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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Note: The amendment of October 7th, 2025 has been considered.
Claim 6 has been amended.
Claims 9, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 are cancelled.
Claim 22 was added.
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, 15, 16 and 19-22 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1-5, 12, 15, 16 and 19-21 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 6-8, 10 and 22 are examined in the current application.
Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In light of the amendment filed on October 7th 2025, the indefiniteness rejections of claim 6 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 6-8, 10 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noordam et al., (USPatPub. 2014/0099402) and NPL Takahashi et al., “Breeding of a sake yest mutant with enhanced ethyl caproate productivity in sake brewing using rice milled at a high polishing ratio” (from Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering Vol. 1323 NO. 6, 707-713, 2017).
Regarding claim 6 and 10: Noordam discloses a flavor composition comprising brewer yeast (i.e., saccharomyces cerevisiae) that is hydrolyzed/treated with an enzymes (e.g., exoglycanase, protease and exopeptidase) (see Noordam abstract; paragraphs [0004]-[0006] and [0030]-[0034]). While brewer yeast comprise cell wall, Noordam fails to disclose the species of esters formed by the brewer yeast, Yakahashi discloses that saccharomyces cerevisiae are known to produce ethyl caproate, ethyl caprylate and ethyl caprate and that Brewer's yeast and capric acid are connected through their roles in fermentation and their effects on certain microorganisms. Brewer's yeast, primarily Saccharomyces cerevisiae, is used in brewing and baking and produces various acids, including caproic and caprylic acids, as byproducts of metabolism (see Yakahashi whole document). Accordingly, the enzymatically hydrolyzed saccharomyces cerevisiae in Noordam comprises the claimed esters.
Moreover, while Noordam fails to disclose the hypothetical volume of a hydrolyzed precipitate when 100ml of yeast is hydrolyzed for 48 hours at 25°C and atmospheric pressure, given the fact the same type of yeast are hydrolyzed by Applicant, the claimed hypothetical volume of hydrolyzed yeast would clearly be provided by the hydrolyzed saccharomyces cerevisiae in Noordam.
As to the absence of soluble yeast extract from the cell wall of yeast recited in claim 1: Noordam discloses brewer yeast (i.e., saccharomyces cerevisiae) that is hydrolyzed/treated with an enzymes (e.g., exoglycanase, protease and exopeptidase) (see Noordam abstract; paragraphs [0004]-[0006] and [0030]-[0034]). Given the fact that brewer yeast comprises cell wall, and the cell wall of saccharomyces cerevisiae (i.e., a yeast) comprises the cell wall of a yeast and not a soluble extract, the disclosure in Noordam meets the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 7 and 8: Noordam discloses a flavor composition comprising at least 1wt% reducing sugar and free amino acids (see Noordam paragraphs [0036]-[0038] and [0046]).
Regarding claim 22: Noordam discloses a flavor composition comprising brewer yeast (i.e., saccharomyces cerevisiae) that is hydrolyzed/treated with an enzymes (e.g., exoglycanase, protease and exopeptidase). While brewer yeast comprise cell wall, Noordam fails to disclose the ratio of the yeast cell wall-derived decomposition product recited in claim 22, given the fact Noordam discloses hydrolyzing the same yeast cell-wall using the same enzymes contemplated by Applicant, it is examiner’s opinion the claimed ratio of the yeast cell wall-derived decomposition product is inherently present in the enzymatic hydrolyzed brewer yeast in Noordam. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 7th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because Noordam discloses of hydrolyzing brewer yeast, which comprises cell wall of yeast and soluble extract. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Noordam discloses brewer yeast (i.e., saccharomyces cerevisiae) that is hydrolyzed/treated with an enzymes (e.g., exoglycanase, protease and exopeptidase) (see Noordam abstract; paragraphs [0004]-[0006] and [0030]-[0034]). Given the fact that brewer yeast comprises cell wall, and the cell wall of saccharomyces cerevisiae (i.e., a yeast) comprises the cell wall of a yeast and not a soluble extract, the disclosure in Noordam meets the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights