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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-17 filed in a preliminary amendment on 11/25/2024 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/7/2025 and 11/25/2024 were filed before the first Office action. 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 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.
Claim 1,11,15 and dependent claims 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 recites a liquid allulose composition comprising allulose and having a dissolved oxygen concentration of 8ppm or less or an oxygen saturation rate of 90% sat or less. The term “liquid” as applied here is undefined. Dependent claim 2 has a brix value of 99% which may be semi-solid, glassy, crystalline depending on temperature, measurement conditions. The claim has no objective boundary for classification as a liquid. Further, the conditions under which dissolved oxygen concentration or oxygen saturation rate is measured are undefined. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Therefore claims dependent on claim 1 are not clear. A meaningful comparison with prior art is not possible.
Claim 11 merely cites a method without any steps or conditions. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
In claims 12 and 16, the scope of “deoxidant” based on its broadest reasonable interpretation is unclear. It is not known which substances are used, are these oxygen scavengers, substances effecting physical displacement or packaging additives? Appropriate clarification is needed.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodyer et al. (US2018049458A) in view of known methods of improving stability of syrups and fruit juices as for example reviewed in Garcia-Torres, R et al. (Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 8(4):409-423 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2009.00090.x).
Regarding claim 1-8, Woodyer discloses a liquid allulose syrups with improved storage stability achieved by controlling parameters such as dry solids content and pH in the range of 3.8-4.2, optionally in combination with additives (Figures, Example 4,5). The figures show the effects of these parameters on stability and degradation of allulose, motivating one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized conditions based on a desired stability and quality such as color in an end product, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 9, an allulose syrup in Woodyer would obviously have been packaged in a storage container or package for distribution.
Regarding claims 11-14, the reduction of dissolved oxygen in liquid food products such as fruit juices and syrups is a well- known method applied in the industry to enhance stability of such products. Garcia reviews methods including such as vacuum-deaeration, nitrogen-sparging, membrane deaerators, enzyme-based deaerators, and oxygen scavengers and packaging . Adjustment of headspace is routine in packaged stable liquid food products. One of ordinary skill in the art would have experimentally optimized conditions in a selected method to obtain a targeted storage stability and quality in an allulose liquid with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 15 - 17, Woodyer summarizes methods to convert fructose to allulose [0004]-[0008], and as discussed above, discloses methods to enhance the stability of liquid allulose. Garcia establishes that dissolved oxygen removal is a known method in improving the stability of sugar containing syrups such as fruit juice concentrates and provides method to reduce dissolved oxygen. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied one of these methods under optimal conditions to obtain a desired stability and quality in allulose produced from fructose, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 1-17 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights