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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-7, 10-15 and 17-25) in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged.
Elected claims 1-7, 10-15 and 17-25 are examined and claim 26 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 12, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuchiya (US 20060115518), hereinafter Tsuchiya.
Regarding claim 1, Tsuchiya (US 200601 15518) teaches a composition comprising:
potassium chloride; i.e. KCI {para 17 describes "potassium chloride is preferably used" for "content of potassium"}; and
a sensory modifier comprising a dicaffeoylquinic acid or salt thereof {para 21 describes "3,4dicaffeoylquinic acid"}; and
at least one compound selected from the group consisting of monocaffeoylquinic acids, monoferuloylquinic acids, diferuloylquinic acids, monocoumaroylquinic acids, dicoumaroylquinic acids, and salts thereof {para 21 describes at least "3-caffeoylquinic acid", which is a monocaffeoylquinic acid, may also be present}.
Regarding claim 2, Tsuchiya teaches the composition of claim 1 , additionally comprising sodium chloride; i.e. NaCl {para 16 describes "common salt" is present; i.e. NaCl; also see para 33}.
Regarding claim 10, Tsuchiya teaches the composition of claim 1 , wherein the dicaffeoylquinic acid or dicaffeoylquinic salt comprises at least one compound selected from the group consisting of 1,3-dicaffeoylquinic acid, 1 ,4dicaffeoylquinic acid, 1,5-dicaffeoylquinic acid, 3,4-dicaffeoylquinic acid, 3,5dicaffeoylquinic acid, 4,5-dicaffeoylquinic acid, and salts thereof {para 21 describes at least "3,4-dicaffeoylquinic acid"}.
Regarding claim 12, Tsuchiya teaches the composition of claim 1 , wherein the sensory modifier comprises a monocaffeoylquinic component selected from the group consisting of chlorogenic acid, neochlorogenic acid, cryptochlorogenic acid, and salts thereof {para 21 describes at least "5-caffeoylquinic acid (chlorogenic acid)}
Regarding claims 21-22, Tsuchiya teaches a food product comprising the composition of claim 1 (as recited in claim 21), wherein (as recited in claim 221) the food product comprises a seasoning, a sauce, a gravy, a dressing, a snack product, or a bakery product {para 11 describes "low salt food products including low salt soy sauce as a typical example", which is a sauce, as claimed; also see para 21}
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-7, 11 ,13-15, 17-18 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya.
Regarding claims 3-7, Tsuchiya teaches the composition of claim 1 , but does not teach the relative amounts of ingredients of composition such as:
"wherein the ratio of KCI to sensory modifier is between 12:1 and 45: 1"
(as recited in claim 3); OR
"wherein the composition is a dry composition comprising 40% (wt) to 99%
(wt) KCI" (as recited in claim 4); OR
"wherein the composition is a dry composition comprising 0.5% (wt) to
10% (wt) sensory modifier" (as recited in claim 5); OR
"wherein the composition is a dry composition comprising NaCl in an amount up to 75% (wt) of the composition" (as recited in claim 6);
OR "wherein the composition comprises KCI and NaCI in a ratio between
0.75:1 and 1 :2.5" (as recited in claim 7).
However, Tsuchiya teaches that amount of above claimed ingredients in the composition depends on known variables such as resulting undesirable "bitterness" and desirable "antihypertensive effect" (para 17 and 26). More specifically, Tsuchiya teaches: the "content of potassium" may be "between 0.5% and 4.2% by weight" based on balancing variables such as "increase the salty taste in spite of a low sodium content" and to "prevent a bitter taste", and that for potassium source "potassium chloride is preferably used" (para 17). The "amount of polyphenols" (para 26), which include "include caffeoylquinic acids" (para 20), i.e. sensory modifier, "is preferably between 0.1 % and 5% by weight" depending on creating a desired balance between ability to create "sufficient antihypertensive effect" as well as avoiding "a strong abnormal taste" (para 26; also see para 19); The amount of "common salt"; i.e. NaCl is "9% or less by weight" (para 13), with the goal of keeping sodium content low as the goal is to create "low salt food products" as it has "antihypertensive effect" (para 11)
Given that in the composition, the relative amount (such as wt% or by ratio between ingredients) for ingredients like KCI, sensory modifier and NaCl are a known results effective variable and their dependence on specific variables is also known known (as explained above; e.g. higher amount of KCI attains desirable increased "antihypertensive effect" but also results in undesirable increase in "bitter taste", varying the relative amount of the above recited ingredients would not be cause for undue experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuchiya to include the above identified missing limitations of claims 3-7 outlined above, while also creating a dry seasoning version. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Tsuchiya for at least the purpose of achieving the maximum "antihypertensive effect" without excessive "bitter taste" that is almost the same as standard seasoning that is not low salt, while a dry seasoning may be created in a concentrated form which provided known advantage of lower volume which makes shipping more efficient and economical.
Regarding claims 11 and 13-15, Tsuchiya teaches the composition of claim 1 , but does not teach the relative amounts of ingredients of composition (and associated sensory properties/test) such as:
wherein "the total of all dicaffeoylquinic acids and dicaffeoylquinic salts present in the sensory modifier comprises 25-75% (wt) of a total weight of the sensory modifier" (as recited in claim 11); OR
wherein "the sensory modifier comprises a monocaffeoylquinic component and a dicaffeoylquinic component that together comprise more than 50% (wt) of the sensory modifier" (as recited in claim 13); OR
wherein "when in water to form a solution, bitterness of the solution is reduced by at least 0.5 units, at least 1 unit, at least 2 units, or at least 3 units relative to an aqueous solution prepared from an equivalent composition without the sensory modifier, wherein bitterness is measured by Standardized Bitterness Intensity Test" (as recited in claim 14); OR
wherein "the sensory modifier is present in the composition in an amount effective to reduce bitterness such that when the composition is dissolved in distilled water forming a solution with a KCI concentration of 3500 ppm, a bitterness score of the solution is reduced by at least 1 unit relative to a comparable solution without the sensory modifier, wherein bitterness score is determined by at least four panelists experienced in sensory testing using a roundtable methodology using a scale of 0 to 9 with a score of 0 indicating no bitterness and a score of 9 indicating extreme bitterness" (as recited in claim 15).
However, Tsuchiya teaches that amount of above claimed ingredients in the composition depends on known variables such as resulting undesirable "bitterness" and desirable "antihypertensive effect" (para 17 and 26). More specifically, Tsuchiya teaches that ingredients like KCI produce desirable "antihypertensive effect" by reducing sodium content but add undesirable "bitterness" (para 17), and for balance, the "content of potassium" may be "between 0.5% and 4.2% by weight" (para 17). Further, Tsuchiya teaches that the "amount of polyphenols" (para 26), which include "include caffeoylquinic acids" (para 20), i.e. sensory modifier, "is preferably between 0.1% and 5% by weight" depending on creating a desired balance between ability to create "sufficient antihypertensive effect" as well as avoiding "a strong abnormal taste" (para 26; also see para 19); and the sensory modifier may include components like "dicaffeoylquinic acids" (para 21) and "dicaffeoylquinic salts" (para 22),
"monocaffeoylquinic component (para 21, also see rejections of claims 10 and
12); solution in water (para 22 and 32)
Given that in the composition, the relative amount (such as wt% or by ratio between ingredients) for ingredients like KCI, sensory modifier and NaCl are a known results effective variable and their dependence on specific variables such as bitter taste is also known known (as explained above; e.g. higher amount of KCI attains desirable increased "antihypertensive effect" but also results in undesirable increase in "bitter taste"), varying the relative amount of the above recited ingredients would not be cause for undue experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller,220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuchiya to include the above identified missing limitations of claims 1 1 and 13-15 outlined above to achieve a target bitterness test score. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Tsuchiya for at least the purpose of achieving the maximum "antihypertensive effect" without excessive "bitter taste" (as evidenced by specific bitterness test scores) to create a product that has almost the same taste as regular sodium content composition that is preferred by customers.
Regarding claims 17-18, Tsuchiya teaches the composition of claim 1 , wherein the composition additionally comprise "magnesium carbonate" and other such
PNG
media_image1.png
11
4
media_image1.png
Greyscale
'inorganic carbonates" in a quantity "preferably between 0.02% and 1% by weight, based on the total weight" (para 52), which overlaps with the claimed range of "in an amount up to 1.0% (wt)".. Note that the recitation of "anticaking agent" is only a statement of the inherent properties of the material claimed. The structure of the composition is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. 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 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Also see MPEP 21 12.01 .
