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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/18/25 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 14 are amended and claims 2,7-11 and 13 are cancelled. Claims 1,3-6,12,14 are pending.
The previous 112 first paragraph rejection is withdrawn due to the amendment and applicant’s argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,3-6,12,14 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 theproperty 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 claim 14.
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 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 and reduction of sweetness 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 6/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant 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.
As to Willemsen, 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).
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.
January 9, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793