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 03/17/2026 is acknowledged.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-12
Withdrawn claims: 13-15
Previously cancelled claims: None
Newly cancelled claims: None
Amended claims: 1
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-12
Currently rejected claims: 1-12
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/17/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the graphs in Fig. 3 do not contain any size increments associated with their Y-axis (e.g., each horizontal dashed line indicates an increment of 100 with a baseline of 0). Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-3, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 3, and 5 recite ranges of molecular weights of 0-670,000, 0-200, and 750-1,300, respectively. However, they do not recite a unit of measurement for the molecular weights (e.g., Dalton, kilodalton). Therefore, the claims are indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the molecular weights will be interpreted in units of Daltons.
Claim 11 recites “direct reducing sugar” in line 2. Neither the present claims nor present specification define what is meant by “direct reducing sugar”. For the purpose of this examination, the term will be interpreted as being any sugar.
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 1-6, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Müller (US 5,407,690).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Müller teaches a rice-derived fermented seasoning, wherein the seasoning was produced by fermenting a rice substrate with Zygosaccharomyces rouxii yeast as the fermenting microorganism yeast (column 3, lines 3-5, 10-13). Müller does not teach that the seasoning has the features recited in present claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as measured in an HPLC under the analysis condition recited in present claim 1. However, Müller teaches fermentation of rice using Zygosaccharomyces rouxii yeast which is the same yeast used to ferment the rice which produced the seasoning of the claimed invention having the HPLC features recited in the present claims (Fig. 1 and [0065] of the present specification). Therefore, the method of Müller is considered to produce liquid seasonings which encompass the claimed HPLC features, especially wherein (1) the claimed HPLC features merely correlate to amounts of specific chemical compounds; (2) neither the present claims nor present specification identify these specific chemical compounds; and (3) the examples of the present specification seem to merely submit a liquid seasoning prepared by the method of Fig. 1 to HPLC analysis in order to obtain the claimed HPLC features. Furthermore, the Office does not have laboratory facilities to test claim limitations drawn toward results of practicing the method as claimed. Accordingly, such HPLC features as recited in present claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 do not serve to distinguish the product as claimed from the prior art and are thus considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Müller teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including that the salt content in the fermentation mash used to produce the seasoning comprises about 4 wt.% to about 12 wt.% (column 2, lines 53-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the resulting seasoning to contain about 4 wt.% to about 12 wt.% salt, which falls within the claimed salt concentration.
Regarding claim 12, Müller teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including that the fermented raw material of the liquid fermented seasoning includes rice (column 3, lines 10-13).
Claims 7-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Müller (US 5,407,690) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kawamoto (US 2015/0289547; IDS citation).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Müller teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the seasoning is produced by the fermentation of enzyme-containing koji produced by Aspergillus oryzae (column 2, line 60 - column 3, line 5).
Müller does not teach that the liquid fermented seasoning has protease activity as recited in present claim 7; or that the protease activity at pH 6.0 is at least 5 units/g as recited in present claim 8.
However, Kawamoto teaches a rice-derived liquid fermented seasoning (Fig. 1; [0003]) produced using koji from produced by Aspergillus oryzae wherein the koji produces protease enzymes [0030], [0034] as recited in present claim 7. Kawamoto teaches that the seasoning produced using this koji has protease activity at pH 6.0 of 55 units/g ([0067]; Table 1 under [0081]), which falls within the claimed protease activity range recited in present claim 8.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the seasoning of Müller to have a protease activity of at pH 6.0 of 55 units/g as taught by Kawamoto. Since Müller teaches the seasoning is produced by the fermentation of enzyme-containing koji produced by Aspergillus oryzae (column 2, line 60 - column 3, line 5), but does not disclose an enzyme produced by the koji, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Kawamoto to determine an enzyme produced by Aspergillus oryzae koji and an enzyme activity of that koji, thereby rendering the protease activity recited in present claims 7 and 8 obvious.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Müller teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the seasoning comprises water and sugar (column 2, lines 43-46; column 3, lines 14-16, 36-45).
Müller does not teach that the seasoning contains 30-70 wt.% water as recited in present claim 10; or at least 10 wt.5 of direct reducing sugar as recited in present claim 11.
However, Kawamoto teaches a rice-derived liquid fermented seasoning (Fig. 1; [0003]) produced using koji from produced by Aspergillus oryzae [0030] wherein the seasoning contains 37 wt.% water (corresponding to 37 L of water) and 30 wt.% sugar ([0062]; Table 1 under [0081]), which fall within the claimed water and sugar contents recited in present claims 10 and 11, respectively.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the seasoning of Müller to have a water content of 37 wt.% and a direct reducing sugar content of 30 wt.% as taught by Kawamoto. Since Müller teaches the seasoning is produced by the fermentation of enzyme-containing koji produced by Aspergillus oryzae (column 2, line 60 - column 3, line 5); and discloses that the seasoning comprises water and sugar (column 2, lines 43-46; column 3, lines 14-16, 36-45), but does not disclose an amount of water and sugar in such a seasoning, a skilled practitioner would have been motivated to consult an additional reference such as Kawamoto to determine a suitable water and sugar concentration for a rice-derived liquid seasoning fermented by Aspergillus oryzae koji, thereby rendering the water and direct reducing sugar concentrations recited in present claims 10 and 11 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Objection to Drawings: Applicant submitted replacement graphs of Fig. 3 which had the Y-axis labeled as “A280/mAU”. Applicant argued that the graphs do not need to include a scale associated with the Y-axis because it is only the ratio of the peak areas that is necessary to determine whether a rice-derived liquid fermented seasoning is within the scope of the present invention (Applicant’s Remarks, page 8, 3rd paragraph – page 9, 1st paragraph).
However, the Examiner points out that the Y-axis needs to include a scale in order to be considered a properly labeled graph, especially wherein the graph for “Test Block 1” seems to be using a different scale than the one used for “Comparison Block 1” (i.e., “Test Block 1” contains 4 horizontal dashed lines while “Comparison Block 1” contains 7 horizontal dashed lines). It is unclear how one may accurately measure and compare the area of the peaks of the two graphs when the two graphs are using different scales. Therefore, the objection is maintained as written herein.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112(b) of claims 2-3, 5, and 11: Applicant argued that a skilled practitioner would have understood that the claimed molecular weights recited in claims 2, 3, and 5 do not have units. Applicant pointed to Table 4.10 on page 44 of a reference by IUPAC to demonstrate that molecular weight is identical to relative molecular mass and that the unit of measurement for relative molecular mass is 1 so that relative molecular weight, and consequently molecular is a dimensionless quantity. For this reason, Applicant argued that claims 2, 3, and 5 correctly recite the ranges of molecular weight without units (Applicant’s Remarks, page 7, 2nd – 3rd paragraphs).
However, the present claims recite the term “molecular weight” which is not a unitless measurement as indicated by the 3rd paragraph of Applicant’s Wikipedia page provided in previous Applicant’s Remarks filed 10/27/2025. This provided Wikipedia page stated that molecular weight may be given in different units which includes daltons and kilodaltons. The different descriptions of units of “molecular weight” provided by Applicant in the Wikipedia page and in the IUPAC reference demonstrates that a skilled practitioner would not assume that the “molecular weight” recited in the present claims automatically indicates a dimensionless quantity, especially wherein the present specification does not recite that the term is interpreted in view of the IUPAC description. Therefore, it is not clear as to which units are being used to measure the molecular weight recited in present claims 2, 3, and 5 and thus, the claims remain rejected as being indefinite.
Applicant then argued that claim 11 recites “a content of direct reducing sugar” and thus, there is no lack of antecedent basis for rejection. Applicant then argued that a skilled practitioner would have understood the meaning of the term “direct reducing sugar” as demonstrated in the provided Japanese references (Applicant’s Remarks, page 7, 3rd paragraph – page 8, 2nd paragraph).
However, on page 9, 2nd paragraph of Applicant’s Remarks filed 10/27/2025, Applicant stated that the meaning of the term “direct reducing sugar” recited in present claim 11 is known in the art to mean the portion of the total reducing sugars that is present in their free form without being produced by a prior chemical reaction. However, the Japanese references filed with the present Remarks provide methods of calculating direct reducing sugar wherein the methods do not seem in line with Applicant’s definition of the term (i.e., there is no mention of total reducing sugars or of a difference in amount of total reducing sugar and direct reducing sugar). These references also do not provide any actual definition of “direct reducing sugar”. Furthermore, the explanation of “direct reducing sugar” in [0038] of Kawamoto also does not seem to be in line with Applicant’s definition of the term. For at least these reasons, the definition of “direct reducing sugar” remains unclear. Therefore, claim 11 remains rejected as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1-12 over Kawamoto: Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered and are considered to overcome the rejections over Kawamoto. However, upon further consideration, the claims now stand rejected over Müller or the combination of Müller and Kawamoto.
Applicant amended claim 1 to recite that the liquid fermented seasoning was produced by fermentation with a yeast and/or lactic acid bacteria. Applicant argued that the seasoning of Test block 1 shown in Table 6 of Kawamoto was not fermented with yeast or lactic acid bacteria and therefore would not meet the HPLC requirements recited in present claim 1 since this seasoning of Kawamoto correlates to the seasoning of Comparison Block 1 of the present specification. Applicant argued that there is no reason for a skilled practitioner to have modified Kawamoto to include fermentation by yeast and/or lactic acid bacteria to arrive at the presently claimed invention (Applicant’s Remarks, page 8, 3rd paragraph – page 10, 2nd paragraph).
However, in the new grounds of rejection, amended claim 1 is rendered obvious by Müller. Müller teaches a rice-derived fermented seasoning, wherein the seasoning was produced by fermenting a rice substrate with Zygosaccharomyces rouxii yeast as the fermenting microorganism yeast (column 3, lines 3-5, 10-13). Müller does not teach that the seasoning has the features recited in present claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 as measured in an HPLC under the analysis condition recited in present claim 1. However, Müller teaches fermentation of rice using Zygosaccharomyces rouxii yeast which is the same yeast used to ferment the rice which produced the seasoning of the claimed invention having the HPLC features recited in the present claims (Fig. 1 and [0065] of the present specification). Therefore, the method of Müller is considered to produce liquid seasonings which encompass the claimed HPLC features.
Since the prior art is shown to render the present claims obvious and Applicant’s arguments regarding Kawamoto have been shown to be moot, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein.
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
Prosecution Insights