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 .
The amendment filed 6/9/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder (US 2010/0330228 A1) in view of Fenske (US 2003/0035879).
Regarding Claim 1, Mulder teaches a soup (Abstract) comprising cream and oils/fats [0020]. The soup is emulsified [0042]. Mulder teaches that the soup comprises 3-40% of added fat on a dry basis [0029], which overlaps the claimed range. Mulder teaches that the soup may comprise additional fat, in the form of e.g., cream [0020]. Note that Mulder teaches that the additional fat is not included in the “added fat”. Mulder teaches that the amount of additional fat (e.g., cream) may be added in a 1:1 ratio to the added fat [0020]. Mulder therefore additionally teaches 3-40% of cream, on a dry basis.
Mulder teaches the addition of flavors [0034] but does not specifically teach that the oil and fat are flavored. However, selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Regarding the limitation of animal-based raw materials, Mulder teaches an iteration of the soup comprising 3.5% animal-derived ingredients on a dry basis (butter and skimmed milk powder), which lies within the claimed range [0056].
Mulder does not teach a plant milk cream.
Fenske teaches a soybean-based substitute for cream [0012] which has 20-90 wt% fat [0035], which overlaps the claimed range. Fenske teaches that the cream product can be used as a dairy substitute in food [0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the soy cream of Fenske in the soup of Mulder. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Fenske teaches that the soy-based cream is appropriate as a dairy substitute in foods.
Regarding the limitation that the lipid solid content of the plant-based soup base be 60-99 wt%, where Mulder teaches that the soup comprises 3-40% of added fat on a dry basis [0029], and additionally teaches 3-40% of cream, on a dry basis, and where Fenske teaches that a soy cream may be 20-90% fat, the combination of the prior art teaches a soup overlapping the claimed lipid content. The amount of fat ranges from 3.6-76% (3+3*20% to 40+40*90%).
Regarding Claim 3, Mulder teaches that the protein is 0.5-10 wt% protein [0018], which overlaps the claimed range. Mulder teaches at least 60% water [0024]. Mulder therefore teaches 1.25-25% protein on a dry basis, which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 5, Fenske teaches a soybean-based substitute for cream [0012].
Regarding Claims 6, 7, 9, and 11, Mulder teaches 1-10% carbohydrates, including fibers [0025-0026], which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 17, Mulder teaches that the soup may be blended with water [0029], which meets the limitation of “blending, as a raw material”.
Regarding Claims 18 and 20, Mulder teaches a soup that is emulsified [0042], contains oil/fats [0020], and contains a majority water (that is, greater than 60% [0024]). Mulder is therefore interpreted to teach an “oil in water emulsion”, as claimed. Additionally, note that any soup that is prepared can be broadly interpreted to contain a “soup base”. Since Mulder teaches, e.g. a process for producing a soup which comprises preparing an ingredient mixture followed by multiple process steps (Page 4, Claim 16), the soup of Mulder is interpreted to be a soup containing a “soup base”.
Mulder teaches that the soup comprises 3-40% of added fat on a dry basis [0029], which overlaps the claimed range. Mulder teaches that the soup may comprise additional fat, in the form of e.g. cream [0020]. Note that Mulder teaches that the additional fat is not included in the “added fat”. Mulder teaches that the amount of additional fat (e.g. cream) may be added in a 1:1 ratio to the added fat [0020]. Mulder therefore additionally teaches 3-40% of cream, on a dry basis.
Mulder teaches the addition of flavors [0034] but does not specifically teach that the oil and fat are flavored. However, selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Regarding the limitation of animal-based raw materials, Mulder teaches an iteration of the soup comprising 3.5% animal-derived ingredients on a dry basis (butter and skimmed milk powder), which lies within the claimed range [0056].
Mulder does not teach a plant milk cream.
Fenske teaches a soybean-based substitute for cream [0012] which has 20-90 wt% fat [0035], which overlaps the claimed range. Fenske teaches that the cream product can be used as a dairy substitute in food [0046].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the cream substitute of Fenske in the soup of Mulder. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Fenske teaches that the soy-based cream product can be used as a dairy substitute.
Regarding the limitation that the lipid solid content of the plant-based soup base be 60-99 wt%, where Mulder teaches that the soup comprises 3-40% of added fat on a dry basis [0029], and additionally teaches 3-40% of cream, on a dry basis, and where Fenske teaches that a soy cream may be 20-90% fat, the combination of the prior art teaches a soup overlapping the claimed fat (lipid) content. The amount of fat ranges from 3.6-76% (3+3*20% to 40+40*90%).
Claims 2, 4, 8, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder in view of Fenske as applied to Claims 1 and 18, above, and further in view of tastefullyvegetarian.com (https://www.yeastextract.info/2018/08/29/tastefully-vegetarian-food-cultures-and-their-seasonings/, August 2018)
Regarding Claim 2, modified Mulder teaches the soup as discussed in regard to Claim 1 and teaches the addition of flavors [0034] but does not specifically discuss the addition of yeast extract.
Tastefullyvegetarian.com teaches that yeast extract adds a “savoury, tasty, and meaty flavour” to foods (Page 1, Paragraph 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize yeast extract in a savoury food. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to impart a savoury and tasty flavor to the food.
Regarding Claim 4, Mulder teaches that the protein is 0.5-10 wt% protein [0018], which overlaps the claimed range. Mulder teaches at least 60% water [0024]. Mulder therefore teaches 1.25-25% protein on a dry basis, which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 8 and 10, Mulder teaches 1-10% carbohydrates [0026], including fibers [0025, lines 7-13], which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Mulder teaches the soup as discussed in regard to Claim 18 and teaches the addition of flavors [0034] but does not specifically discuss the addition of yeast extract.
Tastefullyvegetarian.com teaches that yeast extract adds a “savoury, tasty, and meaty flavour” to foods (Page 1, Paragraph 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize yeast extract in a savoury food such as soup. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to impart a savoury and tasty flavor to the food.
Claims 12, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder in view of Fenske as applied to Claims 1, 3, and 5, above, and further in view of Bourne (“EFFECT OF SODIUM ALKALIS AND SALTS ON pH AND FLAVOR OF SOYMILK”, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1976.tb01101.x)
Regarding Claims 12, 14, and 16, modified Mulder teaches a soup with soy cream as discussed above in regard to Claims 1, 3 and 5, but does not discuss the pH of the soy cream.
Bourne teaches that adjusting the pH of soy milk to 7.0-7.5, which overlaps the claimed range, improves the flavor of soymilk compared to untreated soy milk (Abstract and Page 64, Column 2, Paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pH of the soy milk of Fenske to the pH as claimed. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Bourne teaches that such a pH improves the flavor of the soy milk.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulder in view of Fenske and tastefullyvegetarian.com (https://www.yeastextract.info/2018/08/29/tastefully-vegetarian-food-cultures-and-their-seasonings/) as applied to Claims 2 and 4, above, and further in view of Bourne (“EFFECT OF SODIUM ALKALIS AND SALTS ON pH AND FLAVOR OF SOYMILK”, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1976.tb01101.x)
Regarding Claims 13 and 15, modified Mulder teaches a soup with soy cream as discussed above in regard to Claims 2 and 4, but does not discuss the pH of the soy cream.
Bourne teaches that adjusting the pH of soy milk to 7.0-7.5, which overlaps the claimed range, improves the flavor of soymilk compared to untreated soy milk (Abstract and Page 64, Column 2, Paragraph 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pH of the soy milk of Fenske to the pH as claimed. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Bourne teaches that such a pH improves the flavor of the soy milk.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered. Arguments pertain to amended claims, which have been addressed above.
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 DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/D.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights