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 .
Claim status
The examiner acknowledged the amendment to the claims on 03/09/2026.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 19, 21 and 23-25 are pending in the application. Claims 1-8, 10-13, 19 and 21 are previously presented. Claims 9, 14-18, 20 and 22 remain cancelled. Claims 23-25 are newly presented. Claims 1-8, 10-13, 19, 21 and 23-25 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 19, 21 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites that the method produces a low-sodium process cheese having a level of saltiness higher than that of a low-sodium product that contains sodium in an amount of at most 1.5% w/w and MCI does not contribute at least 35% w/w of the protein in the low sodium product. The examiner does not find the support for such a limitation. The examiner notes that page 35 line 9-13 of the instant specification merely recites that “The two cheese samples were furthermore found to have a level of saltiness which was significantly higher than what was expected from a low sodium product”. However, such a generic recitation of the low sodium product in the specification is not sufficient to support a low-sodium product that contains sodium in an amount of at most 1.5% w/w and MCI does not contribute at least 35% w/w of the protein in the low sodium product.
Claims 2-8, 10-13, 19, 21 and 24-25 ultimately depend from claim 1 and therefore necessarily incorporate the written description deficiency therein.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-13, 19, 21 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe WO 2019/234957 A1 (SG11202010643U relied upon as English equiv., hereinafter referred to as Abe) in view of Johansson WO2021/126057 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Johansson), Deuritz US Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0213906 (hereinafter referred to as Deuritz), and Agarwal, “Sodium content in retail Cheddar, Mozzarella, and process cheeses varies considerably in the United States”, J. Dairy Sci. 2011, 94. pages 1605-1615 (hereinafter referred to as Agarwal), and evidenced by Eat This Much “100% Micellar Casein Protein”, and “Micellar Casein Powder”, https://www.eatthismuch.com/food/nutrition/100-micellar-casein-protein,1856289/, and https://www.eatthismuch.com/food/nutrition/micellar-casein-powder,2269279/ (hereinafter referred to as Eat This Much).
Regarding claims 1-4, 10-12, 19, 21 and 23-25, Abe teaches a method of preparing a cheese-like food comprising the steps of: providing a dairy mixture comprising water (0016; 0025), solid fat (0012, palm oil, coconut oil, beef tallow, lard, milk fat, etc.), a milk protein concentrate such as one or more selected from the group consisting of micellar casein isolate (MCI), MCC, MPC, MPI, casein (e.g., acid casein, lactic casein or rennet casein) and caseinate (0011), seasoning salt (0017; 0022), a melting salt (e.g., emulsifying salt, such as sodium citrate, potassium citrate, sodium orthophosphate, sodium pyrophosphate, 0015), and 0-10% a natural cheese such as Mozzarella cheese and Cheddar cheese (0010; 0022); subject the dairy mixture to heat treatment at a temperature of 80-90 ºC in a cooker (0019); filling the heated dairy mixture in a suitable container at a temperature of about 75 ºC to obtain a shaped and packaged dairy mixture (0020; 0025); cooling and storing the packaged dairy mixture at a temperature of 5 ºC in the refrigerator such that the temperature of the product drops to 10 ºC (0020; 0025); and optionally cutting the dairy mixture to form the cheese-like food (0020-0021).
Given that the cheese-like food as disclosed by Abe is obtained by heating a mixture of natural cheese, dairy protein, fat, emulsifying salt and water followed by filling, cooling and cutting which is consistent with a method of making a processed cheese, the cheese-like food as disclosed by Abe is interpreted to read on the limitation about the processed cheese.
Abe teaches that the cheese-like product after cooling may be a final product or subsequent step of cutting maybe provided (0020-0021); therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have stored the cheese-like food for any duration as desired, provided that the product is not spoiled.
Abe teaches that the cheese-like food contains 0-10% cheese (zero cheese included) (0006; 0010), thus reading on the limitation that the cheese contributes with at most 65% of the protein of the dairy mixture as recited in claim 10.
Abe teaches that the cheese-like food contains 8-30% one or more casein-containing milk protein concentrates selected from the group consisting of MCI, MCC, MPC, MPI, casein and caseinate (0006; 0011), thus reading on the limitation that MCI contributes with at least 35% (or at least 50%) of the protein of the dairy mixture as recited in claims 1 and 4 (for example, when the cheese-like food contains zero cheese and MCI is the sole milk protein concentrate in the dairy mixture, its contribution is 100%). MCI is known to contain kappa casein. Further, since MCI is known to be obtained from (micro)filtration of milk to remove whey, lactose, etc., the ratio of kappa casein by weight of all casein in the MCI is ~15%, a ratio that is essentially the same as that of kappa casein by weight of casein in the milk; thus the amount of kappa casein by weight of the total protein falls with the range as recited in claims 1 and 21.
Abe teaches fat but is silent regarding using a fat that is melted to mix with other ingredients to form the dairy mixture.
In the same field of endeavor, Johansson teaches a method of preparing a processed cheese comprising mixing a melted fat with other ingredients including water, emulsifying salt, and casein prior to heating the mixture and cooling (Example 8, page 21-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Abe by melting the solid fat before mixing it with other ingredients with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that it is suitable to use a melted fat in making a processed cheese.
Abe teaches that the dairy mixture can contain a pH modifier such as lactic acid (0017), but is silent regarding the pH of the dairy mixture.
In the same field of endeavor, Deuritz teaches a method of preparing of a processed cheese comprising providing a composition comprising dairy and emulsifying salt, heating (e.g., cooking) the composition, and cooling the composition (0009-0013); further, Deuritz teaches that the pH of the composition to be cooked and the finished processed cheese is controlled to produce the desired melting ability, body and texture for the finished processed cheese, and generally, the pH of the composition is in the range 4.6-6.4, and preferably 5-6 and more preferably 5.4-5.9 (0107).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Abe by adjusting the pH of the dairy mixture to 5.4-5.9 with a reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that such a pH is beneficial in obtaining a processed cheese with desired melting ability, body and texture.
Abe teaches a seasoning salt, which inherently teaches sodium chloride. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art have selected sodium chloride as a seasoning salt to include in the dairy mixture where sodium chloride is the mostly used seasoning salt of all, and the one of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that sodium chloride would function effectively in the dairy mixture and in the processed cheese. This is merely selecting from a group of suitable and limited options, absent a clear showing of the criticality associated with sodium chloride.
Additionally, Deuritz teaches that sodium chloride is used to make process cheese (0030). Therefore it would have been obvious to use sodium chloride as seasoning salt since such a practice is well known in the art of making processed cheese.
Abe teaches heating the mixture at a temperature of 80-90 ºC (0019), but is silent regarding the duration of which being 2 seconds to 10 mins. However, Abe teaches that heating under stirring serves to molten the raw material, and also for sterilization purpose (0019). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have manipulated the duration of heating so as to ensure that the raw materials are molten, and that the mixture is free from viable microorganisms.
Further, Deuritz teaches that in making a processed cheese, a heating temperature of 65-110 ºC and a duration of 1-10 mins are suitable (0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Abe by heating the dairy mixture for 1-10 mins with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that such a duration is known to be suitable.
On the limitation about the sodium content of the dairy mixture and the processed cheese: the sodium is necessarily from raw materials including natural cheese, MCI, the emulsifying salt, and the seasoning salt (e.g., sodium chloride). In the instant case, although Abe as modified by Johansson and Deuritz does not teach the sodium amount in the dairy mixture and in the finished processed cheese, Abe teaches that the dairy mixture could contain 0-10% natural cheese such as Cheddar cheese and Mozzarella cheese (0010; 0022), thus the sodium contributed to by natural cheese is at most 0.07% where the natural cheese source is Cheddar cheese or Mozzarella cheese (Agarwal evidences in Table 1 that Cheddar cheese or Mozzarella cheese contains around 0.7% sodium, thus ~10% Cheddar cheese or Mozzarella cheese contributes 0.07% sodium to the dairy mixture); Abe teaches that the dairy mixture comprises 8-30% a milk protein concentrate such as MCI (0006; 0011), and MCI is known to contain trace amount of sodium (Eat This Much evidences in two tables that 100% micellar casein powder contains 221 mg sodium per 100 g powder, which corresponds to a sodium content of ~0.2%; and a micellar casein powder contains 206 mg sodium per 100 gram powder, which corresponds to a sodium content of ~0.2% as well); thus assuming that the majority of the 8-30% milk protein concentrate is MCI or even MCI is the only milk concentrate in the processed cheese, then MCI contributes ~0.016-0.06% sodium to the dairy mixture; Abe teaches that the dairy mixture contains preferably 0.2-2% an emulsifying salt such as citrate (e.g., sodium citrate and potassium citrate), a phosphate (e.g., sodium orthophosphate and sodium pyrophosphate), or combination thereof (0015); thus an emulsifying salt could contribute zero sodium where potassium citrate is used as the emulsifying salt, or as much as 0.8% (e.g., when 2% sodium orthophosphate is used, thus the sodium content is 2% x 69/163.94 =0.8%); further Deuritz teaches that there is a drive to reduce the sodium levels in a food such as processed cheese out of health concern, and has proposed to use emulsifying salts comprising 10-100% potassium salt such as potassium citrate (0007; 0009; 0013; 0062). As for the amount of seasoning sodium chloride, Abe teaches that the content of additives in total including starch, seasoning salt, an acidulant, a preservative (e.g., potassium sorbate, nisin or polylysine), thickener/gelling agent, an emulsifier, and a pH modifier (e.g., lactic acid) is preferably 8% or less and the content can be as low as zero. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the amount of seasoning salt (e.g., NaCl) for desired saltness. As such, the amounts of sodium in either the dairy mixture or the finished processed cheese as recited in claims 1 and 12 are merely obvious variants of the prior art. Note that the maximum sodium content contributed to by natural cheese, MCI and emulsifying salt is 0.07% + 0.06% + 0.8%= 0.93%
Further, besides Deuritz’s teaching about reducing sodium content in processed cheese out of health concern, Agarwal teaches that processed cheese has 1.488 g sodium content per 100 g on average with majority (e.g., 87 out of 269 samples) having around 1.3 g sodium per 100 g cheese (page 1606, left hand column, bottom para.; Fig. 4). Agarwal further teaches that most US citizens consume too much sodium which is associated with high blood pressure and increased risk of heart attack and stroke (page 1605, right hand column, first para.), and to that end, the National Salt Reduction Initiative (NSRI) had proposed that food manufacturers reduce salt level of a packaged food, for example, NSRI had been targeting a sodium content of 1.25 g/100 g or even 1.04 g/100 g for processed cheese (page 1606, right hand column, 2nd para.; Table 1).
Abe, Deuritz and Agarwal are directed to processed cheeses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have at least manipulated the amount of seasoning salt added to the processed cheese such that the total amount of sodium in the processed cheese is at a level that is suggested by NSRI (e.g., 1.25 g/100 g or even 1.04 g/100 g). Doing so would have helped to lower the risk of health issues associated with high sodium intake.
Where Abe in view of Johansson, Deuritz and Agarwal arrives at the method as claimed, it logically follows that the method as disclosed by prior art would have resulted in a low-sodium processed cheese as claimed, and had a level of saltiness that is higher than a low sodium control. See MPEP 2112.01 I, 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).
Therefore, Abe in view of Johansson, Deuritz and Agarwal renders obvious claims 1-4, 10-12, 19, 21 and 23-25.
Regarding claim 5, Abe as recited above teaches MCI, and Eat This Much evidences that 100 gram of 100% micellar casein protein powder contains 221 mg sodium and 82.4 gram protein, and 100 gram of micellar casein protein powder contains 206 mg sodium and 85.6 gram protein (see the tables), thus the weight ratio of sodium/protein in MCI is 0.0027:1 or 0.0024:1.
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Abe as recited above teaches 0-10% natural cheese such as Cheddar cheese and Mozzarella cheese as the protein source, either of which is known to contain 20-30% protein; Further, Abe teaches that the process cheese contains 8-30% milk protein concentrate comprising MCI and casein (abstract; 0011). A casein protein isolate is known to contain at least 80% casein protein and casein is considered to contain close to 100% casein protein. Therefore, the amount of casein protein from MCI and casein overlaps with the range as recited in the claims. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 13, the potassium in the dairy mixture is mostly from natural cheese, MCI and emulsifying salt. In the instant case, Abe includes an embodiment teaching that the dairy mixture contains no cheese raw material (0010); as for potassium in MCI, Eat This Much evidences that micellar casein powder contains trace amount of potassium (0.09-0.3%); as for potassium in the emulsifying salt, Abe teaches that the dairy mixture contains preferably 0.2-2% an emulsifying salt such as citrate (e.g., sodium citrate and potassium citrate), a phosphate (e.g., sodium orthophosphate and sodium pyrophosphate), or combination thereof (0015); thus an emulsifying salt could contribute zero potassium where sodium salt is used as the emulsifying salt, or as much as 0.8% potassium (e.g., when 2% potassium citrate is used, potassium content in the dairy mixture is 2% x 117/306 =0.768%). Therefore, the amount of potassium as disclosed by prior art overlaps the range as recited in the claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abe in view of Johansson, Deuritz and Agarwal as applied to claim 1 above, evidenced by Sliwinski WO 2009/072885 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Sliwinski).
Regarding claim 7, Abe as recited above teaches 0-10% cheese and 8-30% milk protein concentrate that comprises MCI in the processed cheese, and as evidenced by Sliwinski (page 23, line 17-18), MCI contains a very small amount of whey protein (e.g., 5%). Further, the whey protein is necessarily in non-denatured form since MCI is known to be obtained through minimal processing such as ultrafiltration. Therefore, the limitation that the dairy mixture contains at most 10% natural whey protein is met.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claim 1, applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art who reads the instant specification would understand that the low sodium product as claimed would be expected to exhibit higher level of saltiness than a low sodium product that contains at most 1.5% w/w sodium and that MCI does not contribute at least 35% w/w of the protein in the low sodium product. Applicant further arguing that the examiner is requiring the specification explicitly tests every possible comparison product, which is not the standard for written description.
The argument is considered. It is not persuasive. Page 35 line 9-13 of the specification recites that “The two cheese samples were furthermore found to have a level of saltiness which was significantly higher than what was expected from a low sodium product”, however, such a generic description of the low sodium product is not sufficient to support a low-sodium product that contains at most 1.5% w/w sodium and that MCI does not contribute at least 35% w/w of the protein in the low sodium product. The latter is too specific for the former to cover. Further, there is no evidence showing that the examiner is exerting a higher stand for written description requirement than what MPEP requires.
Regarding the declaration filed 10/27/2025 and the examiner’s response to the declaration, applicant argues on page 9 of the Remarks that the examiner’s treatment of the declaration does not fully reflect its purpose: the declaration is submitted to explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosure of Abe, rather than to advance claim-specific argumentation or to directly rebut the examiner’s rejection.
The argument is acknowledged. And the examiner submits that the purpose as recited above is well served. However, since the declaration includes arguments, the examiner has the obligation to respond to those arguments.
On page 9 of the Remarks, applicant argues that “ The Examiner repeatedly states that the purpose of the prior art is not relevant, and that what matters is whether the prior art in its entirety arrives at the steps recited in the claims. While Applicant agrees that the prior art need not solve the same problem, this principle does not eliminate the requirement for a proper motivation to combine”.
The argument is considered. The examiner wishes to clarify that the Office does not ignore the purpose of the prior art, rather, the Office considers all the aspects of the prior art including the purpose, the problem it intends to solve, the explicit and implicit teachings, etc., and formulates a rejection accordingly. Importantly, if the prior art in its entirety arrives at the steps as recited in the claim, then prior art meets the claim regardless of whether the prior art is serving a different purpose from the claimed invention. The recited purpose does not result in a manipulative difference between the claim and prior art where the actual steps recited in prior art and the instant claim are the same.
Further, the examiner submits that the purpose of Abe (or the problem Abe attempts to solve) and the motivation to modify Abe with a secondary reference such as Deuritz and Agarwal are two different matters. There is no requirement in MPEP or any patent laws that the motivation to modify a primary reference has to align with the recited purpose or the problem solved by the primary reference. In other words, just because Abe focuses on textural performance and cost of a cheese-like product does not mean the reason to modify Abe has to be in the domain of cost or texture.
For the reasons set forth above, applicant’s argument that there is an apparent inconsistency in the examiner’s reasoning is not persuasive, either.
Applicant argues on the para. that bridges pages 9 and 10 of the Remarks that “ Examiner applies it selectively, considering the reference as a whole when broad teachings support the rejection, but isolating individual features when convenient for the obviousness analysis”.
The argument is acknowledged. However, it is unclear which part of the examiner’s treatment of prior art is not proper. On the other hand, the examiner notes that the applicant is actually treating the prior art in a selectively manner, for example, applicant is focusing more on asserting that Abe is solving a different problem from the claimed invention but overlooking the part of Abe that matches claimed invention. For example, Abe relates to a processed cheese prepared by heat-treating a mixture comprising emulsifying salt, water, and natural cheese and/or MCI under shear, wherein a small amount of natural cheese even no natural cheese is included in the mixture, each of which is consistent with the claimed invention.
Regarding MCI as an equivalent alternative in Abe, applicant asserts on page 10 of the Remarks that the examiner has not addressed the declarant’s argument that because the milk protein concentrate are equivalents alternatives in Abe, each will achieve the same result thus making the specific structural properties of MCI irrelevant and one will have no reason to select MCI. Applicant goes on to argue that the examiner has not explained what would lead to the skilled person to choose MCI for achieving enhanced saltiness.
The argument is considered. The examiner submits that applicant appears to have misinterpreted the meaning of an equivalent alternative. In the instant case, by specifying that milk protein concentrate and MCI are functional equivalents, it essentially means that they both could function as the dairy protein source in a processed cheese, however, such an equivalency does not mean the two will have exactly the same effects in every respect. One analogy is that although sucrose and steviol glucoside are functional equivalent in sweetening a food, they do not necessarily have the same aftertaste, metabolic or health consequence.
On the other hand, where Abe lists 6 milk protein sources as the functional equivalents in a processed cheese, any of 6 species including MCI is encompassed by prior art. Therefore, the argument about what would lead to the skilled person to choose MCI for achieving enhanced saltiness is not persuasive. To this end, the attention of applicant is drawn to MPEP 2145 II, which states that mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. Further, the examiner notes that applicant has not sufficiently shown any new properties associated with MCI.
Applicant asserts on pages 10 and 16-17 of the Remarks that the evidence of unexpected result is in the specification and Examples.
The examiner disagrees. The Examples as in the instant specification are all about processed cheese that comprises MCI, however, the Examples do not include a control that lacks MCI or uses a different dairy protein source so as to show that the inventive samples are superior.
In addressing the examiner’s statement that the claims do not include a limitation about a range of emulsifying salts, applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks that the content of emulsifying salt is implicitly limited by the overall sodium content of at most 1.5% sodium. Applicant goes on to argue on pages 11 and 17 of the Remarks that the instant specification teaches a higher emulsifying salt than Abe’s range.
The examiner acknowledges the argument. However, there is still no clear teaching of the amount of emulsifying salt in the claims. Further, if applicant deems that the range of emulsifying salts matters, incorporate it in the instant claims. Otherwise, applicant is essentially arguing a feature that is not claimed (applicant argues that the claimed invention enables textures and properties through higher emulsifying salt content that Abe cannot provide, however, it is noted that the instant claims do not even recite the amount of emulsifying salts).
Further regarding the emulsifying salts, applicant argues on page 12 of the Remarks that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not replace all sodium-based emulsifying salts with potassium-based emulsifying salts, since potassium imparts undesirable bitterness.
The argument is considered. It is not persuasive. Deuritz as cited teaches that there is a drive to reduce the sodium levels in a food such as processed cheese out of health concern, and has proposed to use emulsifying salts comprising as much as 100% potassium salt such as potassium citrate (0007; 0009; 0013; 0062).
Applicant argues on pages 12 and 18 of the Remarks that new claims 24-25 specify that emulsify salt is sodium-based.
The argument is considered. However, emulsifying salts including 0-100% sodium salt is encompassed by Abe (see 0015).
Regarding the content of sodium chloride, the examiner acknowledges the long arguments from applicant on pages 12-14. However, the applicant is reminded that she is arguing that including sodium chloride or the amount thereof in a processed cheese is non-obvious. To that end, regardless of whether Abe teaches sodium chloride or not, Deuritz as cited teaches that sodium chloride is used to make a process cheese (0030), and Agarwal teaches that NSRI cautiones a health issue caused by intaking too much sodium and has suggested targeting a sodium content of 1.25 g/100 g or even 1.04 g/100 g for processed cheeses (page 1606, right hand column, 2nd para.; Table 1). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art after learning about Deuritz and Agarwal would have been motivated to include sodium chloride in the process for taste but carefully manipulate the amount of it to strike a balance between saltiness and health.
The examiner believes the response above is able to address applicant’s long arguments. Note that the applicant asserts on pages 13 and 15 of the Remarks that the calculation made by the examiner has ignored the amount of sodium chloride. The argument is considered but found to have overlooked para. 29-30 of the office action issued 12/17/2025, which reasoned that one skilled person will be motivated to manipulate the amount of seasoning salt added to the processed cheese based on health awareness such that the total amount of sodium in the processed cheese is at a level that is suggested by NSRI (e.g., 1.25 g/100 g or even 1.04 g/100 g). As such, sodium chloride is added such that the total sodium in the processed is 1.25 g/100 g or less, which meets claim 1 or new claim 23.
Regarding the motivation for selecting Abe as a starting point, applicant assert that she maintains her argument on page 14 of the Remarks.
The argument is considered. The examiner submits that one would not easily abandon Abe just because Abe is solving a different problem from the claimed invention. After all, Abe teaches a process of making a processed cheese using dairy protein such as MCI, water, emulsifying salt, etc. which is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. In addressing a 35 USC 103 rejection, an applicant would argue about the motivation to modify a primary reference with a secondary reference, as opposed to the motivation to choose a primary reference.
Applicant argues on the para. that bridges pages 14 and 15 of the Remarks that “the question is not merely whether each individual modification has a motivation, but whether there is motivation to make the specific combination of modifications simultaneously that would arrive at the claimed invention. A skilled person would need to: (a) select MCI from among the equivalent alternatives in Abe, specifically for its kappa casein content; (b) require that MCI contributes at least 35% of the protein; (c) ensure kappa casein is at least 3% relative to total protein; (d) add sodium chloride while maintaining sodium at most 1.5% w/w; (e) adjust pH to 5.0-6.5; and (f) use melted fat. There is no teaching in Abe or any of the secondary references that would lead a skilled person to make all of these selections simultaneously with any reasonable expectation that the result would be a product with enhanced saltiness perception”.
The argument is considered. Simultaneously or not, the examiner submits that Abe as modified by Johansson, Deuritz, and Agarwal arrives at the claimed invention. Applicant is encouraged to shed light on which of the aforementioned limitation is not covered by the prior art, or which of the modification is not accounted for.
Applicant argues on page 15 of the Remarks that the instant specification provides substantial evidence on sensory score thus having factual ground.
The argument is considered. However, the examiner’s response is to address applicant’s arguments on page 13 of the Remarks filed 10/27/2025 that given that Abe is focused on providing a less expensive cheese-like food product, a skilled person would be motivated to reproduce the examples of Abe using a lower amount of sodium, however, such a cheese-like product would not be tasty. It is noted that the instant specification does not have sensory result of Abe or Abe as modified.
Applicant argues on the para. that bridges pages 15 and 16 of the Remarks that selecting MCI is not obvious because there are too many permutations.
The argument is presented previously to which the examiner has replied. See para. 51 of the OA issued 02/12/2025 and para. 50 of the OA issued 03/08/2024.
Applicant argues on age 16 of the Remarks that the limitation that a dairy mixture that contains MCI with specific protein and kappa casein contributes in a low sodium processed cheese is solely gleaned from applicant’s own disclosure.
The examiner disagrees. Abe teaches that the cheese-like food contains 8-30% one or more casein-containing milk protein concentrates selected from the group consisting of MCI, MCC, MPC, MPI, casein and caseinate (0006; 0011), thus reading on the limitation that MCI contributes with at least 35% (or at least 50%) of the protein of the dairy mixture as recited in claims 1 and 4 (for example, when the cheese-like food contains zero cheese and MCI is the sole milk protein concentrate in the dairy mixture, its contribution is 100%). MCI is known to contain kappa casein. Further, since MCI is known to be obtained from (micro)filtration of milk to remove whey, lactose, etc., the ratio of kappa casein by weight of all casein in the MCI is ~15%, a ratio that is essentially the same as that of kappa casein by weight of casein in the milk; thus the amount of kappa casein by weight of the total protein falls with the range as recited in claims 1 and 21.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, NIKKI H 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights