Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/003,280

WHOLE SOY FOODSTUFF AND METHODS OF MAKING THE SAME

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Dec 23, 2022
Examiner
YOO, HONG THI
Art Unit
1792
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
The Coca-Cola Company
OA Round
2 (Final)
46%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 5m
To Grant
72%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 46% of resolved cases
46%
Career Allow Rate
337 granted / 739 resolved
-19.4% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 5m
Avg Prosecution
38 currently pending
Career history
777
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
16.9%
-23.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.1%
-10.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 739 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Application Status Amended claim 40-50 are under examination. Claim 1-39 are cancelled. Claim 50-59 are withdrawn from examination. Claim 40-50 are rejected. No claims are allowed. Claim Objections Claim 46 and 50 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 46, line 1-2 recites “an average fiber content”, should be “the average fiber content” since antecedent basis have been established in claim 40, line 5; and claim 50, line 1-2 recites “a solid content”, should be “the solid content” since antecedent basis have been established in claim 40, line 7. Appropriate correction is required. 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) 40-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 조상균 (KR 20070019265 A, Machine Translation English). Regarding claim 40, 43, 45, 46, 47 and 48, 조상균 (KR’265) discloses a process of making high-fiber soybean milk (whole soy food product) containing whole nutrients of soybean (KR’265, Abstract, pg. 3, 6th full paragraph) comprising grinding soaked soybeans (whole soybeans) with water to provide liquid (liquefication product) with solids components (soy pulp fraction) and the water (liquid fraction) (KR’265, pg. 4, 2nd to 5th paragraphs), treating a mixture containing the liquid (liquefication product) with cellulolytic enzymes cellulase (KR’265, pg. 4, 6th paragraph), thereby forming the high-fiber soybean milk (whole soy food product) (KR’265, pg. 4, 7th – 9th paragraph; pg. 5, 1st paragraph). With respect to claim 45 and 48, as 조상균 (KR’265) uses like material, whole soybeans, water and cellulolytic enzymes cellulase in a like matter of grinding (liquefying) and treating with enzymes as claimed in claim 40; hence it would be therefore be expected that the high-fiber soybean milk (whole soy food product) will have the same characteristics claimed, particularly the viscosity as claimed, absence a showing of unexpected results. With respect to new limitation of “…wherein the liquefaction product has an average fiber content from about 0.5 wt% to about 5 wt% and a solid content from about 5 wt% to about 50 wt% in claim 40, and the limitation of claim 46, is considered a recitation of an intermediate product, in this case the liquefaction product in the claimed process; as 조상균 (KR’265) uses like material, whole soybeans, water and cellulolytic enzymes cellulase in a like matter of grinding (liquefying) and treating with enzymes as claimed in claim 40, hence it would be therefore be expected that liquid (liquefication product) with the solids components (soy pulp fraction) will have the same characteristics claimed, particularly the average fiber content as claimed in claim 40 and 46, absence a showing of unexpected results. 조상균 (KR’265) discloses the high-fiber soybean milk (whole soy food product) with a solid content of 12 to 13 brix % (KR’265, pg. 5, ln. 2nd paragraph), which is in range with cited range Regarding claim 41, 조상균 (KR’265) discloses the high-fiber soybean milk (whole soy food product) with a viscosity of 20 to 100 cps (KR’265, pg. 5, 4th paragraph) which is in range with cited range. Regarding claim 42, 조상균 (KR’265) discloses a weight ratio of the water (liquid) to soybeans which includes soy pulp, is 4.5 to 4.9 : 1 (KR’265, pg. 4, 3rd paragraph), which is in range with cited range. Regarding claim 44, 조상균 (KR’265) discloses the high-fiber soybean milk (whole soy food product) with particle size of 60 to 90 um (KR’265, pg. 5, ln. 1st paragraph), which is in range with cited range. Regarding claim 49 and 50, 조상균 (KR’265) discloses the high-fiber soybean milk (whole soy food product) with the solid content of 12 to 13 brix % (KR’265, pg. 5, ln. 2nd paragraph), which is in range with cited range. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to new limitation of “…wherein the liquefaction product has an average fiber content from about 0.5 wt% to about 5 wt% and a solid content from about 5 wt% to about 50 wt% in claim 40, and the limitation of claim 46, is considered a recitation of an intermediate product, in this case the liquefaction product in the claimed process; as 조상균 (KR’265) uses like material, whole soybeans, water and cellulolytic enzymes cellulase in a like matter of grinding (liquefying) and treating with enzymes as claimed in claim 40, hence it would be therefore be expected that liquid (liquefication product) with the solids components (soy pulp fraction) will have the same characteristics claimed, particularly the average fiber content as claimed in claim 40 and 46, absence a showing of unexpected results Attention to MPEP 716.02(b) III, The patentability of an intermediate may be established by unexpected properties of an end product "when one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably ascribe to a claimed intermediate the ‘contributing cause’ for such an unexpectedly superior activity or property." In re Magerlein, 602 F.2d 366, 373, 202 USPQ 473, 479 (CCPA 1979). "In order to establish that the claimed intermediate is a ‘contributing cause’ of the unexpectedly superior activity or property of an end product, an applicant must identify the cause of the unexpectedly superior activity or property (compared to the prior art) in the end product and establish a nexus for that cause between the intermediate and the end product." Id. at 479. 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 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 23, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 21, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Dec 29, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 04, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599266
AXIALLY OPERABLE BREWING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593856
REDUCED CALORIE BEVERAGE OR FOOD PRODUCT AND PROCESS AND APPARATUS FOR MAKING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588686
METHOD FOR PRODUCING MODIFIED PEA PROTEIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12568986
A METHOD OF REDUCING ACRYLAMIDE IN COFFEE EXTRACT AND A SOLUBLE COFFEE PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12557826
PLANT-BASED MILK
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
46%
Grant Probability
72%
With Interview (+26.0%)
3y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 739 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month