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 11/04/2024, 12/11/2024 and 06/16/2026 are being considered by the examiner. The signed IDS form is attached with the instant office action.
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 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.
Claims 9 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Asao (JP2013247872A).
Asao teaches a jelly food is obtained by packaging a gelatinous liquid and olive fruits (which reads on claim 5) in a container, wherein the gelatinous liquid contains a liquid sugar including D-psicose and D-allose, an olive fruit juice, an acidulant, and an olive tea (See e.g. abstract). Asao teaches the sugar is, 0 to sugar content. 5-17.0% of D-psicose and 0. 2-10.0% of D-amylose mucopolysaccharidosis containing the liquid sugar, olive jelly is used in a range of % 5-20 pts. wt., sweetener in combination with the other (see e.g. page 14, which reads on the ratio of the sugar to the composition/sweetener composition and this combination does not require sucrose).
The applicant recites that the plant of the present application may include parts of the plant (e.g., fruits, leaves, stems, and roots of the plant). The applicant also recites a "soaked solution" is a food prepared by mixing a raw material for soaking for a certain period of time as to extract a certain component present in the raw material into the saccharide. The soaked material is ingested as it is, or diluted and drunk as a drink, or used for a marinade or a sauce” (see lines 9-12, page 1).
Therefore, the reference anticipates the instantly claimed invention.
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, 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.
Claims 9-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asao (JP2013247872A), in view of Ryu Chung Ho et. al. (KR20110076202A)
The teachings of Asao are set forth and applied as before.
Asao does not teach Prunus mume.
Ho’s general disclosure is to a process for the preparation of sugaring Prunus mume and sugaring Prunus mume prepared therefrom (title, abstract and page 2 at top).
Ho teaches producing sugar-preserved Japanese apricot Prunus mume by separating the seeds of the plum and mixing the flesh and sugar in a weight ratio of 4: 6 to 6: 4 and aged at a low temperature of 0 to 25 ℃ for 7 months or more (see page 3, 3rd para.).
Ho teaches that “in particular, it is known that plum is an alkaline food, which prevents adult diseases such as diabetes and hypertension caused by oxidation of the human body, promotes secretion of gastric juice, and is effective in gastrointestinal diseases and constipation” (see 4th para. of description). Ho also teaches “the domestic researches of plums reported so far are the development of new materials using the by-products of plums and the basic data, the antioxidant properties of plums” (see page 1, 6th para.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a solution for soaking fruit containing allulose and using this solution for Prunus mume because at the time the invention was made, it was known that olive fruits could be soaked in an allulose containing sugar solution to produce an olive jelly as clearly taught by Asao and that Prunus mume could also be made into a plant-soaked composition as clearly taught by Ho. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to use allulose with Prunus mume because it was known that allulose could be part of a fruit soak sugar solution and could be used to make a fruit jelly or food composition as clearly taught by the above references. It would have been obvious to substitute Prunus mume for the olive to provide a jelly or fruit soaked in sugar, since the Asao reference teaches that sugar solution can be used with olive fruit to provide a jelly and soaked fruit. Ho teaches that Prunus mume can be combined with sugar and is useful for preventing diseases such as diabetes and hypertension, thus substituting Prunus mume would be a simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results. The skilled artisan in the art would have understood to combine Prunus mume with allulose in a sugar soak with expectation of success. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood to use Prunus mume in the instantly claimed amount of allulose in the sugar soak based upon the beneficial teachings of Asao and Ho. Therefore, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to substitute Prunus mume for olive and soak the fruit in a sugar containing allulose to provide a more effective fruit-sugar soak based upon the beneficial teachings of Asao and Ho. It would have also been obvious to add more of the plant and more of the allulose after the step of adding allulose to the plant as this would create more of the composition. It would have also been obvious to remove the plant whenever it was finished soaking.
From the teachings of the reference, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 9-14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asao (JP2013247872A) and D. Woodyer et. al. (From IDS filed on 12/11/2024, WO2015075473A1).
The teachings of Asao are set forth and applied as before.
Woodyer teaches “a food or beverage product comprising allulose” (see claim 1).
Woodyer also teaches “a food or beverage product according to Claim 1 or 2, which is a sweet filling comprising allulose in an amount of from about 5% by weight to about 50% by weight relative to the total weight of the uncooked sweet filling” (see claim 40)
Woodyer teaches “such sweet fillings may also comprise at least one plant-derived component (such as a fruit, vegetable, legume, nut or coconut component, for example). Such plant-derived component may be present in an amount of from around 1 % by weight to about 60% by weight relative to the total weight of the uncooked sweet filling”.
The applicant recites that the plant of the present application may include parts of the plant (e.g., fruits, leaves, stems, and roots of the plant). The applicant also recites a "soaked solution" is a food prepared by mixing a raw material for soaking for a certain period of time as to extract a certain component present in the raw material into the saccharide. The soaked material is ingested as it is, or diluted and drunk as a drink, or used for a marinade or a sauce” (see lines 9-12, page 1).
Woodyer teaches that allulose may typically be provided in crystalline form (i.e. pure allulose) or in the form of a syrup comprising allulose (see page 16 lines 31-32).
Woodyer teaches creating lemon poppy seed cake with allulose (see example 6, page 66) and using lemon zest and juice (see page 67, table 11) and this would be a plant which comprises of lemon.
Therefore it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a solution for soaking fruit containing allulose and using this solution for lemons because Woodyer teaches creating such food allulose soaked compositions as can be appreciated from Woodyer’s disclosure. For instance Woodyer teaches creating lemon poppy seed cakes with other ingredients that would include water which would indeed create a plant (lemon) soaked solution with allulose. It would have also been obvious to add more of the plant and more of the allulose after the step of adding allulose to the plant as this would create more of the composition. It would have also been obvious to remove the plant whenever it was finished soaking.
Conclusion
Currently no claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB ANDREW BOECKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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.
JACOB A BOECKELMANExaminer, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights