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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim(s) 1- 2, 5-8, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuchiya et al (JP2006141223 A).
In regard to claims 1 and 2, Tsuchiya et al discloses “a liquid seasoning can be obtained that provides a sufficient salty taste despite having a salt content of 9% by mass or less” ([0010]). Tsuchiya et al discloses a liquid seasoning comprising flavor enhancer such as salts of organic acids, inorganic carbonates, inorganic ammonium salts, etc ([0014)]. Tsuchiya et al discloses that “examples of inorganic carbonates include alkali metal salts of carbonate such as sodium and potassium, magnesium carbonate salts, and baking soda. One or more of these can be used ([0017]). Tsuchiya et al discloses that “[t]hese are preferably included in the liquid seasoning of the present invention in an amount of 0.01 to 2% by mass, more preferably 0.02 to 1% by mass, from the standpoint of enhancing the saltiness and reducing off-flavors and bitterness, thereby improving the flavor of soy sauce” ([0017]). It is noted that baking soda is sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO₃) (i.e. sodium hydrogen carbonate). Further in regard to claim 1, Tsuchiya et al discloses ammonium chloride as an inorganic ammonium salt ([0018]).
In regard to claims 5 and 6, Tsuchiya et al discloses “a liquid seasoning can be obtained that provides a sufficient salty taste despite having a salt content of 9% by mass or less” ([0010]). Tsuchiya et al discloses a liquid seasoning comprising flavor enhancer such as salts of organic acids, inorganic carbonates, inorganic ammonium salts, etc ([0014)].
In regard to claims 7 and 8, Tsuchiya et al discloses "reduced-sodium soy sauces" refers to soy sauce and soy sauce products with a sodium content of 3,550 mg (9 g as salt) or less per 100 g of product, and is not limited to special dietary foods for sick persons under the Nutrition Improvement Act ([0007]).
In regard to claims 10 and 12, Tsuchiya et al discloses:
To adjust the salt and potassium content to the aforementioned ranges, examples include: a method of producing soy sauce using a mixed solution of salt and, for example, potassium chloride as the brewing water; a method of mixing soy sauce obtained using a potassium chloride solution alone as the brewing water with soy sauce obtained using saline solution alone as the brewing water; and a method of adding potassium chloride to desalted soy sauce obtained by removing salt from ordinary soy sauce made using saline solution as the brewing water by electrodialysis, membrane treatment, etc ([0013]).
Component (C) of the liquid seasoning of the present invention acts as a flavor enhancer and is one or more substances selected from organic acids or salts thereof with a valency of 2 or less, alkali metal salts of phosphoric acid, inorganic carbonates, inorganic ammonium salts, starch hydrolysates, protein hydrolysates, sweeteners, plant extracts, and polysaccharides ([0014]).
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 (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 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) 3-4, 9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya et al (JP2006141223 A).
Tsuchiya et al discloses that “[t]hese are preferably included in the liquid seasoning of the present invention in an amount of 0.01 to 2% by mass, more preferably 0.02 to 1% by mass, from the standpoint of enhancing the saltiness and reducing off-flavors and bitterness, thereby improving the flavor of soy sauce” ([0017]). Tsuchiya et al also discloses "reduced-sodium soy sauces" refers to soy sauce and soy sauce products with a sodium content of 3,550 mg (9 g as salt) or less per 100 g of product, and is not limited to special dietary foods for sick persons under the Nutrition Improvement Act ([0007]).
Further in regard to the concentration recitations, it is noted that:
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235(CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05, II A).
Further, regarding the concentration ranges as examined above, it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. 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). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERA STULII whose telephone number is (571)272-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30AM-3:30PM.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/VERA STULII/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights