DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114), the Response, and Amendment filed 08/28/2025 is acknowledged.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-19, 21-22
Withdrawn claims: 1-13, 18-19, 21
Previously cancelled claims: 20
Newly cancelled claims: 23
Amended claims: 14, 16
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 14-17, 22
Currently rejected claims: 14-17, 22
Allowed claims: None
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/28/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 14-15, 17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doring (US 2016/0309733 in view of Masotti (Masotti et al., “The evolution of chemical and microbiological properties of fresh goat milk cheese during its shelf life”, 2012, J. Dairy Sci., vol. 95, pages 4760 – 4767).
Regarding claims 14, 15, 17, and 22, Doring teaches a process for the preparation of cheese comprising the steps of: (i) subjecting milk to decreaming so as to obtain skim milk; and (ii) subjecting the skim milk to a concentrating step which includes microfiltration [0015], [0024]-[0028], [0033]. Doring discloses that it is known in the art that cheese may be produced from goat milk [0002]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the milk used in the cheesemaking process of Doring to be goat milk since Doring provides a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP §2143.I.E. It is also known in the art that microfiltration of skim milk produces a whey-reduced milk fraction and a whey fraction when a filter having a particular pore size is used. Since Doring discloses filters having pore sizes which would create such fractions of skim milk (corresponding to 100 nm) [0034], a step of microfiltration to obtain a whey-reduced milk fraction and a whey fraction is rendered obvious.
Doring teaches the process then comprising the steps of: (iii) subjecting the whey-reduced milk fraction to increasing the dry matter solids content so as to form a whey-reduced goat milk concentrate, whereby increasing the dry matter solids content comprises a step selected from the group consisting of adding cream [0029] and removing water through a method selected from a group consisting of evaporation, nanofiltration, and combinations thereof [0033] as recited in present claims 14, 15, and 22. By Doring disclosing the addition of cream to the whey-reduced fat fraction [0029], Doring also discloses that the method comprises a step of (iv) adding fat, before or after increasing the dry matter solids content, so as to obtain a goat cheese milk concentrate (corresponding to cheese-making milk) [0031]. Doring discloses that, after the concentration step, the milk concentrate has a dry matter solids content of about 30 wt.% to about 60 wt.%, such as about 35 wt.% to about 50 wt.% [0039], which falls within the dry matter solids content range recited in step (iii) of present claim 14 and encompasses the dry matter solids content of present claim 17. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05.I.
Doring then teaches that starter cultures such as lactic acid bacteria or acids themselves are added to the goat cheese milk concentrate [0041], [0043]. Starter cultures of acid-producing bacteria will produce acid in the goat cheese milk concentrate; therefore, the addition of starter cultures and/or acid to the goat cheese milk concentrate produces acidified goat cheese milk concentrate. As such, Doring discloses that the process further comprises the step of: (v) subjecting the goat cheese milk concentrate to acidification so as to provide an acidified goat cheese milk concentrate as recited in present claim 14. Doring also discloses that rennet may be further added to the goat cheese milk concentrate and that rennet causes enzymatic coagulation [0004], [0041]. Doring discloses that the presence of the acid and/or rennet causes coagulation of the goat cheese milk concentrate [0003], [0006] so that when the goat cheese milk is filled into a mold (corresponding to packaging), the goat cheese milk concentrate will coagulate in the mold as recited instep (vi) of present claim 14.
Doring does not disclose that the cheese produced by the method of Doring is a French-type goat cheese wherein the goat milk has a neutral pH of 6.5-7 and the goat milk is acidified to a pH of below 4.8.
However, Masotti teaches that unprocessed goat milk has a pH value of 6.53 (page 4763, column 1, 1st paragraph), which falls within the claimed pH range for the goat milk. Masotti teaches that soft goat cheese is made by coagulation through the addition of lactic bacteria and rennet to goat milk (page 4760, column 2, 1st paragraph). Masotti teaches that the soft goat cheese has a pH of 4.1 to 4.5 (page 4760, column 2, 1st paragraph), which falls within the claimed pH of after acidification.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the goat milk and the acidified goat cheese milk concentrate of Doring to have a pH of 6.53 and 4.1-4.5, respectively, as taught by Doring. Since Doring discloses that its cheese may be produced from goat milk [0002], it would have been obvious for the goat milk of Doring to have a pH of 6.53 since Masotti teaches that goat milk has such a pH. Since Doring discloses that the cheese may be a soft goat cheese produced through lactic acid and rennet coagulation [0006], [0041], [0043], but does not disclose a pH obtained by acidification through the acid, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Masotti in order to determine a suitable pH for goat cheese produced by such a method. Therefore, the claimed neutral pH of the goat milk and the claimed pH of the acidified goat cheese milk concentrate are rendered obvious.
Since the combination of prior art discloses a soft cheese prepared by goat milk which is produced using a method which renders the claimed method obvious, the prior art encompasses embodiments wherein the prepared cheese is a French-type goat cheese as presently claimed.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doring (US 2016/0309733 in view of Masotti (Masotti et al., “The evolution of chemical and microbiological properties of fresh goat milk cheese during its shelf life”, 2012, J. Dairy Sci., vol. 95, pages 4760 – 4767) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Pazzola (Pazzola et al., “Effect of goat milk composition on cheesemaking traits and daily cheese production”, May 2019, J. Diary Sci., vol. 2, issue 4, pages 3947-3955).
Regarding claim 16, modified Doring teaches the invention as described above in claim 14, including coagulation of milk into cheese and the texture of the resulting cheese may be affected by casein (Doring [0003]); and that goat cheese has been gaining popularity due to its sensorial and nutritional value of the goat milk from which the cheese is produced (Masotti, page 4760, column 2, 1st paragraph). Doring also discloses that ingredients may be added to the goat milk concentrate in the form of powder (corresponding to microorganisms and cellulose in powder form) [0042], [0086]. The combination of prior art does not disclose that the dry matter solids content of the whey-reduced milk fraction is increased by adding goat casein powder.
However, Pazzola teaches that high amounts of casein (corresponding to values of casein number higher than 82%) were associated with a general improvement of coagulation ability of goat milk (page 3953, column 2, 3rd paragraph). Pazzola also teaches that the amount of casein influences fat recovery (abstract).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the whey-reduced milk fraction in the method of Doring by modifying its casein content as taught by Pazzola. Since Doring discloses that casein is responsible for the coagulating ability of milk and the texture of the resulting cheese [0003]; and Masotti discloses the importance of sensorial and nutritional value of the goat milk from which goat cheese is produced (page 4760, column 2, 1st paragraph), it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill to have added goat casein to the goat milk used to produce goat cheese so as to retain more fat in the cheese and modify the coagulation and texture of the cheese as taught by Pazzola (abstract; page 3953, column 2, 3rd paragraph). Since Doring discloses that ingredients may be added in powder form to the goat milk concentrate [0042], [0086], it would have been obvious for a skilled practitioner to have added the goat casein in the form of a powder. Therefore, a step of increasing dry matter solids by adding goat casein powder to the whey-reduced milk fraction as recited in present claim 16 is rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant amended claim 16 to fully address the objection; therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 14-17 and 22-23 over Aaltonen: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 14-17 and 22 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 rejection of claim 23 is moot due to cancelation of the claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791