Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/644,875

SWEETENING COMPOSITIONS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Apr 24, 2024
Examiner
MORNHINWEG, JEFFREY P
Art Unit
1793
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
PepsiCo, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
36%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 11m
To Grant
70%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 36% of cases
36%
Career Allow Rate
200 granted / 558 resolved
-29.2% vs TC avg
Strong +34% interview lift
Without
With
+33.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 11m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
620
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.0%
-37.0% vs TC avg
§103
48.8%
+8.8% vs TC avg
§102
15.6%
-24.4% vs TC avg
§112
22.0%
-18.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 558 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . Double Patenting 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 30-47 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 17, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,998,033 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons. Claims 30, 31, 35, 39, and 43 are narrower in scope than claim 11 of the ‘033 patent (fewer additional steviol glycosides are in the claimed group) and would thus be obvious in view of claim 11. Claims 32-34, 36-38, 40-42, 44 and 45 merely require ratios of components, with no concentration of any component required, and would consequently be obvious in view of claim 11 of the ‘033 patent, which effectively renders any relative relationship between steviol glycosides obvious. Claim 46 is narrower in scope than claim 17 of the ‘033 patent (fewer additional steviol glycosides are in the claimed group) and would thus be obvious in view of claim 17. Claim 47 is narrower in scope than claim 23 of the ‘033 patent (fewer additional steviol glycosides are in the claimed group) and would thus be obvious in view of claim 23. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 30-47 are allowable over the prior art for the same reasons as those detailed in the parent application 18/319,067, now U.S. Patent No. 11,998,033 B2, as detailed in paragraphs 4-7 of the Notice of Allowance filed 04/08/2024. Should Applicant overcome the above nonstatutory double patenting rejections of the claims, the application would be in condition for allowance. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG whose telephone number is (571)270-5272. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM. 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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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. /JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 24, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599157
NATURAL SWEETENING FLAVOR COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12550923
ALLULOSE SYRUPS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12520863
Compositions used for sweetened substances
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12514274
GRANULATION OF A STEVIA SWEETENER
2y 5m to grant Granted Jan 06, 2026
Patent 12490754
WHEY PROTEIN-BASED, HIGH PROTEIN, YOGHURT-LIKE PRODUCT, INGREDIENT SUITABLE FOR ITS PRODUCTION, AND METHOD OF PRODUCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Dec 09, 2025
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
36%
Grant Probability
70%
With Interview (+33.7%)
3y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 558 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month