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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 12, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-17, 20-22
Withdrawn claims:
None
Previously canceled claims:
18-19
Newly canceled claims:
None
Amended claims:
1, 10
New claims:
21-22
Claims currently under consideration:
1-17, 20-22
Currently rejected claims:
1-17, 20-22
Allowed claims:
None
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 10, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bjarnason (US 7,070,953 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Bjarnason teaches a method of obtaining protein hydrolysates for consumption, including a cheese (Abstract) and that the protein material that is hydrolyzed can be vegetable protein (col. 7, lines 21-25). Bjarnason also teaches adding an enzyme preparation such as phytase prior to incubation with protein containing raw material (col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 10). Bjarnason also teaches that the hydrolysate product may be in the form of a gel (col. 5, lines 50-51). Although Bjarnason does not teach the coagulation of proteins by phytase, coagulation would inherently happen during the incubation stage.
Evidence to support that coagulation of proteins would occur during incubation is provided by the instant specification. P. 19, Example 6 shows that pea protein incubated with phytase resulted in increased gelling compared to a solution incubated without phytase.
Regarding claim 12, Bjarnason teaches all elements of claim 10 as described above. Bjarnason also teaches separation of the solution from the solid material (col. 5, lines 28-33).
Regarding claim 13, Bjarnason teaches all elements of claim 10 as described above. Bjarnason also teaches wherein the plant protein can be pea protein (col. 7, lines 21-25).
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 1-5, 8, 14, 15, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yura (WO 2006/043478 A1) in view of Streekstra (US 20060110492 A1) as evidenced by USDA (“Soymilk, original and vanilla, unfortified”, FoodData Central, U.S. Department of Agriculture, NDB No. 16120, published 04/01/2019 [accessed online March 16, 2026]) and Rynk (Rynk, Vitaliy, et al. “Phytase influence on soymilk protein colloid stability studied with thermographic method”, BIO Web Conferences, 64, 01019, published 2023 [accessed online March 16, 2026]).
Regarding claim 1, Yura teaches a fermented soymilk with a pleasant taste ([0025]) made by adding phytase to soy milk and reacting (i.e., incubating, [0078]) where the soy milk may have soybean protein added ([0045]).
Yura does not teach wherein the phytase is added in an amount of at least 15 FTU per gram of plant protein or wherein the incubation results in the coagulation of the plant protein.
Regarding wherein the phytase is added in an amount of at least 15 FTU per gram of plant protein, Streekstra teaches of a soymilk comprising phytase, where the soymilk at the end comprises from 500 to 20,000 FTU/kg soymilk ([0054]). Because soymilk is known in the art to comprise 3.27 g protein per 100 g soymilk, the soymilk of Streekstra comprises 15 to 612 FTU phytase/ g soybean protein, which falls within the claimed range of “at least 15 FTU per gram protein”.
500
F
T
U
p
h
y
t
a
s
e
k
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
×
1
k
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
1000
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
×
100
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
3.27
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
=
15
F
T
U
p
h
y
t
a
s
e
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
20,000
F
T
U
p
h
y
t
a
s
e
k
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
×
1
k
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
1000
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
×
100
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
3.27
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
=
612
F
T
U
p
h
y
t
a
s
e
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
Evidence to support that soymilk comprises 3.27 g of protein per 100 g soymilk is provided by USDA (p. 1, Table, row 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of producing soymilk taught by Yura with the addition of higher levels of phytase as taught by Streekstra. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Streekstra teaches that soymilk comprises high amounts of phytate, and that adding a sufficient amount of phytase reduces the phytate content ([0055]), and that phytate is known to exert a strong negative effect on the absorption of cations, which are minerals ([0004]).
Although the cited prior art does not disclose wherein the incubation results in coagulation of the plant protein, the method of the prior art would inherently result in the coagulation of plant protein. Evidence to support that adding phytase to soymilk would inherently result in the coagulation of proteins is provided by Rynk. Rynk discloses that addition of phytase to soymilk can significantly accelerate its acid coagulation (Abstract), and that most of the phosphates in plant proteins are phytic acid (p. 1, ¶ 4), and that the most important factor for coagulation is the ability of phytic acid (i.e., the protein) to form complexes (p. 2, ¶ 7). Thus, it logically follows that phytase accelerates coagulation of proteins in soymilk.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Yura also teaches that the invention is soymilk ([0001]), which is understood to be a drink and a known dairy alternative.
Regarding claim 4, Yura also teaches that the invention is a fermented soymilk ([0001]).
Regarding claim 5, Yura also teaches that the invention has a smooth texture ([0025]).
Regarding claim 8, Yura also teaches that the invention is fermented soymilk ([0001]) with smooth texture ([0025]).
Regarding claim 14, Yura also teaches that phytase is added before fermentation ([0078]).
Regarding claim 15, Yura also teaches that the soymilk can be made from powdered soymilk ([0045]).
Regarding claim 20, Yura does not teach wherein the phytase is added in an amount of at least 20 FTU per gram of plant protein.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Streekstra teaches of a soymilk comprising phytase, where the soymilk at the end comprises preferably from 1,000 to 10,000 FTU/kg soymilk ([0054]). Because soymilk is known in the art to comprise 3.27 g protein per 100 g soymilk, the soymilk of Streekstra preferably comprises 31 to 306 FTU phytase/ g soybean protein, which falls within the claimed range of “at least 20 FTU per gram protein”.
1,000
F
T
U
p
h
y
t
a
s
e
k
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
×
1
k
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
1000
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
×
100
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
3.27
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
=
31
F
T
U
p
h
y
t
a
s
e
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
10,000
F
T
U
p
h
y
t
a
s
e
k
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
×
1
k
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
1000
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
×
100
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
3.27
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
=
306
F
T
U
p
h
y
t
a
s
e
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
Evidence to support that soymilk comprises 3.27 g of protein per 100 g soymilk is provided by USDA (p. 1, Table, row 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of producing soymilk taught by Yura with the addition of higher levels of phytase as taught by Streekstra. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Streekstra teaches that soymilk comprises high amounts of phytate, and that adding a sufficient amount of phytase reduces the phytate content ([0055]), and that phytate is known to exert a strong negative effect on the absorption of cations, which are minerals ([0004]).
Regarding claim 21, although the cited prior art does not teach wherein the coagulation of the plant protein results in the formation of a gel-like structure, MPEP §2112.01 states where the claimed and prior art 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). Thus, because the soymilk of Yura in view of Streekstra is made by the same process, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Regarding claim 22, Yura teaches a fermented soymilk with a pleasant taste ([0025]) made by adding phytase to soy milk and reacting (i.e., incubating, [0078]) where the soy milk may have soybean protein added ([0045]).
Yura does not teach wherein the phytase is added in an amount of at least 15 FTU per gram of plant protein.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Streekstra teaches of a soymilk comprising phytase, where the soymilk at the end comprises from 500 to 20,000 FTU/kg soymilk ([0054]). Because soymilk is known in the art to comprise 3.27 g protein per 100 g soymilk, the soymilk of Streekstra comprises 15 to 612 FTU phytase/ g soybean protein, which falls within the claimed range of “at least 15 FTU per gram protein”.
500
F
T
U
p
h
y
t
a
s
e
k
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
×
1
k
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
1000
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
×
100
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
3.27
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
=
15
F
T
U
p
h
y
t
a
s
e
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
20,000
F
T
U
p
h
y
t
a
s
e
k
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
×
1
k
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
1000
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
×
100
g
s
o
y
m
i
l
k
3.27
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
=
612
F
T
U
p
h
y
t
a
s
e
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
Evidence to support that soymilk comprises 3.27 g of protein per 100 g soymilk is provided by USDA (p. 1, Table, row 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of producing soymilk taught by Yura with the addition of higher levels of phytase as taught by Streekstra. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Streekstra teaches that soymilk comprises high amounts of phytate, and that adding a sufficient amount of phytase reduces the phytate content ([0055]), and that phytate is known to exert a strong negative effect on the absorption of cations, which are minerals ([0004]).
The preamble recitation “a method for preparing a plant protein-based drink with decreased syneresis and decreased beany taste” is interpreted as the purpose of performing the method as claimed. MPEP §2111.02(II) states if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Because the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all limitations, the preamble recitation of “with decreased syneresis and decreased beany taste” does not carry patentable weight.
Claims 6, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yura (WO 2006/043478 A1) in view of Streekstra (US 20060110492 A1) as evidenced by USDA (“Soymilk, original and vanilla, unfortified”, FoodData Central, U.S. Department of Agriculture, NDB No. 16120, published 04/01/2019 [accessed online March 16, 2026]) and Rynk (Rynk, Vitaliy, et al. “Phytase influence on soymilk protein colloid stability studied with thermographic method”, BIO Web Conferences, 64, 01019, published 2023 [accessed online March 16, 2026]) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bjarnason (US 7,070,953 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Yura also teaches that the product is a soymilk ([0001]) that has an increased smooth texture ([0025]).
Yura and Streekstra do not teach using pea protein in the composition.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bjarnason teaches that vegetable protein for hydrolyzing can be pea protein (col. 7, lines 21-24)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the soy protein taught by Yura with pea protein as taught by Bjarnason and yield the predictable result of a pea-based yogurt. The claim would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make this simple substitution of one known element for another and yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(B).
Regarding claim 16, the cited prior art does not teach incubating the solution with at least one starch degrading enzyme.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bjarnason teaches adding an enzyme such as amylase prior to incubation (col. 6, line 62 – col. 7, line 10; where amylase is well known in the art to be a starch degrading enzyme).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of making a soy-based product of Yura with the addition of a starch degrading enzyme taught by Bjarnason. One would be motivated to make this modification because one of ordinary skill would recognize that the addition of a starch degrading enzyme would lead to a protein rich product with readily available sugars.
Regarding claim 17, although the cited prior art does not teach incubating first with at least one starch degrading enzyme and subsequently with phytase, MPEP §214404(IV)(C) states “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”, In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) and “Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious”, In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). Therefore, the process of incubating first with at least one starch degrading enzyme and subsequently with phytase would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because there is no evidence of unexpected results occurring.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yura (WO 2006/043478 A1) in view of Streekstra (US 20060110492 A1) as evidenced by USDA (“Soymilk, original and vanilla, unfortified”, FoodData Central, U.S. Department of Agriculture, NDB No. 16120, published 04/01/2019 [accessed online March 16, 2026]) and Rynk (Rynk, Vitaliy, et al. “Phytase influence on soymilk protein colloid stability studied with thermographic method”, BIO Web Conferences, 64, 01019, published 2023 [accessed online March 16, 2026]) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barreca (Barreca, Davide, et al. “Almonds (Prunus Dulcis Mill. D. A. Webb): A Source of Nutrients and Health-Promoting Compounds”, Nutrients, Vol. 12, published March 1, 2020 [accessed online March 26, 2025]).
Regarding claim 7, Yura also teaches wherein the product of the present invention is a fermented yogurt with a rich flavor (i.e., a fermented food product; [0079]).
Yura does not teach using almond protein in the composition.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Barreca teaches that almonds contain protein (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the soy protein taught by Yura with almond protein and yield the predictable result of an almond-based yogurt. The claim would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make this simple substitution of one known element for another art recognized function equivalents and yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yura (WO 2006/043478 A1) in view of Streekstra (US 20060110492 A1) as evidenced by USDA (“Soymilk, original and vanilla, unfortified”, FoodData Central, U.S. Department of Agriculture, NDB No. 16120, published 04/01/2019 [accessed online March 16, 2026]) and Rynk (Rynk, Vitaliy, et al. “Phytase influence on soymilk protein colloid stability studied with thermographic method”, BIO Web Conferences, 64, 01019, published 2023 [accessed online March 16, 2026]) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nesterenko (Nesterenko, Alla, et al. “Vegetable proteins in microencapsulation: A review of recent interventions and their effectiveness”, Industrial Crops and Products, Vol 42, p. 469-479, published 2013 [accessed online March 26, 2025]).
Regarding claim 9, Yura also teaches wherein the product of the present invention is a fermented yogurt with a rich flavor (i.e., a fermented food product; [0079]).
Yura does not teach using oat protein in the composition.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Nesterenko teaches that oat protein has a large range of applications in the food sector (p. 475, col. 2, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the soy protein taught by Yura with oat protein and yield the predictable result of an oat-based yogurt. The claim would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make this simple substitution of one known element for another recognized function equivalents and yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(B).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yura (WO 2006/043478 A1) in view of Streekstra (US 20060110492 A1) as evidenced by USDA (“Soymilk, original and vanilla, unfortified”, FoodData Central, U.S. Department of Agriculture, NDB No. 16120, published 04/01/2019 [accessed online March 16, 2026]) and Rynk (Rynk, Vitaliy, et al. “Phytase influence on soymilk protein colloid stability studied with thermographic method”, BIO Web Conferences, 64, 01019, published 2023 [accessed online March 16, 2026]) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hill (Hill, Ansley. “A Guide to Vegan Cheese: What’s the Best Dairy-Free Option?”, Healthline, published December 6, 2018 [accessed online March 26, 2025]).
Regarding claim 11, Yura does not teach wherein the food product is a plant protein based cheese and wherein said improved property is increased cheese texture.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hill teaches that as a result of the growing popularity of vegan and other dairy-free diets, numerous dairy free cheese substitutes are now available (p. 1, ¶ 2) and that dairy free cheese is most commonly made with soy (i.e., a plant protein; p. 2, ¶ 4). Hill also teaches that many ingredients are added to help mimic the texture and taste of real cheese (p. 2, ¶ 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the process taught by Yura to make a dairy free cheese product as taught by Hill. One would be motivated to make cheese from the product of Yura because of the popularity of dairy free cheeses that has arisen.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant has overcome the objections to the claims based on amendments in the Claims. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §102 of claims 10, 12, and 13 over Bjarnason: Applicant’s arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Bjarnason is directed to the product of protein hydrolysates using cod proteases and that the process is chemically distinct from – and antagonistic to – the process of coagulation as required by claim 10. Applicant further argued that phytase is mentioned once as an enzyme that may be added to the composition; therefore, the reliance on inherency is misplaced (Remarks, p. 7, ¶ 1).
This argument has been considered. Although phytase is listed once as an enzyme that may be added to the composition, there still exists an embodiment of Bjarnason that comprises phytase and meets the limitations of claim 10. MPEP §2123(I) states “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) and “The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. ‘The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.’” Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, Bjarnason is sufficient for teaching claim 10.
Furthermore, the Examiner maintains that the process of Bjarnason would inherently result in the coagulation of proteins. MPEP §2112V states “once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the Examiner presents evidence of reasoning to show inherency, the burden of production shifts to the Applicant” and “"[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977).” The Examiner has relied upon Example 6 of the instant application to demonstrate that pea protein treated with phytase results in increased gelling (p. 19, Example 6). Thus, additional data or prior art is required to show that the process of Bjarnason would not inherently result in the coagulation as claimed.
Applicant further argued that Bjarnason relates to a method for obtaining protein hydrolysates and that hydrolysates are liquids whereas a coagulated cheese is a solid or semi-solid matrix. Applicant further argued that nothing in Bjarnason teaches incubating a plant protein solution with phytase as claimed (Remarks, p. 7, ¶ 3- p. 8, ¶ 1).
This argument has been considered. However, MPEP §2123(I) states “A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) and “The court held that the prior art anticipated the claims even though it taught away from the claimed invention. ‘The fact that a modem with a single carrier data signal is shown to be less than optimal does not vitiate the fact that it is disclosed.’” Celeritas Technologies Ltd. v. Rockwell International Corp., 150 F.3d 1354, 1361, 47 USPQ2d 1516, 1522-23 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Bjarnason teaches that adding an enzyme preparation such as phytase to a protein raw material prior to incubation (col. 6, line 62- col. 7, line 10) and that the protein material may be a vegetable protein (i.e., plant protein; col. 7, lines 21-25). Bjarnason also teaches that the hydrolysates can be added to cheese (Abstract; col. 8, lines 4-7). Additionally, MPEP §2111.03(I) states “The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004)”. Because claim 10 uses the transition phrase “comprising”, the process of claim 10 can comprise additional steps not recited. Thus, the disclosure of Bjarnason is sufficient to teach the invention of claim 10.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1-5, 8, 14, 15 and 20 over Yura and Raab: Applicant’s arguments filed January 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Yura does not teach that the phytase treatment itself acts to improved texture or mouthfeel, and that the coagulation in Yura is achieved by lactic acid fermentation, not the phytase itself (Remarks, p. 8, ¶ 4).
This argument has been considered. However, the claims presently do not require that the phytase treatment itself results in the improved properties, such as improved texture. The claims merely recite “a method for preparing a plant protein comprising food product with an improved property”. Thus, Yura’s process of making a soymilk with phytase having a smooth texture meets the requirements of the claimed invention. Additionally, MPEP §2111.03(I) states “The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004)”. Because claim 1 uses the transition phrase “comprising”, the process of claim 1 can comprise additional steps not recited. Therefore, the additional method steps of Yura resulting in improved texture still meet the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant further argued that nothing in Yura teaches or suggests the Applicant’s surprising finding that phytase is useful for coagulating plant proteins (Remarks, p. 9, ¶ 1).
This argument has been considered. However, MPEP §2112(II) states “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003)”. Although Yura did not discuss the ability of phytase to coagulate the plant protein, as discussed above, Rynk discloses that addition of phytase to soymilk can significantly accelerate its acid coagulation (Abstract), and that most of the phosphates in plant proteins are phytic acid (p. 1, ¶ 4), and that the most important factor for coagulation is the ability of phytic acid (i.e., the protein) to form complexes (p. 2, ¶ 7). Thus, Yura in view of Streekstra teach all elements of claim 1.
Applicant argued that the Office fails to explain why a person of ordinary skill would add high doses of phytase as claimed to Yura’s compositions (Remarks, p. 9, ¶ 2).
This argument has been considered. However, claim 1 is now rejected in view of Yura and Streekstra. The Examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to adjust the amount of phytase included in the soymilk composition of Yura to that taught by Streekstra because Streekstra teaches soymilk comprises high amounts of phytate, and that adding a sufficient amount of phytase reduces the phytate content ([0055]), and that phytate is known to exert a strong negative effect on the absorption of cations, which are minerals ([0004]).
Applicant’s arguments regarding reliance upon Raab (Remarks, p. 9, ¶ 3- p. 10, ¶ 5) have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection does not rely on Raab for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 6, 16, and 17 over Yura, Raab, and Bjarnason; claim 7 over Yura, Raab, and Barreca; claim 9 over Yura, Raab, and Nesterenko; claim 11 over Yura, Raab, and Hill: Applicant's arguments as related to claim 1 were determined to be unpersuasive as detailed previously herein. Examiner further maintains that the dependent claims are properly rejected in light of the cited combinations of prior art as described in the claim rejections.
New claims 21 and 22: Applicant's arguments with respect to new claims 21 and 22 fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The rejections of claims 1-17, 20 have been maintained herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Generally available M-Th 8:00a-5:00p, F 8:00-2:00.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793