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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Application Status
Amended claim 1-4, 6-7, 12 and new claim 13 are under examination.
Claim 5 and 8-11 are cancelled.
Claim 1-4, 6-7 and 12-13 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/17/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 112, second paragraph rejection over claim 5 and 11-12 as set forth in previous office action have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection over claim 9 and 10 as being anticipated by Nielsen (US 6,036,983) have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s cancellation of claim 9 and 10.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-4, 6-7 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
The term “enough amide groups in the protein” in claim 1, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “enough” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear that amount or value is considered “enough”, hence the claim is indefinite. Claim 2-4, 6-7 and 12-13 are also rejected since the claims are depended upon rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suppavorastit et al. (Ref. U, Optimization of the Enzymatic Deamidation of Soy Protein by Protein-Glutaminase and Its Effect of the Functional Properties of the Protein, 2011).
Regarding claim 1-4, and 6-7, Suppavorasatit et al. (Suppavorastit) discloses a method of reacting soy protein isolate in a buffer (vegetable protein solution) with protein glutaminase (protein deamidase) (Ref. U, pg. 11622, col. 1, under Materials and Methods bullet, Materials and Enzymatic Deamidation) to obtain a deamidated soy protein isolate (Ref. U, pg. 11626, Table 2). With respect to new limitation of “…under conditions and for a time sufficient to remove enough amide groups in the protein…”, Suppavorastit discloses the method under conditions and time in an enzymatic deamination (pg. 11622, col. 1, under Materials and Methods bullet point, 2-4th paragraph). The new limitation of “…so that a coefficient of friction generated between the protein and a solid surface in saliva is reduced by at least 90% compared to a coefficient of friction of the protein that is not reacted with the protein deamidase…”, as Suppavorastit uses like materials, soy protein isolate in a buffer (vegetable protein solution) with protein glutaminase (protein deamidase) in a like manner, under conditions and time in an enzymatic deamination (pg. 11622, col. 1, under Materials and Methods bullet point, 2-4th paragraph), it would therefore be expected that the protein will have the same characteristics claimed, particularly the coefficient of friction generated between the protein and a solid surface in saliva is reduced by at least 90% compared to a coefficient of friction of the protein that is not reacted with the protein deamidase; absence a showing of unexpected results.
With respect to the claim 1, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for improving a texture of a protein”, 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.
With respect to claim 7, the limitation of “…smoothens a feeling of the protein on a tongue…”, is considered a functional limitations of the claimed product when it’s at the protein deamidase is allow to act on the protein; hence it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitation that stem from the claimed structure (product). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spade, 15 USPQ2d 655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, the new limitation is considered measurement of properties of the protein in the claimed process; when it’s at when protein is mixed with artificial saliva compared to a coefficient of friction; hence it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitation that stem from the claimed structure (product). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spade, 15 USPQ2d 655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-7, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Triantafyllou (WO 2014/123466 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 13, Triantafyllou discloses a method comprising treating a content of soluble protein in an oat base (vegetable protein/oat protein) (‘466, pg. 4, ln. 9-11; pg. 5, ln. 20-26) with protein deamidase (‘466, pg. 6, ln. 21-26), protein-glutaminase under conditions and time (‘466, pg. 8, ln. 11-27; pg. 11, Table 1). With respect to new limitation of “…under conditions and for a time sufficient to remove enough amide groups in the protein…”, Suppavorastit discloses the method under conditions and time in an enzymatic deamination (pg. 11622, col. 1, under Materials and Methods bullet point, 2-4th paragraph). The new limitation of “…so that a coefficient of friction generated between the protein and a solid surface in saliva is reduced by at least 90% compared to a coefficient of friction of the protein that is not reacted with the protein deamidase…”, as Triantafyllou uses like materials, soluble protein in oat base with protein glutaminase (protein deamidase) in a like manner, under conditions and time in an enzymatic deamination (‘466, pg. 8, ln. 11-27; pg. 11, Table 1)., it would therefore be expected that the protein will have the same characteristics claimed, particularly the coefficient of friction generated between the protein and a solid surface in saliva is reduced by at least 90% compared to a coefficient of friction of the protein that is not reacted with the protein deamidase; absence a showing of unexpected results.
With respect to the claim 1, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “for improving a texture of a protein”, 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.
With respect to claim 7, the limitation of “…smoothens a feeling of the protein on a tongue…”, is considered a functional limitations of the claimed product when it’s at the protein deamidase is allow to act on the protein; hence it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitation that stem from the claimed structure (product). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spade, 15 USPQ2d 655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, the new limitation is considered measurement of properties of the protein in the claimed process; when it’s at when protein is mixed with artificial saliva compared to a coefficient of friction; hence it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitation that stem from the claimed structure (product). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spade, 15 USPQ2d 655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to new limitation of “…under conditions and for a time sufficient to remove enough amide groups in the protein…”, Suppavorastit discloses the method under conditions and time in an enzymatic deamination (pg. 11622, col. 1, under Materials and Methods bullet point, 2-4th paragraph). The new limitation of “…so that a coefficient of friction generated between the protein and a solid surface in saliva is reduced by at least 90% compared to a coefficient of friction of the protein that is not reacted with the protein deamidase…”, as Suppavorastit uses like materials, soy protein isolate in a buffer (vegetable protein solution) with protein glutaminase (protein deamidase) in a like manner, under conditions and time in an enzymatic deamination (pg. 11622, col. 1, under Materials and Methods bullet point, 2-4th paragraph), it would therefore be expected that the protein will have the same characteristics claimed, particularly the coefficient of friction generated between the protein and a solid surface in saliva is reduced by at least 90% compared to a coefficient of friction of the protein that is not reacted with the protein deamidase; absence a showing of unexpected results.
With respect to claim 12, the new limitation is considered measurement of properties of the protein in the claimed process; when it’s at when protein is mixed with artificial saliva compared to a coefficient of friction; hence it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or substantially identical process, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitation that stem from the claimed structure (product). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spade, 15 USPQ2d 655,1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG THI YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM to 3PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ERIK KASHNIKOW can be reached at (571)270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONG T YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792