DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under th e first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Restriction/Election A pplicant’s election of Group I the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 recites the limitation "liquid milk protein concentrate”" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation of a “liquid milk protein concentrate” is interpreted to be identical to the “liquid protein concentrate” of Claim 1, part a). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 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. Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criezis (US 2014/0370156 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Criezis teaches a method for preparing a food product that is ready to consume [0127]. Note that the instant Specification teaches that a ready-to-consume food product can be used in the preparation of a food item, and Criezis teaches that the food product may be used in the preparation of, e.g. coffee [0129]. Criezis teaches that the method for preparing the food utilizes skim milk as a liquid dairy base [0 075]. Criezis teaches that the skim milk is concentrated to obtain a concentrated dairy liquid [0014] which is then blended with fats and additional dairy ingredients (Figure 1) to prepare the food product. Where Criezis teaches a number of different dairy products as starting materials, it would have been obvious to have selected any of the starting materials taught by Criezis (including a concentrated skim milk, which is a liquid protein concentrate) to blend with fats and dairy ingredients to prepare the food product. Regarding Claim 2, Criezis teaches that the liquid dairy base may be a skim milk [0075]. Criezis teaches that the skim milk is concentrated to obtain a concentrated dairy liquid [0014] which is then blended with fats and additional dairy ingredients. Regarding Claim 4, Criezis teaches that the lactose content of the protein concentrate is less than 1% [0093]. Regarding Claim 7, Criezis teaches adding 3-57% cream [0094, lines 9-10] Criezis additionally teaches that the cream may contain about 35-44% fat [0094, lines 5-6]. Criezis therefore teaches 1.05-25.1% fat, which falls within the claimed range. Regarding Claim 8 , Criezis teaches the addition of cream [0012]. Note that the addition of cream meets the limitation of both adding fat and adding a dairy ingredient. Regarding Claim 11, Criezis teaches adding 3-57% cream, which encompasses the claimed range [0094]. Note that the addition of cream meets the limitation of both adding fat and adding a dairy ingredient. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criezis taken with evidentiary reference of Gallary ( https://www.thekitchn.com/how-is-skim-milk-made-ingredient-intelligence-215893 ) Regarding Claim 3, Criezis teaches that the dairy liquid base (which may be skim milk [0075] is concentrated via ultrafiltration, retaining ~99% of fat. Note that ultrafiltration preserves the amount of water. Note that skim milk typically contains 0.1% fat (see evidentiary reference of Gallary, Page 5). Therefore , Criezis teaches a liquid protein concentrate comprising the fat content as claimed. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criezis taken with evidentiary reference of US Dairy ( https://www.usdairy.com/dairy-nutrition/products/cream ) Regarding Claim 10, Criezis teaches the addition of cream [0012]. Cream is known to have protein content of about 0.4 grams per tablespoon ( see evidentiary reference of US Dairy, Page 2), which is 2.7% w/v. Therefore, Criezis teaches cream have the protein content as claimed. C laim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criezis taken with evidentiary reference of US Dairy (2) (https://www.usdairy.com/news-articles/uht-milk-what-is-ultra-high-temperature-milk) Regarding Claim 12, Criezis teaches that the dairy liquid may be UHT pasteurized [0128]. Note that UHT pasteurization typically involves heating to >135 °C for greater than two seconds (see evidentiary reference of US Dairy (2), Page 2). Therefore, Criezis teaches the heating profile as claimed. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criezis taken with evidentiary reference of Gallary. Regarding Claim 5, Criezis teaches that the protein content is concentrated greater than 4x from the dairy liquid base [0091]. Criezis additionally teaches that the dairy liquid base may be, e.g. skim milk [0075], which contains 10 grams of protein per 240 mL (see evidentiary reference of Gallary, Page 4 image). Criezis therefore teaches greater than 40 grams of protein per 240 mL of protein concentrate, which is greater than 17% protein w/v, which encompasses the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Claim 6 i s rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criezis view of Domazakis (WO 2019/068722 A1). Regarding Claim 6, Criezis teaches the food product as discussed above in regards to Claim 1 . Criezis teaches the use of cream containing 35-44% fat [0094] as the fat component, but does not discuss the use of vegetable oil as the fat component. Domazakis teaches a dairy product wherein some portion of the dairy fat has been replaced with vegetable oil (Page 3, Lines 21-25). Domazakis teaches that the use of vegetable oil yields organoleptic properties similar to conventional dairy (Page 3, Line 18) while providing health benefits (Page 1, Lines 26-27). Domazakis teaches that vegetable oil is used to replace a composition comprising 30-50% fat (Page 4, Line 28). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize vegetable oil as taught by Domazakis to replace some or all of the dairy fat (cream) of Criezis. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Domazakis teaches that vegetable oil provides health benefits over conventional dairy, while providing organoleptic properties similar to conventional dairy. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Criezis view of Dairyuk.org ( https://www.dairyuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/FINAL-Compositional-Standards-Cream.pdf , December 2018) Regarding Claim 9, Criezis teaches the addition of cream [0012] to increase the fat content of the dairy concentrate [0012] but does not address the fat content of the cream. Criezis teaches the use of any available cream [0094]. Dairyuk.org teaches that known varieties of cream contain greater than 48% fat (Page 3, “Cream Schedule”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a cream with 48-53% fat as the cream of Criezis. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since the claimed fat content is known to lie within the expected fat content for cream, and additionally since Criezis adds cream specifically to increase the fat content of the diary concentrate and teaches the use of any available cream. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07 Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5685 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 12-8 Eastern Time . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nikki Dees can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791 /Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791