh teaches 25-fold dilution of compositions I with water, which the Examiner calculates to be equivalent to 300 ppm isoliquiritin, which anticipates Claim 1 (Col. 7, lines 40-41).
PNG
media_image1.png
294
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2, 12, and 22-23, Satoh expressly teaches preparing functional food wherein composition I is present at 5g in the 1000 cc soft drink (Example 12). The isoliquiritin is calculated to be 37.5 ppm, which reads on the claimed range. [Calculation: 0.0075 x 5g /1000g x100% x 10,000 ppm]. As such, Claim 13 is also obvious.
Regarding Claim 4, the soft drink composition comprises fruit sugar, grape sugar, liquid sugar (Example 12).
Regarding Claim 9, the soft drink composition comprises citric acid which is a bitter/tart pharmaceutic compound (Example 12), as evidenced by Ingredi.com (p. 3, last paragraph; p. 4, last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 10, the soft drink composition comprises grapefruit juice, which comprises limonin (Example 12), as evidenced by Van Beek et al. (Abstract).
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 3, 5, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh as applied to Claims 1-2, 4, 9-13, and 22-23 above, and in view of Shi et al. (CN 112218542 A; machine translated in IP.com; Of record), hereinafter Shi.
Satoh does not expressly teach the claimed bitter tastant and high intensity sweetener.
Shi is in the same field, and teaches a sweetener and a flavor composition with improved taste profile (Abstract). Shi also understands the demand for low-salt foods and beverages, and the need to find a solution to improve saltiness without increasing sodium intake (p. 4, 5th paragraph).
Shi recognizes naringin and neohesperidin as bitter tastants present in citrus fruits and juices along with limonin (p. 45, Section B8). Shi identified naringin as polyphenol antioxidants which can produce a variety of health benefits, including prevention of cancer, heart disease, and chronic inflammation, as well as mental and physical enhancement (p. 66, 2nd paragraph). As such, Shi is compatible with Satoh.
Regarding Claim 3 and 21, Shi discloses a method for producing flavoring agent or flavor enhancer for food, beverage, feed or pharmaceutical comprises adding one or more sweet taste enhancers and/or ingredients selected from eriodictyol, homoeriodictyol, naringin etc.(p. 140, #65, #67 #70, #72). Shi teaches that eriodictyol as a bitter-masking flavonoid glycoside (p. 35, last paragraph). (p. 45, Section B8; p. 66, 3rd paragraph). Furthermore,
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Shi with Satoh and add bitter-masking compounds such as eriodictyol and naringin, while also imparting or enhancing sweetness with the licorice extract of Satoh.
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, Shi teaches embodiments wherein its composition comprises at least one sweetener such as steviol glycoside, rubusoside, mogroside or liquiritigenin, reading on the high intensity sweetener in Claim 5 (p. 99, last paragraph). Shi relates the problem with increasing population of obese and diabetic patients, which requires limiting sugar in diet, and that high-intensity natural sugar substitutes, such as stevia extract etc. can be used to provide low-sugar foods and beverages to promote a healthy diet (p. 95, last 2 paragraphs).
It would also have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the sugar in Satoh with high intensity sugar substitutes to provide low-sugar foods and beverages to promote a healthy diet.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh, as applied to Claims 1-2, 4, 9-13, and 22-23 above, and in view of Jin et al. (CN 101473953 A; Machine Translated IP.com), hereinafter Jin.
Satoh does not teach potassium salt.
Jin relates the invention of a functional healthy food comprising potassium salt, wherein the functional healthy food controls the exorbitant contents of glucose, fat and sodium salt in blood in vivo, reducing toxins, promoting blood circulation etc. to prevent aging and prolong lifespan (Abstract).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Jin teaches that using potassium salt as seasoning salt controls the level of sodium salt, and thereby controls the blood pressure and stabilizes blood sugar, particularly in hypertensive patients (p. 2, 3rd from last paragraph; p. 23, 3rd paragraph). Jin expressly teaches mixing a bitter-removing flavoring agent into potassium chloride into the nutrition seasoning salt; liquiritin or liquiritigenin juice, sweet stevia, or adding artificial sweetener such as sodium cyclamate or acesulfame potassium to potassium chloride to eliminate bitter taste of potassium chloride (p. 7, 5th paragraph).
Satoh expressly teaches a food composition comprising the composition I and sodium chloride (Example 13). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Jin with that of Satoh, and replace the NaCl in the composition of Satoh, with KCl, with the expectation that the liquiritin of Satoh would mask the bitter taste of KCl. One would have been motivated to replace the NaCl with KCl to control the blood pressure and stabilize blood sugar, particularly in hypertensive patients.
Claims 7-8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh as applied to Claims 1-2, 4, 9-13, and 22-23 above, and in view of Timko, M. (Nutritional Outlook; Of Record), hereinafter Timko.
Satoh is silent on the non-animal protein and plant protein.
Timko relates the increasing presence of plant-based proteins in food and supplement market (p. 2).
Regarding Claims 7-8 and 18-19, Timko cures the deficiency by teaching that proteins derived from plant sources such as pea, rice, and chia, have unpleasant taste often hard to endure with bitter notes and vegetative aftertastes (pp. 2-3). Timko recognizes flavor masking as a tool to suppress this unpleasant taste using sweeteners and flavoring (pp. 3-4).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Timko and Satoh, and use the method and composition of Satoh to mask the bitter notes and vegetative aftertaste in products containing plant proteins.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Satoh, as applied to Claims 1-2, 4, 9-13, and 22-23 above, and in further view of Bains, K. (WO2020061584A1; Of record), hereinafter Bains.
Satoh do not teach the specific pharmaceutical bitter tastant claimed. However, Satoh comprehends the combination of its composition with bitter tastants, i.e. citric acid, used in pharmaceutics (Examples 12-13).
Regarding Claim 20, Bains teaches sublingual dosage form comprising one or more bitter active agents (Claim 1). In one embodiment, the bitter active ingredient comprises erythromycin [00182].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the method of Satoh, and incorporate the flavor-modifying compound in the dosage form containing API erythromycin, which Bains identified to be a bitter active ingredient, to mask its bitter and unpleasant taste, and thereby improve patient experience and adherence to medication regimen.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant argues that Pan does not disclose methods the amended features, particularly the ranges of the flavor-modifying compounds .
The crux of Applicant’s argument appears to be centered on Pan not disclosing the amended features of the claims. However, Pan is no longer relied on for the rejection supra because Satoh was found to be the closest prior art that rendered the amended claims anticipated or obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6 EST.
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 on (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.
/JANICE Y SILVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights