DETAILED ACTION
Amendments made July 23, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 1-12 and 14-16 are pending.
Claims 7-12 and 14-16 have been withdrawn.
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-6 and 13 in the reply filed on July 23, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 7-12 and 14-16 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
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 1, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP 2007/117087 machine translation) in view of Sangyang Corp (KR 10-2018-0046783 abstract) or alternately in view of Sangyang Corp (KR 10-2018-0046783 abstract) and Catani et al (CN 104023558A machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Hirata teaches a black tea beverage which comprises: a black tea extract, a sugar alcohol, and a natural high intensity sweetener (abstract and paragraphs 9, 11, 22-24, 28, and 33). As Hirata teaches that the composition can be in powdered form (paragraph 44), the teachings of Hirata encompass the black tea extract in powdered form.
Hirata is not specific to the beverage as used for preparing milk tea, and to the beverage as comprising sucrose and xylose wherein a mixture of sucrose and xylose is coated with the natural high intensity sweetener as recited in claim 1.
Regarding the beverage as used for preparing milk tea as recited in claim 1, the claimed limitation is intended use and only requires the ability of the product to perform. As the product of Hirata is an edible product comprising tea it would be capable of preparing milk tea.
Regarding the beverage as comprising sucrose and xylose wherein a mixture of sucrose and xylose is coated with the natural high intensity sweetener as recited in claim 1, as discussed above Hirata teaches a beverage comprising a high intensity sweetener.
Catani et al (Catani) teaches that natural high intensity sweetening compounds were known to have off flavors, but have a less bitter taste, reduced off flavors, and a more pleasing sweetness when coated onto a carrier/substrate composition (abstract, page 1 lines 21-57, page 2 lines 1-3 and 20-33, and page 4 lines 8-11). Catani teaches that the high intensity sweetener stevia contained stevioside (page 2 lines 55-56). Catani teaches that the carrier/substrate is a monosaccharide, disaccharide, sugar alcohols, or combinations thereof, wherein the monosaccharides include xylose and the disaccharides include xylose (page 3 lines 46-60 and claims 4-5), thus encompassing, or at least making obvious the carrier as a combination of xylose and sucrose.
Samyang Corp (Samyang) teaches that the combination of xylose and sugar (sucrose) in beverages enhances calorie reduction and manufacturing stability (abstract).
It would have been obvious for the high intensity sweetener in the beverage of Hirata to be coated on a carrier substrate which is a monosaccharide including xylose, disaccharide including sucrose, sugar alcohols, or combination thereof to reduce bitter taste, reduce off flavors, and provide a more pleasing sweetness in view of Catani. It would have been further obvious for the carrier substrate to be a combination of xylose and sucrose as Samyang teaches that in a beverage the combination provides for reduced calories and manufacturing stability. Thus, it would have been obvious for the beverage of Hirata to comprise a mixture of sucrose and xylose coated with the natural high intensity sweetener in view of Catani or in view of Catani and Samyang.
Regarding claim 3, Hirata teaches the sugar alcohol is selected from a group including sorbitol, maltitol, and xylitol (paragraph 32).
Regarding claim 4, Hirata teaches the natural high intensity sweetener is selected from the group including sucralose, aspartame, and stevia which contains stevioside (paragraphs 31 and 22).
Regarding claim 6, Hirata teaches that the composition can be in powdered form (paragraph 44).
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirata (JP 2007/117087 machine translation) in view of Sangyang Corp (KR 10-2018-0046783 abstract) or alternately in view of Sangyang Corp (KR 10-2018-0046783 abstract) and Catani et al (CN 104023558A machine translation), either further in view of Mitsubishi Kagaku Foods KK (JPH 10337154A machine translation).
As discussed above, Hirata teaches a black tea beverage which comprises: a powdered black tea extract, a sugar alcohol, and a natural high intensity sweetener, wherein it would have been obvious for the high intensity sweetener to be coated on a mixture of sucrose and xylose in view of Sangyang or in view of Sangyang and Catani. Hirata teaches that the black tea extract provides polyphenols which have beneficial health properties (paragraph 2).
Hirata is not specific to the composition as comprising based on 100 parts by weight, 1-10 parts black tea extract powder, 30-90 parts sucrose and xylose mixture, 0.1-50 parts sugar alcohol, and 0.01-0.1 parts natural high intensity sweetener as recited in claim 2, or further comprising maltodextrin, flavoring, or vitamin C as recited in claim 5.
Mitsubishi Kagaku Foods KK (Mitsubishi) teaches powdered beverages (paragraph 1). Mitsubishi teaches that the beverage comprises an amount of tea extract powder based on taste adjustment, but that 2-28% tea powder provides a superior koku taste without becoming too watery, too bitter, or too tough (paragraph 9). Mitsubishi teaches that the beverage comprises a sugar alcohol in an amount that is not particularly limited and can be adjusted to obtain the low calories and preferred flavor desired (paragraph 11). Mitsubishi teaches that the amount of sugar alcohol is usually 23-98% by weight (paragraph 11). Mitsubishi teaches that the amount of natural high potency sweetener is 0.02-0.4% in order to improve low caloricity and sweetness and suppress the toughness of the aftertaste (paragraph 17). Mitsubishi teaches that the drink may contain further flavors, such as fruit or other flavors (paragraph 21).
Regarding the composition as comprising based on 100 parts by weight 1-10 parts black tea extract powder as recited in claim 2, it would have been obvious for the beverage of Hirata to comprise an amount of the black tea powder based on the taste in view of Mitsubishi and/or the desired polyphenol content and respective health benefits in view of Hirata. It would have been particularly obvious to use 2-28 parts tea powder per 100 parts of the composition to provide a superior koku taste without becoming too watery, too bitter, or too tough in view of Mitsubishi.
Regarding the composition as comprising based on 100 parts by weight 0.1-50 parts sugar alcohol as recited in claim 2, it would have been obvious for the beverage of Hirata to comprise an amount of sugar alcohol based on the calorie content and flavor desired in view of Mitsubishi. It would have been particularly obvious to use 23-98 parts sugar alcohol per 100 parts of the composition to provide the usual flavor and caloric content desired in view of Mitsubishi.
Regarding the composition as comprising based on 100 parts by weight 0.01-0.1 parts natural high intensity sweetener as recited in claim 2, it would have been obvious for the beverage of Hirata to comprise 0.02-0.4 parts natural high intensity sweetener per 100 parts of the composition in order to improve low caloricity and sweetness and suppress the toughness of the aftertaste in view of Mitsubishi.
Regarding the composition as comprising based on 100 parts by weight 30-90 parts sucrose and xylose mixture as recited in claim 2, as discussed above, it would have been obvious for the composition of Hirata to comprise 0.02-0.4 parts natural high intensity sweetener per 100 parts of the composition in view of Mitsubishi, and it would have been obvious for the high intensity sweetener in the beverage of Hirata to be coated on a carrier substrate of xylose and sucrose to reduce bitter taste, reduce off flavors, and provide a more pleasing sweetness in view of Catani or Catani and Sangyang. Catani teaches that the effect is achieved when the ratio of the carrier/substrate to high intensity sweetener is 1:1 to 99.9:0.1 (page 4 lines 1-2 and claim 14). When using the high intensity sweetener which is made obvious over the prior art it would have been obvious to use a ratio of the carrier/substrate to high intensity sweetener in a successful range, including 1:1 to 99.9:0.1 as taught by Catani. Thus, the product of the prior art would mathematically comprise about 0.02-399.6 parts sucrose and xylose mixture per 100 parts of the composition. It is noted that the upper limit would be reduced to 100 parts, and then the other required components, including the tea powder and sugar alcohols would be subtracted from the total, thus leaving an upper range of about 75 parts of the sucrose and xylose mixture per 100 parts of the composition. The claimed ranges are therefore considered obvious over the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding the beverage as further comprising maltodextrin, flavoring, or vitamin C as recited in claim 5, it would have been obvious for the beverage of Hirata to comprise further flavoring to impart an additional flavor, such as a fruit flavor to the beverage in view of Mitsubishi. Using a known ingredient for its known and intended function would have been obvious and well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EP 2692243 teaches a powdered food beverage suitable for sweetening or flavoring foodstuff (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY BEKKER whose telephone number is (571)272-2739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-3:30pm.
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 at 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.
KELLY BEKKER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1792
/KELLY J BEKKER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights