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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 21, 2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the blend” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “the stevia blend” in order to maintain consistency with “a stevia blend” recited in Claim 1, line 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the blend” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “the stevia blend” in order to maintain consistency with “a stevia blend” recited in Claim 1, line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a steviol glycoside blend” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “a stevia blend” recited in Claim 1, line 1 or to an entirely different blend. Additionally, it is unclear if “a steviol glycoside blend” is part of the beverage.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a stevia blend” in line 4. It is unclear if this refers to “a stevia blend” recited in Claim 1, line 1 or to an entirely different stevia blend.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a beverage” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “a beverage” recited in Claim 1, line 1 or to an entirely different beverage. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same beverage.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “reduced foam height” in lines 1-2. The term “reduced” is a comparative term that compares one variable to a standard variable. The claim does not specify any standard of comparison to which the “reduced” foam height is compared to. It is unknown what standardized foam height is the comparative foam height to which the claimed “reduced” foam height is being compared.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “reduced foam diminish time” in lines 1-2. The term “reduced” is a comparative term that compares one variable to a standard variable. The claim does not specify any standard of comparison to which the “reduced” foam diminish time is compared to. It is unknown what standardized foam diminish time is the comparative foam diminish time to which the claimed “reduced” foam diminish time is being compared.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the foam diminish time” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10-13 all recite the limitation “a blend” in line 1. It is unclear if this refers to “a stevia blend” recited in Claim 1, line 1 or to an entirely different blend. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same stevia blend.
Clarification is required.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 9 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 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 of this title, 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 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 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, 6-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urai et al. US 2017/0303566 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed August 21, 2024) in view of Fletcher et al. US 2016/0198751.
Regarding Claim 1, Urai et al. discloses a method of reducing (suppressing) foaming of a beverage (‘566, Paragraph [0002]) comprising a stevia blend (‘566, Paragraph [0021]). The method comprises substituting (replacing) a steviol glycoside blend comprising rebaudioside A with a compound comprising another rebaudioside to provide a stevia blend with reduced foaming compared to the stevia blend without the substitution (‘566, Paragraph [0051]). The beverage contains an amount of rebaudioside A (‘566, Paragraph [0011]) which rebaudioside A is partially replaced as a stevia extract with Reb D (‘566, Paragraph [0022]).
Urai et al. is silent regarding the particular type of rebaudioside in the steviol glycoside blend that replaces partially the rebaudioside A to be rebaudioside N.
Fletcher et al. discloses a method of reducing foaming of a beverage (‘751, Paragraphs [0025]-[0026] and [0104]) comprising a stevia blend (‘751, Paragraph [0092]) of a high potency sweetener comprising rebaudioside A and/or rebaudioside D and/or rebaudioside N (‘751, Paragraph [0066]).
Both Urai et al. and Fletcher et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of reducing foaming of a beverage. Both methods of Urai et al. and Fletcher et al. are applied to a beverage comprising a stevia blend comprising rebaudioside A. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Urai et al. and substitute/replace partially the rebaudioside M present in the steviol glycoside blend with rebaudioside N as taught by Fletcher et al. since it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught in the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (as a sweetener in a beverage having reduced foam) in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (a steviol glycoside blend used as a sweetener in a beverage having reduced foam) (MPEP § 2144.06.I.).
Further regarding Claim 1, Urai et al. modified with Fletcher et al. is silent regarding the amount of rebaudioside A that is substituted with rebaudioside N to be 20 wt% to 80 wt% of a steviol glycoside blend comprising rebaudioside A with rebaudioside N. However, differences in the concentration of rebaudioside A that is substituted with rebaudioside N will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of rebaudioside A with rebaudioside N is critical. 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Urai et al. modified with Fletcher et al. teaches the method of reducing foaming of a beverage with a stevia blend comprising rebaudioside A and/or rebaudioside N.
Regarding Claim 6, Urai et al. discloses the stevia blend addressing the problem of foaming (‘566, Paragraph [0062]) wherein foaming of the beverage is suppressed (‘566, Paragraph [0002]), which reads on the claimed reduced foaming resulting in reduced foam height. It is noted that the claim does not specify any particular degree of reduced foam height and also does not provide a standard of basis for comparison for a standardized foam height.
Regarding Claim 7, Urai et al. discloses the stevia blend addressing the problem of foaming (‘566, Paragraph [0062]) wherein foaming of the beverage is suppressed (‘566, Paragraph [0002]), which reads on the claimed reduced foam diminish time. It is noted that the claim does not specify any particular degree of reduced foam diminish time and also does not provide a standard of basis for comparison for a standardized foam diminish time. Furthermore, products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties in view of In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2112.01.II.). Since the prior art combination of modified Urai et al. teaches the claimed composition of a stevia blend comprising rebaudioside A having a portion substituted with rebaudioside N in which the stevia blend is used in a beverage having reduced/suppressed foaming, one of ordinary skill in the art would also expect the prior art combination of stevia blend to behave in the same manner as claimed, i.e. the stevia blend with reduced foaming resulting in reduced foam diminish time. Furthermore, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established in view of In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP § 2112.01.I.). It is noted that Claim 7 does not specify any particular degree of reduced foam diminish time.
Regarding Claim 8, Urai et al. discloses the stevia blend addressing the problem of foaming (‘566, Paragraph [0062]) wherein foaming of the beverage is suppressed (‘566, Paragraph [0002]), which reads on the claimed reduced foam diminish time. With respect to the degree of foam diminish time being at least 20% less compared to a corresponding beverage sweetened with (i) a blend of only the steviol glycoside mixture comprising rebaudioside M or (ii) rebaudioside A, products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties in view of In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2112.01.II.). Since the prior art combination of modified Urai et al. teaches the claimed composition of a stevia blend comprising rebaudioside A having a portion substituted with rebaudioside N in which the stevia blend is used in a beverage having reduced/suppressed foaming, one of ordinary skill in the art would also expect the prior art combination of stevia blend to behave in the same manner as claimed, i.e. the stevia blend having a foam diminish time that is at least 20% less compared to a corresponding beverage sweetened with (i) a blend of only the steviol glycoside mixture comprising rebaudioside M or (ii) rebaudioside A. Furthermore, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established in view of In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP § 2112.01.I.).
Regarding Claims 10-13, Urai et al. discloses the beverage comprising the stevia blend (‘566,. Paragraphs [0018]-[0020]) comprising rebaudioside M or rebaudioside A (‘566, Paragraphs [0011], [0019], and [0062]). Fletcher et al. discloses the stevia blend comprising about 40% to about 65% mogroside V and/or about 0% to about 30% by weight siamenoside I (‘751, Paragraphs [0077] and [0082]-[0083]), which overlaps the claimed concentration of from 20 wt% to 80 wt% mogroside V or from 30 wt% to 80 wt% siamenoside I. Fletcher et al. also discloses the beverage comprising a high potency sweetener of mogroside V or siamenoside and rebaudioside A, rebaudioside M, and rebaudioside N (‘751, Paragraph [0066]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the stevia blend of modified Urai et al. to a concentration of mogroside in the stevia blend to be from 20 wt% to 80 wt% mogroside or the concentration of siamenoside I to be from 30 wt% to 80 wt% siamenoside I as taught by Fletcher et al. since where the claimed concentration of mogroside V and/or concentration of siamenoside I in the stevia blend overlaps concentration of mogroside V and/or concentration of siamenoside I ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Further regarding Claims 10-13, Urai et al. modified with Fletcher et al. is silent regarding the concentration of rebaudioside M or rebaudioside A in the stevia blend being from 20 wt% to 70 wt% rebaudioside A or rebaudioside M. However, differences in the concentration of rebaudioside M or rebaudioside A in the stevia blend used to make a beverage will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of rebaudioside M or rebaudioside A in the stevia blend used to make the beverage is critical. 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of rebaudioside M or rebaudioside A in the stevia blend used to make the beverage based upon the desired sweetness of the beverage.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urai et al. US 2017/0303566 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed August 21, 2024) in view of Fletcher et al. US 2016/0198751 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Langner US 5,374,444, Lyubenova “Sugar Free Skinny Limeade” <https://cookinglsl.com/sugar-free-skinny-limeade/> (published Mary 24, 2015) (herein referred to as “Lyubenova”), and Jaclyn “Stevia Sweetened Strawberry Lemonade” <https://www.cookingclassy.com/stevia-sweetened-strawberry-lemonade/> (published May 29, 2017) (herein referred to as “Jaclyn”).
Regarding Claim 2, Fletcher et al. discloses the method being used to make a beverage concentrate (‘751, Paragraph [0156]). However, Urai et al. modified with Fletcher et al. is silent regarding the beverage concentrate being made by combining water and 0.25 wt%-0.4 wt% the stevia blend with reduced foaming at room temperature to provide a mixture and stirring the mixture for at least 10 minutes to form the beverage concentrate.
Langner discloses a method of making a concentrate composition comprising the steps of combining water with a concentrate composition containing cellulose ether fiber to form a mixture and stirring the mixture for a time sufficient to provide a substantially homogenous concentrate composition having long term shelf stability storage properties wherein the concentrate composition can be diluted with water to provide a resulting end product beverage composition (‘444, Column 14, lines 1-20).
Both modified Urai et al. and Langner are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making beverage compositions. Langner does not explicitly disclose the stirring time to be at least 10 minutes but does disclose stirring the mixture for a time sufficient to provide a substantially homogenous concentrate composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Urai et al. and make the beverage concentrate by combining water with a concentrate composition and stirring for any amount of time until the mixture is homogenously mixed together to form the beverage concentrate as since Langner teaches that the claimed steps of combining water with another composition to provide a mixture and then stirring the mixture until homogenously blended into a beverage concentrate was known and conventional in the food and beverage art.
Further regarding Claim 2, Urai et al. modified with Fletcher et al. and Langner is silent regarding the water being combined with the stevia blend at room temperature to form the mixture and is also silent regarding the concentration of stevia blend in the mixture to be 0.25 wt%-0.4 wt% stevia blend.
Lyubenova discloses a method of making homemade lemonade comprising the steps of mixing lime juice with stevia extract and then adding water and refrigerating (Lyubenova, Pages 7-8).
Both modified Urai et al. and Lyubenova are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making beverage compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Urai et al. and form the mixture by combining water with a stevia blend at room temperature since Lyubenova teaches that it was known and conventional in the food and beverage art to make a beverage concentrate by combining water and stevia at room temperature. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would use a stevia blend in the process of modified Urai et al. since Jaclyn teaches that stevia has zero calories and no glycemic impact for controlling blood sugar spikes (Jaclyn, Page 3) and since stevia is a known sweetener ingredient in beverages (Jaclyn, Page 5).
Further regarding Claim 2, Urai et al. modified with Fletcher et al., Langner, Lyubenova, and Jaclyn is silent regarding the concentration of stevia blend that is combined with water in the mixture to be 0.25 wt%-0.4 wt% stevia blend. However, differences in the concentration of stevia blend in the beverage concentrate mixture will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of stevia blend in the beverage concentrate mixture is critical. 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 view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of stevia blend in the beverage concentrate mixture based upon the desired sweetness of the intermediate beverage concentrate.
Regarding Claim 3, Urai et al. discloses adding beverage syrup ingredients (raw materials) to the beverage concentrate to form a beverage syrup (‘566, Paragraphs [0060]-[0061]).
Regarding Claim 4, Urai et al. discloses diluting the beverage syrup with water to prepare a beverage (‘566, Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 5, Urai et al. discloses the method further comprisign bottling of the beverage (‘566, Paragraphs [0056] and [0070]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urai et al. US 2017/0303566 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed August 21, 2024) in view of Fletcher et al. US 2016/0198751 as applied to claim 6 above in further view of Jimenez et al. US 2017/0223989.
Regarding Claim 8, Urai et al. modified with Fletcher et al. renders obvious the limitations of Claim 8 as enumerated in the rejections of Claim 8 above. However, in the event that it can be argued and/or shown that the stevia blend of modified Urai et al. does not necessarily possess the claimed properties of a stevia blend with a foam diminish time that is at least 20% less compared to a corresponding beverage sweetened with (i) a blend of only the steviol glycoside mixture comprising rebaudioside M or (ii) rebaudioside A, Jimenez et al. discloses a beverage (‘989, Paragraph [0025]) comprising stevia (‘989, Table 8) (‘989, Paragraph [0135]) further comprising an egg albumen isolate having reduced foaming properties with low foam stability and greater than 50% foam reduction after 60 minutes (‘989, Paragraph [0019]), which falls within the claimed foam diminish time of at least about 20% less compared to a corresponding beverage sweetened with a blend of only the steviol glycoside mixture comprising reabudioside M or rebaudioside A. It is noted that the particular type of beverage is not specified in the claims. Jimenez et al. discloses the egg albumen isolate having reduced foaming properties and greater than 50% foam reduction after 60 minutes (‘989, Paragraph [0019]).
Both modified Urai et al. and Jimenez et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of beverages having reduced foaming properties. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Urai et al. and incorporate egg albumen isolate into the beverage to arrive at the claimed foam diminish time of at least about 20% less as taught by Jimenez et al. since where the claimed foam diminish time overlaps foam diminish time ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urai et al. US 2017/0303566 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed August 21, 2024) in view of Fletcher et al. US 2016/0198751 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Story et al. US 2015/0064321.
Regarding Claim 9, Urai et al. discloses a method for suppressing the foaming of a beverage (‘566, Paragraph [0002]) wherein the beverage is bottled (‘566, Paragraphs [0056] and [0070]). Although Urai et al. modified with Fletcher et al. does not explicitly disclose the foaming being reduced during the step of bottling, Story et al. discloses a method of processing a beverage comprising stevia (‘321, Paragraph [0046]) wherein the method comprises the step of bottling the beverage wherein foaming is reduced during bottling via addition of a polyglycerol fatty acid ester that controls foam when a carbonated beverage is delivered to a bottle (‘321, Paragraphs [0029]-[0030]).
Both modified Urai et al. and Story et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of processing beverages. Both beverages of modified Urai et al. and Story et al. contain stevia in which the beverage has reduced foam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of modified Urai et al. and reduce foaming during bottling since Story et al. teaches that it was known and conventional to reduce foaming during bottling via the addition of a polyglycerol fatty acid ester which controls foam when a carbonated beverage is bottled.
Further regarding Claim 9, the limitations “wherein the foaming is reduced during bottling compared to (i) a blend of only the steviol glycoside mixture comprising rebaudioside M, (ii) rebaudioside A, or (iii) the blend without rebaudioside N” are limitations with respect to the properties of the claimed beverage comprising a stevia blend comprising rebaudioside M or rebaudioside A in which the rebaudioside M or rebaudioside A is partially substituted with rebaudioside N. Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties in view of In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2112.01.II.). Since the prior art combination of modified Urai et al. teaches the claimed composition of a stevia blend comprising rebaudioside A having a portion substituted with rebaudioside N in which the stevia blend is used in a beverage having reduced/suppressed foaming, one of ordinary skill in the art would also expect the prior art combination of stevia blend to behave in the same manner as claimed, i.e. the foaming is reduced during bottling compared to (i) a blend of only the steviol glycoside mixture comprising rebaudioside M, (ii) rebaudioside A, or (iii) the blend without rebaudioside N. Furthermore, where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established in view of In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP § 2112.01.I.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Harris “Healthy Strawberry Lemonade (Stevia Sweetened)” <https://www.thenourishinggourmet.com/healthy-strawberry-lemonade-stevia-sweetened/> (published March 25, 2014) discloses a method of making a beverage comprising stevia wherein the method further comprises combining water and stevia to provide a mixture and stirring the mixture (Harris, Page 4).
Mary “Low to No Calorie Diet Iced Tea (Milo’s Copycat)” <https://www.deepsouthdish.com/2014/05/low-to-no-calorie-iced-tea.html> (published May 9, 2014) discloses a method of making a beverage comprising any sweetener such as stevia comprising the steps of combining water with the stevia and stirring the mixture (Mary, Page 7).
tanya2austin “Lemonade Concentrate (with Stevia)” <https://itsallfrosting.wordpress.com/2016/07/05/lemonade-concentrate-with-stevia/> (published July 5, 2016) discloses a method of making a lemonade beverage concentrate comprising the steps of mixing freshly squeezed lemon juice and liquid stevia, storing in the refrigerator, and diluting 6-8 parts water to 1 part concentrate and further diluting depending on how tart/sweet you like your lemonade (tanya2austin, Page 5).
Davy “Delicious gut friendly stevia lemonade recipe” <https://www.anoushkadavy.com/recipes/delicious-gut-friendly-stevia-lemonade-recipe/> (published June 20, 2017) discloses a method of making lemonade comprising the steps of squeezing lemons to make lemon juice, adding sparkling water, ice cubes, and stevia drops and stirring with a large spoon and increasing to the desired sweetness by adding more stevia drops if required (Davy, Pages 4-5).
Izumi et al. US 2018/0000133 discloses a method for suppressing the foaming of a beverage (‘133, Paragraph [0001]) in which a stevia extract is blended (‘133, Paragraph [0005]) wherein foaming is suppressed by decreasing the content of RebA as a stevia extract in the beverage (‘133, Paragraph [0020]) wherein Reb is known as a sweet component contained in a stevia extract having a scientific name of Stevia Rebuadiana Bertoni which stevia comprises a component having about 300 times or more the sweetness of sugar (‘133, Paragraph [0018]).
Carlson et al. US 2018/0289050 discloses a carbonated soft drink (‘050, Paragraph [0086]) comprising a sweetener composition including Reb A in combination with Reb DMN (‘050, Paragraph [0031]).
Blasé et al. US 2016/0213048 discloses a method of making a beverage comprising the step of combining room temperature apple juice concentrate and room temperature distilled water and stirring the apple juice concentrate and distilled water to produce a homogenous sample (‘048, Paragraph [0091]).
Ragnarsson et al. US 2012/0114819 discloses a method for dispensing a liquid concentrate in a desirable manner comprising the step of mixing liquid concentrate and a target liquid to form a generally homogenous end mixture (‘819, Paragraph [0037]).
Zablocki et al. US 6,139,895 discloses a method of making a beverage concentrate comprising the step of combining water and dry ingredients to provide a mixture and mixing until homogenous and then adding invert sugar and reconstituting the concentrate by mixing the concentrate with water (‘895, Column 11, lines 46-54).
Connolly US 5,409,725 discloses a method of making a juice beverage comprising the steps of combining fruit juice concentrate to an aqueous dispersion to form a mixture and blending the mixture until homogeneous to produce a stable protein fortified juice beverage (‘725, Column 5, lines 30-42).
Perisman et al. US 2016/0346760 discloses a method comprising the step of bottling a beverage wherein foaming is reduced during bottling (‘760, Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, 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, 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights