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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/26 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is missing a colon (:) after the recitation of “A composition comprising”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 13, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schube et al. [US 20180249745 A1], hereinafter Schube, in view of Uchimura et al. [WO 2018147326 A1], hereinafter Uchimura, Purkayastha et al. [US 20140017378 A1], hereinafter Purkayastha, and Lohse et al. [WO 2018083224 A1], hereinafter Lohse.
Regarding claim 1, Schube teaches a composition comprising:
A yeast lysate [Schube, Abstract, 0031-0038];
A flavor composition comprising: (i) one or more steviol glycosides, having additional glucose units (moieties) added (attached) to the base steviol glycoside molecules via glycosylation (via glucosylation when the unit/moieties are glucose) [Schube, 0019], and (ii) a vanilla flavor [Schube, 0054].
Regarding the yeast lysate concentration of a):
Schube teaches the yeast lysate concentration in the composition may be at least 0.01 weight percent, which allows for any additional amounts, such as an amount that is effective to reduce or eliminate any bitter taste [0038], but does not teach the yeast lysate concentration in the composition ranges from 0.03-0.2 weight percent.
Uchimura teaches flavor compositions comprising yeast lysate (yeast digest or yeast autolysate) [Uchimura, Abstract], where the ratio (concentration) of the yeast lysate added to the composition (oil base) may be from 0.05-10 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the oil or 0.05-9.09 weight percent, based on the total weight of the composition (0.05/100.05 x 100= 0.049% to 10/110 x 100= 9.09%) [Uchimura, 0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a yeast lysate concentration in the range of 0.05-9.09 weight percent as taught by Uchimura, in the composition of Schube, since both are related to flavor compositions for foodstuffs, since Schube teach the yeast lysate may be in concentrations of at least 0.01 weight percent and does not teach an upper limit [Schube, 0038], and because Uchimura teaches that the ratio (concentration) of the yeast lysate added to the composition (oil base) may vary depending on the composition oil base used or the yeast lysate used and can be adjusted appropriately [Uchimura, 0017] in order to produce yeast lysate containing compositions that enhance the flavors of foodstuffs [Uchimura, 0022].
Regarding the steviol glycosides being enzymatically glucosylated of b):
Schube teaches the steviol glycosides in the composition, having additional glucose units (moieties) added (attached) to the base steviol glycoside molecules via glycosylation (via glucosylation when the unit/moieties are glucose) [Schube, 0019], but does not explicitly recites the glucose units are added via enzymatic glucosylation.
Purkayastha teaches glucosylated steviol glycoside as flavor modifier [Purkayastha, Title]. The invention provides for a taste and flavor profile modifying composition that includes a blend of glucosylated steviol glycoside which can modify taste and/or flavor in food or beverage products [Abstract]. Purkayastha disclose that one of the main ways to improve the taste quality is by enzymatic glucosylation of steviol glycosides [Purkayastha, 0013]. The invention teach a process to produce glucosylated steviol glycoside molecules by precise control of various process parameters that includes enzyme source and activity [Purkayastha, 0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the claimed steviol glycoside with additional glucose units obtained via enzymatic glucosylation of Purkayastha into the invention of Schube, since both are directed to methods of making flavor modifying compositions, since Schube already teach a flavor composition comprising glucosylated steviol glycosides with additional glucose units, plant protein ingredients and other flavors but simply did not mentioned the steviol glycoside with additional glucose units was obtained via enzymatic glucosylation, and further because Purkayastha teaches that using steviol glycoside molecules with an increased number of glucose units added via enzymatic glucosylation, would increase sweetness intensity of a taste and/or flavor in a food or beverage product [Purkayastha, Abstract], and achieve compositions comprising blends of different ratios of glucosylated steviol glycoside molecules [Purkayastha, 0014], suitable as flavor modifier in a variety of food and beverage products [Purkayastha, 0031].
Regarding the vanilla flavor composition comprising vanillin of b) and pea protein of c):
Modified Schube teaches the flavor composition comprising vanilla flavor [0057], but does not teach the vanilla flavor comprises vanillin and pea protein.
Lohse teaches a flavor composition, a composition, food comprising the composition and a flavor imparting method [Lohse, Title]. The flavor composition may be blended with a food or beverage to impart flavor and can be mixed with other flavor ingredients to form the complete flavor composition [Lohse, p.12, l.1-6]. The composition may comprise flavor enhancers [Lohse, p.12, l.16], including vanillin (vanilla, cream, vanilla flavor composition comprising vanillin), [Lohse, p.13, l.16-17], and pea protein [Lohse, p.16, l.18].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a vanilla flavor composition comprising vanillin and pea protein of Lohse, into the invention of modified Schube, since both are directed to methods of making flavor modifying compositions, since Lohse also teaches flavor compositions comprising yeast lysate (autolyzed yeast) [Lohse, p.12, l.28], and because Lohse teaches that the combination of various flavor imparting ingredients would provide for a variety of complete flavor compositions prepared with other known ingredients such as taste masking agents to satisfy the requirements of food and beverage industry [Lohse, p.12, l.7-18], based on the flavor profile that a skilled artisan flavorist is trying to achieve [Lohse, p.13, l.7-9].
Regarding the soy masking composition of b):
In regards to the limitation of a soy masking composition, it is initially noted that Schube can be construed as a soy masking composition, because the reference teaches the recited steviol glycosides and a vanilla flavor, albeit without providing any specificity regarding enzymatic glycosylation and vanillin. However, since modified Schube in view of Purkayastha teaches glucosylated steviol glycoside via enzymatic glucosylation [Purkayastha, 0013-0014] to produce flavor compositions, and Schube in view of Lohse teaches flavor compositions comprising vanillin (vanilla, cream), [Lohse, p.13, l.16-17], therefore modified Schube in view of Purkayastha and Lohse teach “a soy masking composition”. Lastly, because modified Schube teach the flavor composition is for modifying flavors and is used in soy based food products [Schube, 0052-0053, 0086, 0115], it is expected that the steviol glycoside and vanilla comprising vanillin of modified Schube acts as a soy masking composition.
Regarding claims 2, 7, 15, see modified Schube in view of Uchimura above in claim 1 rejection, wherein a concentration of yeast lysate in the composition ranges from 0.05-10 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the oil flavor composition [Uchimura, 0017], which is a range of from 0.05/100.05 x 100= 0.049 weight percent to 10/110 x 100= 9.09 weight percent based on the total weight of the composition, encompassing the claimed yeast lysate concentration ranges.
Further, regarding the concentration limitations of “based on the total weight of the composition” as required by claim 2, and “based on the total weight of the flavored article” as required by claims 7 and 15, since the claimed composition is an edible flavored composition, under the broadest reasonable interpretation they are considered to be the same, and since Schube teaches the concentration of the yeast lysate is at least 0.01 weight percent, and/or in amounts that are effective to reduce or eliminate an undesired taste and does not teach an upper limit [Schube, 0038], and modified Schube in view of Uchimura teach the yeast lysate may be in the flavor composition in a concentration range that encompass the claimed ranges and additionally that the ratio (concentration) of the yeast lysate added to the composition (oil base) may vary depending on the composition oil base used or the yeast lysate used and can be adjusted appropriately [Uchimura, 0017], one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of the yeast lysate, the flavor composition comprising steviol glycosides, vanilla comprising vanillin, and pea protein as a composition or as a flavored article, wherein the yeast lysate would be present in the claimed amounts. Moreover, the claimed concentration of a yeast lysate in the composition and/or flavored article would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of modified Schube, due to factors such as the type and quantities of the various ingredients as taught by Uchimura [Uchimura, 0017], the desired final taste of the final product, and/or the desired degree of bitterness to achieve, reduce or eliminate in a flavor composition and/or flavored article as taught by Schube [Schube, 0038].
Regarding claims 6 and 8, modified Schube teaches a flavored article, which comprises the composition of claim 1, wherein the flavored article is a food product [Schube, 0051].
Regarding claim 13, Schube teaches the flavored article of claim 6, wherein the flavored article does not comprise animal milk or materials derived from animal milk (i.e., soy milk) [Schube, 0053].
Regarding claim 16, Schube teaches the steviol glycosides in the composition, having additional glucose units (moieties) added (attached) to the base steviol glycoside molecules via glycosylation (via glucosylation when the unit/moieties are glucose) [Schube, 0019], where said steviol glycosides (having additional glucose units via glucosylation) may be in the composition in amounts of at least 0.5% w/w with no upper limit [Schube, 0029], or in higher concentrations such as from at least 80% w/w or at least 95% w/w [Schube, 0030], and that a skilled person will be able to determine the amount of steviol glycoside or steviol glycosides which is effective to provide modification of taste to a specific food or beverage composition [Schube, 0029]. Further, Schube in view of Purkayastha teaches flavor modifying compositions comprising steviol glycosides having additional glucose units added to the base steviol glycoside molecules specifically via enzymatic glucosylation, wherein the composition may be a blend of different ratios of glucosylated steviol glycosides [Purkayastha, Title, 0013-0014], and include compositions having steviol glycosides having additional glucose units (glucosylated steviol glycosides (GSGs)) in concentration amounts of from 16% w/w to 95% w/w (for GSG-S, GSG-M, and GSG-L) [Purkayastha, Table 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the 10% w/w or more of steviol glycoside with additional glucose units obtained via enzymatic glucosylation of Purkayastha into the invention of Schube, because Purkayastha teaches that blends of different ratios/concentrations of glucosylated steviol glycosides [Purkayastha, 0014] would provide different levels/strength of taste/sweetness (i.e., increased or decreased) based on the glucose units added to the base steviol glycoside molecule (i.e., glucosylation level) [Purkayastha, 0058]. Therefore, a skilled artisan would recognize the use of 10% w/w or more of glucosylated steviol glycosides based on the steviol glycoside molecule glucosylation level in order to obtain a flavoring composition with suitable flavor strength to impart the desired flavor in the particular food types or food applications in which the flavor composition is used [Purkayastha, 0031].
Regarding claim 17, modified Schube teaches the soy masking composition of claim 1 as explained above, but is silent regarding the soy masking composition further comprising 15% w/w or more of salt.
Lohse teaches the flavor composition discussed above in claim 1 rejection [Lohse, Title], wherein the flavor composition may comprise 30% w/w [Lohse, p.11, l.22].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate 15% w/w or more of salt as taught by Lohse, into the composition of Schube, because Lohse teaches that the flavor compositions of the invention may represent a complete flavor composition that may be mixed with other flavor ingredients to form the complete flavor composition [Lohse, p.12, l.1-6], and because skilled flavorist will be able to mix a reaction flavour solid composition of the present invention with other known ingredients (where other ingredients include salts [Lohse, p.12, l.17]) employed in flavour compositions to develop a wide variety of complete flavour compositions to satisfy the requirements of the food and beverage industry [Lohse, p.12, l.7-10].
Claim(s) 18-19, 21-22, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schube [US 20180249745 A1], in view of Uchimura [WO 2018147326 A1], Purkayastha [US 20140017378 A1], and Lohse [WO 2018083224 A1], as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Barlet et al. [WO 2019048564 A1], hereinafter Barlet.
Regarding claims 18-19, 21-22, modified Schube in view of Purkayastha and Lohse teach “a soy masking composition” as explained above in the last paragraph of claim 1 rejection, further Schube teach the glucosylated steviol glycoside may be present in amounts of from at least 0.001 weight percent to at least 0.4 weight percent [Schube, 0029], Purkayastha teaches the flavor composition comprising glucosylated steviol glycosides obtained specifically via enzymatic glucosylation [Purkayastha, Title, 0013-0014], and Lohse teaches the vanilla flavor composition comprising vanillin (vanilla, cream), [Lohse, p.13, l.16-17]. However modified Schube are silent regarding the concentration of the soy masking composition (i.e., the glucosylated steviol glycoside and vanilla flavor composition comprising vanillin) in the composition ranges from 0.001 weight percent to 0.5 weight percent, based on the total weight of the composition required by claim 18, and based on the total weight of the flavored article as required by claim 21, and wherein a concentration of the vanilla flavor composition in the composition ranges from 0.001 weight percent to 0.5 weight percent, based on the total weight of the composition required by claim 19, and based on the total weight of the flavored article as required by claim 22.
Barlet teach methods for masking bitter flavors of protein-rich food products [Barlet, Abstract]. The invention also relates to the preparation of a protein-rich product having an effective amount of vanillin to reduce bitterness [Barlet, 0013-0014], wherein the effective amount of vanillin depends on the bitterness level/strength of the of the food product and the nature of the proteins contained in the food product and may be adjusted accordingly, and may be in concentrations of 30-10,000 ppm (0.003-1 weight percent) or 200 to 800 ppm (0.02 to 0.08 weight percent) [Barlet, 0030], (which are concentration ranges that fall within the claimed range of from 0.001-0.5 weight percent for the vanilla flavor as required by claim 19). Regarding the soy masking composition concentration (the concentration of glucosylated steviol glycoside combined with the vanilla flavor composition comprising vanillin), since modified Schube teaches the soy masking composition comprising glucosylated steviol glycosides via enzymatic glucosylation, and a vanilla flavor comprising vanillin as explained above, wherein the steviol glucoside may be present in the composition in amounts of from at least 0.001 weight percent to at least 0.4 weight percent [Schube, 0029], and Barlet teaches the vanillin may be present in the composition in amounts of from 0.02 to 0.08 weight percent, modified Schube in view of Barlet teach the claimed concentration of the soy masking composition in the composition ranges from 0.001 weight percent to 0.5 weight percent, based on the total weight of the composition. That is, a composition having 0.001-0.4 weight percent of glucosylated steviol glycosides as taught by Schube in view of Purkayastha, and 0.02-0.08 weight percent of a vanilla flavor composition comprising vanillin as taught by Schube in view of Lohse and Barlet, would have a concentration of a soy masking composition in the range of from 0.021 to 0.48 weight percent (which falls within the soy masking composition claimed concentration range of 0.001-0.5 weight percent required by claim 18), based on the total weight of the composition.
Further, regarding the soy masking composition and vanilla flavor composition concentration limitations of “based on the total weight of the composition” as required by claims 18-19, and “based on the total weight of the flavored article” as required by claims 21-22, since the claimed composition is an edible flavored composition, under the broadest reasonable interpretation they are considered to be the same, and since modified Schube teaches the soy masking composition comprising glucosylated steviol glycosides via enzymatic glucosylation, and a vanilla flavor comprising vanillin as explained above, wherein the steviol glucoside may be present in the composition in amounts of from at least 0.001 weight percent to at least 0.4 weight percent [Schube, 0029], and Schube in view of Lohse teach the vanilla flavor composition comprising vanillin, and Barlet teaches the vanillin may be in concentrations of 30-10,000 ppm (0.003-1 weight percent) or 200 to 800 ppm (0.02 to 0.08 weight percent) [Barlet, 0030], wherein the steviol glycoside may be adjusted to an effective amount to provide a desired taste [Schube, 0010, 0029], and wherein the vanillin may also be adjusted to an effective amount to provide a desired taste [Barlet, 0013-0014, 0030], one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the use of the yeast lysate, the flavor composition comprising a soy masking composition (glucosylated steviol glycosides and vanilla flavor composition comprising vanillin) and the vanilla flavor composition as a composition or as a flavored article, wherein the soy masking composition and the vanilla flavor composition would be present in the claimed amounts. Moreover, the claimed concentration of the soy masking composition and the vanilla flavor composition in the composition and/or flavored article would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization in the method of modified Schube, due to factors such as the type and quantities of the various ingredients, the desired final taste of the final product, and/or the desired degree of bitterness to achieve, reduce or eliminate in a flavor composition and/or flavored article as taught by both Schube and Barlet [Schube, 0010, 0029; Barlet, 0013-0014, 0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concentration of the soy masking composition in the range of from 0.021 to 0.48 weight percent based on the total weight of the composition/flavored article, and the concentration of the vanilla flavor composition in the range of 0.02 to 0.08 weight percent based on the total weight of the composition/flavored article as taught by Barlet, into the flavor composition of modified Schube, because Barlet teaches that while typical effective concentrations of vanillin are between 0.02-0.08 weight percent for reducing or eliminating an undesired taste, Barlet does not teach an upper limit and further disclose that the effective amount of vanillin depends on the bitterness level/strength of the of the food product and the nature of the proteins contained in the food product and may be adjusted accordingly in order to reduce or completely eliminate undesired flavors/taste (i.e., bitterness) [Barlet, 0030].
Regarding claim 24, modified Schube teaches the flavored article discussed in claim 6 and claim 21 above, but Schube does not teach the total amount of pea protein in the flavored article ranges from 2% by weight to 15% by weight, based on the total weight of the flavored article.
Lohse teaches the flavor composition discussed above in claim 1 rejection, wherein said flavor composition includes pea protein as a component [Lohse, p.16, l.18] in a total amount range of from 5-25% by weight, based on the total weight of the flavored article (see weight percent with respect to the composition and flavored article weight discussion in claims 18-19, 21-22 above) [Lohse, p.16, l.20-21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a total amount of pea protein in the flavored article in the range of from 5-25% by weight, based on the total weight of the flavored article as taught by Lohse, into the invention of modified Schube, because Lohse teaches that the pea protein is suitable for inclusion as a component of the reaction flavor composition as such, or as a component in a complete flavor compositions [Lohse, p.16, l.4-19] to serve as flow aids or extenders, or to provide stability to the composition [Lohse, p.15, l.30-31; p.16, l.1-2].
Claim(s) 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schube [US 20180249745 A1], in view of Uchimura [WO 2018147326 A1], Purkayastha [US 20140017378 A1], and Lohse [WO 2018083224 A1], Barlet et al. [WO 2019048564 A1], hereinafter Barlet, as applied to claims 18 and 21 above, and further in view of Patron et al. [US 20160376263 A1], hereinafter Patron.
Regarding claims 20, 23, modified Schube teaches the flavor composition discussed above in claims 1 and 18, and the flavored article discussed above in claim 6 and claim 21, but Schube does not teach wherein a concentration of the cream flavor composition in the composition ranges from 0.001 weight percent to 0.5 weight percent, based on the total weight of the composition as required by claim 20, and wherein a concentration of the cream flavor composition in the flavored article ranges from 0.001 weight percent to 0.5 weight percent, based on the total weight of the flavored article as required by claim 23.
Patron teaches compounds, compositions, and combinations of said compositions and compounds with additional compositions, compounds, and products suitable for modifying flavors [Abstract], and reducing or eliminate the bitter taste associated with a composition [0061]. The composition and combinations of said compositions and compounds may comprise a cream flavor composition (i.e., Flavor Cream Ep-17688) [0142, page 69, left column] comprising lactones such as Gluconolactone [0142, page 70, left column] and Pentadecalactone [0142, page 75, right column], wherein a concentration of the cream flavor composition in the composition and in the flavored article ranges from 10-100 ppm or 0.001-0.01 weight percent [0062], or in amounts sufficient to eliminate or reduce an undesired flavor in a composition or article (i.e., ingestible, food additives, foodstuffs, food or beverage products) [0061, Abstract], as Patron teaches that this depend on many variables, including the specific type of comestible composition and its various other ingredients, the natural genetic variability and individual preferences and health conditions of various human beings tasting the compositions, and the subjective effect of the particular compound on the taste of such chemosensory compounds. With regards to the concentration of the cream flavor composition in the composition and in the flavored article being based on the total weight of the composition and on the total weight of the flavored article, the same arguments made above in claims 18-19, 21-22 apply mutatis mutandis.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a concentration of a cream flavor composition in the composition and in the flavored article ranges from 0.001-0.01 weight percent based on the total weight of the composition and on the total weight of the flavored article as taught by Patron, in the composition of modified Schube, because Patron teaches that these specific compounds are suitable for eliminating or reducing a bitter taste associated with a composition [Abstract, 0061]. Additionally, it is noted that Patron further teach the concentration of the compounds of the invention effective to alleviate or reduce the bitter taste associated with a composition will depend on many variables, including the specific type of comestible composition and its various other ingredients, the natural genetic variability and individual preferences and health conditions of various human beings tasting the compositions, and the subjective effect of the particular compound on the taste of such chemosensory compounds [0062], which would prompt a skilled artisan to use the effective (needed) amount of said compounds (cream flavor composition) to reduce/eliminate an undesired flavor, which could be lower or higher concentrations depending on the variables as taught by Patron.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 6-8 and 13-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The arguments are directed to the new limitations of concentrations of component (yeast lysate) in the composition which has been addressed with the new prior art discussed above.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6 of the Remarks, Applicant urges that Schube does not explicitly teach the use of the composition comprising a yeast lysate for the purpose of modulating a flavor specifically of pea protein, and that Schube only focuses on reducing steviol glycosides bitter or off taste.
In response to applicant's argument that Schube does not explicitly teach the use of yeast lysate for the purpose of modulating a flavor of pea protein, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “yeast lysate would be effective to modulate the flavor of pea protein”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Schube does not explicitly teach the use of yeast lysate for the purpose of modulating a flavor of pea protein, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Furthermore, Applicant’s argument above is not persuasive because while Schube teach steviol glycosides are related to a bitter taste, Schube also teach that the amount of steviol glycoside may be adjusted to provide a sweet taste and the amount of yeast lysate also may be adjusted to reduce or eliminate an off taste that is caused by the steviol glycosides [Schube, 0010, 0029, 0032, 0038], which a skilled artisan would be able to determine based on the type of food or beverage in which the composition is being used [Schube, 0029, 0052]. Further, Schube teach using the flavor composition comprising steviol glycoside and vanilla in soy based food products [Schube, 0052-0054, 0086] which shows the use of the ingredients as a soy masking composition, and the yeast lysate as a component to reduce or eliminate an off taste or bitter taste, and modified Schube in view of Lohse teach the flavor composition comprising pea protein. Therefore given that the composition of modified Schube is the same as that of the instant claims, it is expected that the composition would reduce the bitter taste of a food comprising bitter ingredients including foods comprising pea proteins.
On page 6 of the Remarks, Applicant urges that the examples disclosed on Schube’s invention contain concentrations of yeast lysate below the claimed concentrations and provides no teaching, suggestion or guidance in increasing or adjusting yeast lysate amounts to reduce the bitter taste of pea.
This argument is not persuasive because of the same reasons explained above, and further because while Schube provides preferred amount concentrations of from at least 0.0001% w/w and at least 0.01% w/w, Schube does not teach an upper limit of yeast lysate concentration, which would prompt a skilled artisan to use higher amounts of yeast lysate if needed based on the desired taste and/or the type of food to which the flavor composition is being added, since different foods/beverages have different taste profiles due to their own combination of different ingredients at different ratios/amounts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/L.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792