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 .
18765473 filed 07/08/2024 is a Continuation of 17749320 , filed 05/20/2022 ,now U.S. Patent # 12098163 and having 1 RCE-type filing therein
17749320 is a Divisional of 16968650 , filed 08/10/2020 ,now U.S. Patent # 11401292
16968650 is a National Stage entry of PCT/KR2019/001536 , International Filing Date: 02/07/2019
PCT/KR2019/001536 is a Continuation of PCT/KR2018/001829 , filed 02/12/2018
claims foreign priority to 10-2018-0172864, filed 12/28/2018
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4 and 8-9 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.
Claim 1 requires a 2 wt/wt% or lower allulose conversion material (Impurity-S). The limitation is indefinite because Impurity-S is not defined. The specification gives several examples of Impurity-S, but no limiting definition. It is impossible to determine the metes and bounds of the claim because it is not clear which elements must be absent (or present at less than 2%). Claims 2-4 and 8-9 depend from claim 1 and incorporate the same limitation by reference.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koch (WO 2018/087261 A1).
Koch was published on May 17, 2018. Current priority applications PCT/KR2018/001829 and KR 10-2018-0172864 are not in English. Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216. PCT/KR2018/001829, although not in English, does not appear to disclose at least the limitations of Impurity-S recited in current claim 7.
Koch was filed November 9, 2017 and has a priority date of November 11, 2016.
Koch teaches a purified allulose solution having a purity of 99 wt% which was evaporated to a dry matter content of 82.5 wt%, and which was kept at 45°C. Paragraph [0273]. Koch also teaches a composition comprising 99% pure allulose at a concentration of 45 wt% [0267], which was placed in a rotovap flask before heating. Koch also teaches an aqueous allulose solution having a content of dry matter of 65 wt% and a purity of 99 wt%, which was treated at 50°C. Paragraph [0262]. Since the purity of allulose was 99%, less than 1% of any impurity was present.
Koch is silent about the viscosity of the composition. Koch’s composition inherently meets the limitation of claim 2 because the upper limit of claimed viscosity is quite high. The Engineering ToolBox (internet article, https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sugar-solutions-dynamic-viscosity-d_1895.html#gsc.tab=0, downloaded from the internet August 28, 2026) provides a Table and a graph for sugar/water viscosities. Engineering ToolBox shows that viscosity increases with concentration and decreases with temperature. At a concentration of 60% and a temperature of 45°C, the viscosity is about 18 cP. At a temperature of 50°C and a concentration of 40 wt%, the viscosity was about 2.5 cP.
Koch is silent about the conductivity of the composition, but conductivity increases with content of ions in solution. The upper limit of conductivity in claim 3 is high, and Koch’s composition is purified, so Koch’s composition inherently meets the claim limitations.
Koch is silent about the pH of the composition, but the pH of allulose syrup is inherently 5.5-6.5. See Starch (allulose sweetener, bio-starch.com/pdf/allulose-sweetener.pdf/, downloaded from the internet August 2026).
Claim(s) 1 and 3-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wagner (Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 2015, 54, 4182-4186).
Wagner teaches a 12.5 gL -1 allulose solution with purity > 99.9% at 50°C. Page 4186, second paragraph and page 4185, Table 1. The composition was prepared at pH 7.0. Page 4184, 4th paragraph. Since the purity of allulose was 99%, less than 1% of any impurity was present.
Wagner is silent about the conductivity of the composition, but conductivity increases with content of ions in solution. The upper limit of conductivity in claim 3 is high, and Wagner’s composition is purified, so Wagner’s composition inherently meets the claim limitations.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAYLA D BERRY whose telephone number is (571)272-9572. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00-3:00 CST, M-F.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/LAYLA D BERRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights