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 .
Applicant’s response of 11/19/2025 is entered where elected claims 1-6 are examined in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, 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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over cited art (EP 1 344 459 A1), hereinafter D1 in view of WO 2014/110532 A2, hereinafter D2 and WO 2013/056969 A1, hereinafter D3.
Claim interpretation: claims are directed to a compound containing pea protein or pea isolate where a. 0-10 wt.% of pea components having a molecular weight of at least 30 kDa; b. 0-70 wt.% galacto-oligosaccharides selected from raffinose, stachyose, verbascose and combinations thereof; c. 0.05-20 wt.% 5’ inosine monophosphate (IMP);
b. 0-4 wt.% 5’ adenosine monophosphate (AMP);wherein the weight ratio IMP : AMP exceeds 1:1., thus the only two requirements are pea protein and IMP :AMP ratio. The amounts that have range of zero are being considered optional or are not required.
Regarding claims 1-6, D1 teaches a dry seasoning composition useful for imparting umami taste to food products comprising at least one nucleotide flavor enhancer and at least one organic acid or salt thereof selected in the group consisting of acetic acid, ascorbic acid, aspartic acid, citric acid, fumaric acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, succinic acid and lactic acid. D1 also teaches that the nucleotide flavor enhancer is selected in the group consisting of adenosine-5'-monophosphate (5'-AMP), guanosine-5'-monophosphate (5'- GMP), inosine-5'-monophosphate (5'-IMP), xanthosine-5'-monophosphate (5'-XMP), uridine-5'-monophosphate (5'-UMP), cytidine-5'-monophosphate (5'-CMP), their amides, deoxy derivatives, salts and the like (claim 2), thus the inclusion of pea protein and AMP as well as IMP was known.
Similarly, D2 teaches a food product comprising:
a) a heme-containing protein; and
b) one or more flavor precursor molecules selected from the group consisting of glucose, fructose, ribose, arabinose, glucose-6-phosphate, fructose 6-phosphate, fructose 1,6-diphosphate, inositol, maltose, sucrose, maltodextrin, glycogen, nucleotide- bound sugars, molasses, a phospholipid, a lecithin, inosine, inosine monophosphate (IMP), guanosine monophosphate (GMP), pyrazine, adenosine monophosphate (AMP), lactic acid, succinic acid, glycolic acid, thiamine, creatine, pyrophosphate, vegetable oil, algal oil, sunflower oil, corn oil, soybean oil, palm fruit oil, palm kernel oil, safflower oil, flaxseed oil, rice bran oil, cottonseed oil, olive oil, sunflower oil, canola oil, flaxseed oil, coconut oil, mango oil, a free fatty acid, cysteine, methionine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, valine, arginine, histidine, alanine, asparagine, aspartate, glutamate, glutamine, glycine, proline, serine, tyrosine, glutathione, an amino acid derivative, a protein hydro lysate, a malt extract, a yeast extract, and a peptone, which also meets the claimed limitations of claims isolate as recited in claims 1-6.
In response to applicant’s argument, it is noted that D2 like D1 teaches flavoring products where the and derivatives thereof including inosine monophosphate (IMP) and amino acids with leghemoglobin from vegetable sources including peas (page 6, lines 20-21 and 24-25), D2 also contain pea protein or pea isolate and legumin which is complex carbohydrate in peas.
Both D1 and D2 teach the claimed ingredients but are silent regarding the ratio of AMP:IMP, however, D3 teaches a tomato derived composition comprising, by weight of dry matter:
30-80 wt.% monosaccharides;
2-10 wt.% glutamic acid;
1-20 wt.% citric acid;
0.2-12 wt.% malic acid;
0.3-6 wt.% aspartic acid;
0.03-1.0 wt.% 5'nucleoside monophosphates;
0.5-20 wt.% pectin;
0.5-12 wt.% potassium;
0.001 -1 .0 wt.% lycopene; and 10-50 wt.% of other components;
wherein the 5'nucleoside monophosphates contained in the composition are composed of:
30-90 wt.% of 5'inosine monophosphate (5'IMP);
10-50 wt.% of 5'uridine monophosphate (5'UMP); *
0-40 wt.% of 5'adenosine monophosphate (5'AMP); and
0-20 wt.% of other 5'nucleoside monophosphates (claim 1).
As described in D3 tomato product, the ratio of IMP:AMP of 1:1 was available in a flavor compound, therefore adjusting the amount of AMP and IMP in D1 in claimed proportion with pea protein isolate composition would have been a matter of routine determination for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention. One would have been motivated to modify the amount of nucleotides at least for the purpose of achieving a uniformly desired flavor product with flavor stability from one batch to another.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument is that prior art does not teach pea derived starting material (Page # 6 lines 1-2). On page #6, applicant further elaborates on Frazer (reference D2) that “Fraser focuses on heme-containing proteins from various sources but does not teach or suggest pea-derived materials or pea isolates as the source of the nucleotide components” (Page #6, lines 7-8). This argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the instant case applicant’s claims are directed to a pea protein or pea isolate where a. 0-10 wt.% of pea components having a molecular weight of at least 30 kDa; b. 0-70 wt.% galacto-oligosaccharides selected from raffinose, stachyose, verbascose and combinations thereof; c. 0.05-20 wt.% 5’ inosine monophosphate (IMP);
b. 0-4 wt.% 5’ adenosine monophosphate (AMP);wherein the weight ratio IMP : AMP exceeds 1:1., thus the only two requirements are presence of some form of pea protein and IMP :AMP ratio. The amounts that have range of zero are being considered optional or are not required. In response to the remarks, Both D1 and D2 teach a seasoning/flavoring composition providing umami flavor as is intended by the applicant, D1 teaches dry seasoning products, i.e. moisture as claimed, D2 teaches pea protein of legumin thus prior art is pertinent. Pea based protein content is taught by Prior art and claims 2-6 depend on pea isolate where the components are optional. Further regarding none of the prior art references teaching pea protein components as claimed, it is noted that D2 teaches flavoring products where the derivatives thereof including inosine monophosphate (IMP) and amino acids with leghemoglobin from vegetable sources including peas (page 6, lines 20-21 and 24-25 and also contain pea protein or pes isolate of D2 and legumin which is complex carbohydrate in pea protein ). Thus, pea protein is taught by prior art and applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Further, claims 2-6 are directed to components of pea isolate and it is noted that pea protein isolate recitation of claim 1 is in the preamble, Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claim(s). When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of components of protein isolate is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JYOTI CHAWLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30- 5:30.
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 on 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.
/JYOTI CHAWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791