DETAILED ACTION
Formal Matters
Claims 12-15 are new. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1-3, 10, and 12-15 are withdrawn. Claims 4-9 and 11 are under examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2022/118294 filed on 09/13/2022, which claims priority from CN202210260674.X filed on 3/16/2022.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 06/28/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 4-9 and 11 in the reply filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged. This election is treated as without traverse as applicant does not traverse the restriction requirement. It is noted that applicant comments that Jia (cited in the restriction requirement) does not teach process of making limitations as applicant pointed out. This is noted.
Claims 1-3, 10 and 12-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse (noted above) in the reply filed on 6/18/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to for “sweetened composition is consisting of at least 0-99% mogroside V and 0-99% fructooligosaccharide” since although both ingredients would have to be present in order to make 100% of the composition (since they top off at 99%), the language is more appropriate to not include 0% values as “sweetened composition consisting of both mogroside V in an amount up to 99% and fructooligosaccharide in an amount up to 99%”.
Claim 5 is object to for missing an “and” between the recitations of “the fructosyltransferase;” and “an added content”.
Claim 7 is object to for missing an “and” between the recitations of “minutes;” and “a pore size”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 4-6 are indefinite for “%” of items without providing if these are by weight, by volume, by moles, etc. Claims refer to “total content”, but without indicating the measure of the content. Thus, it is unclear how to read the % values in the claims. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider the % as % by weight.
Claim 4 is indefinite for reciting “the sweetened composition is consisting of at least 0-99% mogroside V and 0-99% fructooligosaccharide” and then using “comprises” in the transition phrase for the method as it become unclear how other items that are introduced in the method such as the Momordica grosvenori extract (with all its components) before the process steps and the biological enzyme would or would not be part of the sweetened composition or a resulting composition. It is unclear if the process is actually making the sweetened composition only as introduced in the preamble with “consisting of”, or if the process using “comprises” (line 4 of claim) makes a version of a composition comprising the sweetened composition listed as those two components. As the mixture of “consisting of” and “comprises” in the claim causes uncertainty, for the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will consider the claim in terms of “comprising” while still considering that both mogroside V and fructooligosaccharides need to be present in a sweetening composition made.
Claims 5-9 and 11 are rejected as being dependent on indefinite claim 4.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CN111296708A (June 2020, with Google English translation) and Shi WO2021232750A1 (11-2021).
The first “wherein” clause of claim 4 provides for multiple options of how to obtain the sweetened composition. If at least one of the options is provided by the prior art, then it reads on the claim. Note the first option indicates the enzymatic conversion liquid is concentrated and sterilized to obtain the sweetened composition with no additional conditions.
Claim 6 are to a limitation of one of the options presented in claim 4. As the claim does not indicate that this step is now required/needed, it is viewed as limitations to an optional item.
Luo Han Guo is another name for Momordica grosvenori.
CN ‘708 teaches “a method for producing Luo Han Guo extract using immobilized enzyme technology, comprising the following steps: hot water extraction, ceramic membrane filtration, desalination, decolorization, enzymatic hydrolysis with immobilized enzyme, and concentration; if necessary, step (4) ) A part of the enzymatic hydrolysis solution obtained is filtered with a nanofiltration membrane, and the permeate and the interception also respectively obtain the concentrated Monk fruit juice and the dry powder of the Luo Han Guo extract that do not contain mogrosides. The method of the invention takes into account the production of Luo Han Guo extract of liquid and solid products of various specifications at the same time, can meet various market demands, and the yield of Mogroside V is high, creating a precedent in the industry. Wherein the content of mogroside V in the concentrated monk fruit juice reaches 3-8 wt %, and the mass content of mogroside V in the dried Luo Han Guo extract powder is 40-60 wt %” (abstract and summary of invention). CN ‘708 teaches concentrating and drying after the filtration (summary of invention steps (1)-(7)). CN ‘708 teaches cation exchange resin, anion exchange resin and basic exchange resin (claims of CN ‘708 and summary of invention). CN ‘708 teaches “In step (4), the temperature of enzymatic hydrolysis is not particularly limited. Generally, the temperature suitable for pectinase and cellulase to exert their activities may be suitable, which is generally 20-40°C” (English translation). CN ‘708 teaches “The small molecular substances after the enzymatic hydrolysis of gum and cellulose are removed by the subsequent nanofiltration step, and the dry powder of Luo Han Guo extract with higher glucoside content is obtained” (English translation). Thus, it is recognized that components are being removed in forming the dry powder extract. CN ‘708 teaches “Preferably, in step (5), the sugar content of the concentrated monk fruit juice is 50-70 brix, and the content of mogroside V in the concentrated monk fruit juice is 3%-8%” (English translation). CN ‘708 provides that in step (3), the pH value is slightly acidic as well as the optimal value of the subsequent immobilized enzyme hydrolysis step (English translation of CN ‘708). Slightly acidic includes values under pH of 7. Under step (7) of CN ‘708, the retentate is spray-dried (spray drying) to obtain dry powder of Luo Han Guo extract. CN ‘708 teaches step 1 is a hot water extraction of the fresh fruit of Luo Han Guo and the filtration in step 2 (summary of invention). CN ‘708 teaches “Preferably, in step (1), the temperature of the hot water is 70-90° C., the amount of the hot water is 1-2 times the weight of the fresh Luo Han Guo fruit, and the percolation flow rate is 0.2-1.0 BV/hour. Cooling can be done by cooling the leachate to room temperature with a plate heat exchanger to obtain the Luo Han Guo extract. One of the purposes of hot water percolation extraction is to maximize the extraction of the water-soluble components contained in the fresh fruit of Luo Han Guo, and to ensure the extraction yield of water-soluble components including mogrosides. Proteins (enzymes, etc.) in fresh fruits are inactivated and denatured for subsequent filtration removal” (Summary of invention, also see example 1 with 600kg water and 300 kg of fruit). The filter step (2) is with a ceramic membrane filter in CN ‘708. CN ‘708 also teaches nanofiltration which would have filters with pores in the nanometer range.
CN ‘708 does not provide for presence of fructooligosaccharides or the use of fructosyltransferase enzyme.
Shi teaches one or more products for sweeteners that include options of monk fruit (another name for Momordica grosvenori) extracts and glycosylated monk fruit extracts (abstract and paragraphs 5, 118 and 153). Shi teaches a procedure with a transferase enzyme to glycosylate mogrosides in monk fruit extracts (paragraph 122). Shi teaches “In some embodiments, a fructosyltransferase may be used to catalyze the transfer of one or more fructose units” (paragraph 215 in teachings of preparation of glycosylated products). Shi allows for difference glycosylation enzymes including sucrose fructosyltransferase (paragraph 192). Shi provides for reaction conditions including temperatures of 1-100 degrees C or 40-80 degrees C and pH values from 4 to 9 (paragraphs 228-230). Shi notes that the catalytic amount of glycosidase or glycosyltransferase depends on conditions such as temperature, solvents and amount of substrate (paragraph 229). Shi recognizes the benefit of its methods are to improve taste and/or flavor of a consumable product (abstract). Shi teaches “The result of glycosyl transfer can be a carbohydrate, glycoside, oligosaccharide, or polysaccharide” (paragraph 189, also see (1) Preparation of glycosylated products). In addition, Shi teaches fructooligosaccharides as a bulking agent, and thus, fructooligosaccharides are known to be useful with sweeteners from such extracts/extracted compounds (paragraph 471).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing was able to make sweeteners from Momordica grosvenori extracts through adding fructose to oligosaccharides in the extract through a glycosylation process involving a fructosyltransferase as this was used for such sweetener compositions in the prior art. In doing so, an amount of the oligosaccharides in the Momordica grosvenori extract would become fructooligosaccharides. One of ordinary skill in the art would also be able to optimize the amount and conditions for the enzyme treatment based on teachings of Shi including the dependency of the catalytic amount based on reactions conditions. Therefore, there was a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of CN ‘708 and Shi to provide for a process of making sweetener compositions that include oligosaccharides from and also enzymatically (fructosyltransferase for a glycosylation) produced from oligosaccharides found in the extracts since the references provide for such enzymatic reactions with this type of extract as well as modification of the conditions involved. There would be a reasonable expectation that this would produce sweeteners with improved taste and/or flavors based on teachings of Shi.
Claims 8 and 11 in addition to Claims 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over CN111296708A (June 2020, with Google English translation), Shi WO2021232750A1 (11-2021) and Zhang US 20210274822.
CN ‘708 and Shi teach the claims as discussed above.
CN ‘708 and Shi does not teach the limitation of claim 8 in regard to after ripening treatment of the fruit for 1-10 days.
Zhang teaches a method for preparing a Luo Han Guo sweetening composition (abstract). Example 1 provides for an after ripening treatment at 25 to 28 C for 3 days in a step before the juicing for extraction (paragraphs 54-56, also see example 3 and paragraphs 6-9). Zhang notes that its protocol lowers the amount of the mogrosides that cause bad taste (paragraph 5).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing would have performed the after ripening treatment of Zhang on Luo Han Guo fruits before extracting mogroside V from them in order to reduce or eliminate amounts of bad tasting compounds. There was a reasonable expectation of success in utilizing this step in the process taught by CN ‘708 and Shi to provide for improved sweetening compositions with better taste profile.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK V STEVENS whose telephone number is (571)270-7080. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am to 6:00 pm 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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached on (571)272-0581. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK V STEVENS/
Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights