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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 28, 2025 has been entered.
Claims 16, 21-5, 27-29, and 33-37 are pending. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
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.
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.
Claims 16, 21, 23-25, 27, 28, 35, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (“Quality attributes of the set-style yoghurt from whole bovine milk as affected by an enzymatic oxidative cross-linking”, https://doi.org/10.1080/19476337.2013.837963) in view of Dekker (“Dairy Enzymes”, Industrial Enzyme Applications, Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH&Co. KGaA, 2019), taken with evidentiary reference of Noll (“Factors Affecting the Gas Content of Milk”, Volume XXIV, Number 12, 12/1941), and in view of Isaschar-Ovdat (“Crosslinking of food proteins mediated by oxidative enzymes – A review”, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.12.011)
Regarding Claims 16, 23, 25, 27, 36, and 37, Chang teaches a method for improving the syneresis and modulus (which is the same as firmness) of a yogurt (Page 254, Conclusion).
Chang teaches contacting a substrate (milk) with an oxidase and a peroxidase (horseradish peroxidase, Abstract). Note that milk is known to contain oxygen (see evidentiary reference of Noll, Paragraph 1), carbohydrates, and proteins. Note that proteins contain amino groups, which meets the “first compound” limitation of part (a).
Chang further teaches incubation of the substrate with oxidase and peroxidase (Page 250, “Treatment of whole bovine milk and preparation of set-style yoghurt samples”). Chang teaches that the glucose oxidase oxidizes the glucose and forms H2O2 (Page 250, Column 1, Paragraph 1). Chang further specifies that the oxidase forms an organic acid from the carbohydrate acid (Page 251, “Treatment of whole bovine milk by the ternary oxidative system”). Chang additionally teaches that the peroxidase utilizes H2O2 to induce crosslinking of substrate proteins (Page 250, Paragraph 1).
Chang teaches the use of a carbohydrate oxidase (glucose oxidase) and peroxidase in a substrate but does not discuss the use of a cellobiose oxidase as the oxidase or discuss the exclusion of exogenously added carbohydrates.
Dekker teaches that commercial oxidases are known in the dairy industry (Page 161). Dekker teaches a number of carbohydrate oxidases, and teaches that one of ordinary skill would select a carbohydrate oxidase depending on the availability of oxygen and a carbohydrate in the substrate. Dekker specifically teaches that lactose oxidase is “similar” to e.g., glucose oxidase, but has a preference for lactose (Page 161, “Oxidases/Peroxidases”, Paragraph 4) and produces lactobionic acid
Dekker additionally teaches that peroxidases are useful in the cross-linking of proteins in the dairy industry to provide texture and structure (Page 20, “Cross-linking Enzymes”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize lactose oxidase, which is a cellobiose oxidase, as claimed, in the formulation of modified Chang, and additionally to utilize a lactose oxidase in the absence of glucose or another exogenously added carbohydrate. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to utilize an oxidase with high activity towards lactose (which is known to be present in milk), and additionally since Dekker teaches that lactose oxidase is an analogue of glucose oxidase.
Modified Chang does not discuss the addition of a cellobiose oxidase in the claimed ranges. However, it is known in the art that the concentration of e.g., an enzyme should be adjusted based on the desired extent of reaction and the concentration of other species that participate in the reaction. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Modified Chang additionally does not discuss the addition of vanillin or p- coumaric acid as a second compound.
Isaschar-Ovdat teaches that phenolic molecules such as vanillin (Page 137, Column 1, Line 12) are known to facilitate the cross-linking of proteins by peroxide (Page 137, Figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include phenolic compounds in a composition that comprises proteins and peroxidase intended for cross-linking, as claimed. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to include compounds to facilitate cross-linking reactions.
Regarding Claim 21, modified Chang does not discuss the addition of a phenolic compound as the first compound.
Isaschar-Ovdat teaches that phenolic molecules are known to facilitate the cross-linking of proteins by peroxide (Page 137, Figure 3) and additionally teaches that multiple phenolic compounds are known to form covalent bonds in a milk system (Page 137, Column 1), and that the viscosity increase effect is concentration-dependent. Note that since Isaschar-Ovdat teaches multiple phenolic compounds for forming covalent bonds in a milk system, it would have been obvious to have utilized multiple phenolic compounds. Note that it is prima facie obvious to combine equivalents known for the same purpose. See In re Kerkhoven, MPEP 2144.06.
It therefore would have been obvious to have included any small molecule phenolic compound in the composition of modified Chang, including as a first compound. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Isaschar-Ovdat teaches that the addition of phenolic compounds is known to affect the viscosity of a milk system.
Regarding Claim 24, Chang teaches the use of horseradish peroxidase (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 28, Chang teaches the addition of peroxidase at 200 U/L (or 0.2U/g), which lie within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Note that Dekker provides sufficient motivation to substitute a cellobiose oxidase, as claimed, for the oxidase of Chang as discussed above in regards to Claim 16.
Modified Chang does not discuss the addition of a cellobiose oxidase in the claimed ranges. However, it is known in the art that the concentration of e.g., an enzyme should be adjusted based on the desired extent of reaction and the concentration of other species that participate in the reaction. Since Applicant has not disclosed that the specific limitations recited in instant claims are for any particular purpose or solve any stated problem, absent unexpected results, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable ranges of the method disclosed by the prior art by normal optimization procedures known in the art.
Regarding Claim 35, Chang teaches the food product but does not discuss a specific crosslink density. However, given that Chang teaches a similar product with similar processing, there is an expectation that the product of the prior art have the property of cross link density of at least .001% w/w, as claimed.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Dekker taken with evidentiary reference of Knoll, and in view of Isaschar-Ovdat as applied to Claim 16, above, taken with evidentiary reference of Landi (“Amino Acid Composition of Milk from Cow, Sheep and Goat Raised in Ailano and Valle Agricola, Two Localities of ‘Alto Casertano’ (Campania Region)”, DOI: 10.3390/foods10102431)
Regarding Claim 22, modified Chang teaches the substrate is milk, which contains proteins with tyrosine residues (see evidentiary reference of Landi, Abstract).
Claims 29 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Dekker taken with evidentiary reference of Knoll and in view of Isaschar-Ovdat, as applied to Claim 16, above, and further in view of Pintus (“Calcium Ions and a Secreted Peroxidase in Euphorbia characias Latex are Made for Each Other”, DOI: 10.1007/s10930-011-9310-8)
Regarding Claim 29, modified Chang as applied to Claim 16, above, teaches the use of oxidase and peroxidase in a substrate. Chang additionally teaches the cross-linking of proteins (“first compound”, Page 251, Column 2, Paragraph 1) but does not discuss the use of phenolic compounds as a second compound which are cross-linked through activity of the peroxidase.
Isaschar-Ovdat teaches that adding phenolic molecules such as vanillin facilitates the cross-linking (Page 137, Paragraph 1 and Figure 3) of proteins by peroxidase.
Additionally, Pintus teaches that the activity of peroxidase can be enhanced by calcium ions (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include calcium ions and phenolic compounds in a composition that comprises proteins and peroxidase intended for cross-linking, as claimed. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to include compounds known to facilitate cross-linking reactions, and additionally since it is known that the presence of calcium can enhance activity of peroxidase.
Regarding Claim 33, modified Chang as applied to Claim 29, above, teaches the method of incubating a substrate food product with co-mediators such as Ca2+ but does not discuss a specific concentration. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the co-mediator concentration depending on the desired final network properties in the substrate food.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang in view of Dekker taken with evidentiary reference of Knoll and in view of Isaschar-Ovdat, as applied to Claim 16 above, and further in view of Lee (“Formation and Physical Properties of Yogurt”, DOI: 10.5713/ajas.2010.r.05 ).
Regarding Claim 34, modified Chang as applied to Claim 16, above, teaches heating the incubated substrate (Page 250, Column 2, Paragraph 1) but does not specifically teach enzyme deactivation. Chang points to the method of Lee (2010) as an appropriate procedure for treating milk for yogurt.
Lee teaches that heating to, e.g., 140 °C for 4-16 seconds is an appropriate heat treatment for milk intended for yogurt (Page 1128, “Heat Treatment”). Note that the instant Specification teaches that heating at 141 °C for 8 seconds inactivates the enzymes, and thus the method of Lee is interpreted to inactivate enzymes as claimed. No difference is expected between a heat treatment at 141 °C versus 140 °C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the heating method of Lee for the heating method taught by Chang, since Chang points to Lee as providing appropriate methods for treating milk intended for yogurt.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that various low molar mass phenolic compounds were tested as oxidation mediators, and not all phenolic compounds were equally useful (Remarks, Page 6). Applicant cites the data shown in Figure 6 and the instant Specification at Pages 32, Line 4 – Page 33, Line 5, and Pages 35, Lines 6-8.
This argument is not convincing. First, note that cited passages of the instant Specification describe experimental conditions for testing of the phenolic compounds and do not provide evidence of an unexpected effect. Second, note that Figure 6 of the Drawings lacks a y-axis label, and no conclusions can be drawn about the effect of one phenolic compound over another. Lastly, where Isaschar-Ovdat teaches that adding phenolic molecules such as vanillin facilitates the cross-linking (Page 137, Paragraph 1 and Figure 3) of proteins by peroxidase, it would have been obvious to have utilized vanillin in the method as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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.
/D.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791