Regarding overlap with claimed ranges as outlined above, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wetheim, 541 F2d 257,
191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claims 23-24, Tsuchiya teaches the food product of claim 21 , but does not teach the relative amounts of ingredients such as.
"wherein the food product comprises 0.001 (wt)% to 1.0 (wt)% of the sensory modifier" (as recited in claim 23); OR
"wherein the food product comprises NaCl, KCI, or combinations thereof in an amount up to 5% (wt)" (as recited in claim 24); OR
However, Tsuchiya teaches that amount of above claimed ingredients in the food product depends on known variables such as resulting undesirable "bitterness" and desirable "antihypertensive effect" (para 17 and 26). More specifically, Tsuchiya teaches
The "content of potassium" may be "between 0.5% and 4.2% by weight" based on balancing variables such as "increase the salty taste in spite of a low sodium content" and to “prevent a bitter taste”, and that for potassium source
"potassium chloride is preferably used" (para 17).
The "amount of polyphenols" (para 26), which include "include caffeoylquinic acids" (para 20), i.e. sensory modifier, "is preferably between 0.1% and 5% by weight" depending on creating a desired balance between ability to create "sufficient antihypertensive effect" as well as avoiding "a strong abnormal taste" (para 26; also see para 19);
The amount of "common salt"; i.e. NaCl is "9% or less by weight" (para 13), with the goal of keeping sodium content low as the goal is to create "low salt food products" as it has "antihypertensive effect" (para 11)
Given that in the food product, the relative amount (such as wt% or by ratio between ingredients) for ingredients like KCI, sensory modifier and NaCl are a known results effective variable and their dependence on specific variables is also known known (as explained above; e.g. higher amount of KCI attains desirable increased "antihypertensive effect" but also results in undesirable increase in "bitter taste"), varying the relative amount of the above recited ingredients would not be cause for undue experimentation. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuchiya to include the above identified missing limitations of claims 23-24 outlined above. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Tsuchiya for at least the purpose of achieving a food product with the maximum "antihypertensive effect" without excessive "bitter taste" that is almost the same as standard food product (soy sauce) that is not low salt, based on customer preference.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of Oshumi (US 2013/0251883), hereinafter Oshumi.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Tsuchiya teaches the composition of claim 1 may be soy sauce (para 11 and 21), but does not teach a product comprising the composition of claim 1 such that the product is "a beverage product" (as required by claim 19) or "a dry powdered beverage" (as required by claim 20). Similarly Tsuchiya does not teach that a product comprising the composition of claim 1 is "a beverage product".
Oshumi (US 2013/0251883) teaches a powdered soup for ramen noodle and which has soy sauce powder (para 74); i.e. the composition of claim 1 (i.e. soy sauce) taught by Tsuchiya is available in powdered form and it is also known to be part of a beverage product (i.e. soup). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuchiya to include soy sauce based products such as a beverage product comprising the composition of claim 1 , and a dry powdered beverage comprising the composition of claim 1. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Tsuchiya for at least the purpose of making known beverage products that are known to have soy sauce in powdered form, such as the ramen noodle soup of Oshumi, which offers the advantage of long shelf life and ease of shipment, compared to liquid form.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya in view of Kazuo (JP H078173 A), hereinafter Kazuo. A copy of full English translation of Kazuo reference is being provided with this office action, and all reference to text of Kazuo is with respect to the full English translation.
Regarding claim 25, Tsuchiya teaches the composition of claim 1 may be soy sauce (para 11 and 21), but does not teach the food product of claim 21 wherein the food product comprises "a potato chip, a popcorn, a cracker, a pretzel, or combinations thereof'. Kazuo teaches that rice crackers that are flavored with soy sauce are known (para 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsuchiya so that the food product of claim 21 comprises a cracker. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Tsuchiya for at least the purpose of producing traditional soy sauce flavored crackers (see para 2 of Kazuo).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI CHAWLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30- 5:30.
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.
/JYOTI CHAWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights