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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/11/26 has been entered.
Claims 1, 14 are amended and claims 2,7-11,13,17 are cancelled. Claims 21-29 are added. Claims 1,3-6,12,14-16, 18-29 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The range of “ at least 40%” is not disclosed. Example 1 only discloses two values of 71%, 88%. There is no disclosure of the range “ at least 40%” which includes any value of 40 and above. There is no evidence to show that applicant is in possession of an entire range. There is no disclosure of 40, 50, 60, 90 etc…
Claim 15 is 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 15 is vague and indefinite. It’s unclear how the claim further limits claim 1 when the limitation of increase in digestibility is already recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,3-6,12,14-16,18-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vlasie ( WO 2017/009100) in view of Willemsen (WO 2018/007492).
For claim 1, Vlasie discloses the use of peptidyl arginine deiminase on protein substrate to obtain protein having improved properties. The protein includes rapeseed protein. Vlasie discloses in the reaction with the enzyme, arginine is converted to citrulline. Vlasie discloses protein including rapeseed protein and the protein is treated with peptidyl arginine deiminase. Thus, the rapeseed protein comprises citrulline. For claims 1, 6,29, Vlasie discloses the solubility of protein is increased by the use of peptidyl arginine deiminase by at least 95%. Vlasie discloses the physical property of protein is improved when measuring the protein in a solution having a pH of between 5 and 8.5. For claim 27, Vlasie discloses that the reduced foam capacity is advantageous in particular in a beverage comprising a plant protein. (see page 1 lines 25-33, page 2 lines 10-30, page 3 lines 1-15 and example 1).
Vlasie discloses rapeseed protein but does not disclose the protein is a rapeseed protein isolate having the characteristic of cruciferins and napin and the amount of citrulline, the percent and number of transformation and the property of reducing sweetness and increase digestibility as in claim 1, the 12S rapeseed protein as in claim 3, the ratio as in claim 4, the phytate level as in claim 5, the food product as in claim 12, the protein as in claim 26, and the property as in claims 14-16, 18-25, 28-29.
For claim 1, Willemsen discloses a rapeseed protein isolate comprising 40-65% cruciferins, 35-60% napins having solubility of at least 88% when measured over a pH range from 3-10 at a temperature of 23 minus/plus 2 degrees C. For claim 3, the rapeseed protein isolate comprises at least 5-65% 12D rapeseed protein verified by Blue Native PAGE. For claim 5, the rapeseed protein has a phytate level less than .4%. For claims 1,6,29, the solubility is at least 92% which includes the claimed 94%. For claim 4, Willemsen discloses the same ranges of cruciferins and napins; thus, it is obvious the claimed range can be selected from the ranges of cruciferins and napins. For claim 12, Willemsen discloses food product comprising rapeseed protein isolate. For claim 28, Willemsen discloses the rapeseed protein isolate has a conductivity at 2% aqueous solution of less than 4000 uS/cm over pH range of 2.5 to 11.5. For claim 26, the rapeseed protein isolate is not hydrolyze ( see pages 2, 6)
Vlazie teaches to treat protein including rapeseed protein with peptidyl arginine deiminase to improve physical properties of the protein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the rapeseed protein isolate as disclosed in Willemsen as the rapeseed protein substrate in Vlazie. Vlazie discloses the protein can be various protein including rapeseed. Thus, it would have been readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any known rapeseed protein such as the one disclosed by Willemsen. Vlazie discloses that the treatment with the enzyme converts arginine to citrilline. The amount of citrulline generated and the percent of arginine transformed would depend on the length of treatment and the amount of enzyme used. Vlazie discloses it is known to transform at least 30% of arginine to citrulline. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the parameters of amount of citrulline, percent transformed and amount of enzyme depending on the product wanted. Since Vlazie discloses that at least 30% of arginine is transformed, it is expected the claimed amount of citrulline can be obtained. The determination of an optimum amount would have been within the ordinary skill of one in the art through routine experimentation. Vlazie in view of Willemsen discloses rapeseed protein isolate comprising citrulline. Thus, it is obvious the protein would have the increase digestibibilty, reduced bitter aftertaste, reduction of sweetness and other properties in claims 14-16,18-25, as claimed because the same component is present through treatment with peptidyl arginine deiminase. The rapeseed protein isolate disclosed in Willemsion has the properties of solubility, phytate, un-hydrolyze and conductivity as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the rapeseed protein in foods because such usage is known in the art as shown in Willemsen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/11/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response , applicant argues there is no reasonable expectation of success of achieving the at least 80% transformation as claimed. Applicant points to example 6 of the Edens reference referred to in the Vlazie dislosure.. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Vlazie discloses that the treatment with the enzyme converts arginine to citrilline. The amount of citrulline generated and the percent of arginine transformed would depend on the length of treatment and the amount of enzyme used. The example 6 pointed out by applicant in the Edens reference is not specific to rapeseed protein isolate; thus, basing the argument of lack of reasonable expectation of success on the example is not accurate. It’s expected that enzyme reacts differently on different substrates and this is proven in the Edens example 6 as different substrates give different amounts of transformation to citrilline. If applicant’s argument is correct, then the claimed product is not enabling because the claimed product recites the same enzyme reacting on the same substrate as in Vlazie. Also, as shown in example 6 of Edens, the amounts of enzyme also affects the conversion. Table 1 of the Edens references shows that on caseinate substrate, 50 microliter give 4.7% citrulline but 500 microliter gives 10.5% citrulline. Thus, the transformation to citrulline is affected by the type of substrate and the amount of enzyme used. Vlazie discloses it is known to transform at least 30% of arginine to citrulline. At least 30% means 30% or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the parameters of amount of citrulline, percent transformed and amount of enzyme depending on the product wanted. Since Vlasie discloses that at least 30% of arginine is transformed, it is expected the claimed amount of citrulline can be obtained. The determination of an optimum amount would have been within the ordinary skill of one in the art through routine experimentation. Vlasie discloses at least 30%. One of ordinary skill in the art can select any varying conversion depending on the citrulline content desired in the protein. Vlasie disclose on page 2 lines 15-20, “ surprisingly, it was found that a protein wherein at least part of the arginine has been converted into citrulline, and thereby resulting in protein with less charge, exhibited an increased solubility”. Thus, one can vary the conversion depending on the extent of increase in solubility desired. Vlasie discloses the actual conversion because Vlasie discusses the solubility of the protein as a parameter based on the conversion of arginine to citrulline. The lack of disclosure of rapeseed protein in that reference does not mean the conversion cannot be done. The conversion of arginine to citrulline is through the use of the enzyme PAD on the protein substrate. Vlasie discloses the use of the enzyme on rapeseed protein. Vlasie in view of Willemson discloses the rapeseed protein isolate. The conversion can be obtained. Applicant argues that Edens provides no working example achieving 80% conversion. The Edens reference is no the prior art relied on the rejection. Furthermore, examples are only exemplified embodiments. A reference is not required to have examples of every embodiment. For instance, applicant’s specification does not disclose examples of all the amounts of citrulline claimed.
Applicant further argues that Vlasie is completely silent with regard to taste, flavor, sweetness and other sensorty properties as an outcome of treatment with PAD and Willemsen does not mention PAD at all. This argument is not persuasive. Vlasie discloses the same treatment of rapeseed protein with PAD. Vlasie in view of Willemsen discloses the use of rapeseed protein isolate to PAD. Thus, it’s obviously inherent that the same sensory properties are present in the Vlasie in view of Willemsen. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
September 18, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights