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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 4/6/26. Claims 2,7-11,13 are cancelled and claim 14 is amended. Claims 15-20 are added. Claims 1,3-6,12 and 14-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,3-6,12,14-20 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 claim 6, 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. (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 and the property of reducing sweetness 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 and the property as in claims 14-20.
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 claim 6, 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. ( 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 reduced bitter aftertaste, reduction of sweetness and other properties in claims 15-20 as claimed because the same component is present through treatment with peptidyl arginine deiminase. 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 4/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues Willemsen teaches away from enzymatic modification and that enzymatic treatment negatively affects the taste. Applicant contends that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been discourage from subjecting Willemsen’s carefully-prepared native rapeseed protein isolate to any enzymatic treatment. This argument is not persuasive because it does not address the position taken in the rejection. There is no proposed modification to Willemsen. The reference is only a secondary teaching to obtaining a rapeseed protein isolate. It is not relied upon for the teaching of the enzyme treatment. Vlasie already teaches the enzyme treatment with PAD. Thus, it is not needed to rely upon Willemsen for such teaching. Willemsen discloses the protein rapeseed isolate and the steps to obtain the protein. One of ordinary skill in the art would rely upon the teaching of Willemsen to obtain the protein substrate to use in the Vlasie process. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Furthermore, the bitter effects referred to by applicant is a background discussion. The discussion is general and is not specific to rapeseed protein or PAD enzyme treatment. Applicant points to the treatment in Willemsen. The point is irrelevant because Willemsen is not used as the primary reference in the rejection. There is no proposed modification to the Willemsen reference.
Applicant further argues that Vlasie does not actually teach PAD treatment of rapeseed protein isolate. Applicant states Vlasie’s disclosure of rapeseed is limited to a single passing reference. Applicant points to the examples. This argument is not persuasive. On page 3, Vlasie explicitly discloses rapeseed protein. The disclosure of rapeseed protein readily suggest rapeseed protein isolate because protein is available as protein concentrate or the purer form of protein isolate. It’s a well-known fact and also disclosed in Willemsen. The lack of disclosure of rapeseed protein isolate is the reason for the incorporation of the teaching of Willemsen. Examples are only exemplified embodiments; they are not the totality of the disclosure. Applicant argues a person of ordinary skill following Vlasie’s teaching would have selected one of Vlasie’s preferred and actually tested proteins of pea, soy, rice or cereal protein. This argument is not persuasive because it’s applicant own conclusion. There is no factual evidence to support applicant’s conclusion when Vlasie specifically discloses rapeseed protein.
Applicant further argues does not teach or suggest achieving the claimed citrulline to arginine ratio. 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. 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. Contrary to applicant’s statement, Vlasie does not disclose 30% conversion. Vlasie discloses at least 30%. One of ordinary skill in the art to 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. Applicant states the reference referred to in Vlasie only achieve with free arginine. The treatment in WO714 is specific to the process in that reference. 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 a 30% conversion threshold is sufficient to achieve Vlasie’s objective. This argument is not persuasive because it’s also applicant own conclusion. Vlasie discloses different percent of increase in solubility and the solubility is affected by the conversion of arginine to citrulline. The conversion is not set at only 1 point. It can vary depending on the citrulline content desired and the content affects the solubility.
Applicant further argues that Vlasie is completely silent with regard to taste, flavor or sweetness 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 obvious that the same property of reduction in sweetness is 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
June 15, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights