Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/066,086

PLANT-BASED MILK WHIPPABLE EMULSION

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Dec 14, 2022
Examiner
ZILBERING, ASSAF
Art Unit
1792
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Rich Products Corporation
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
33%
Grant Probability
At Risk
4-5
OA Rounds
4y 9m
To Grant
60%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 33% of cases
33%
Career Allow Rate
206 granted / 619 resolved
-31.7% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 9m
Avg Prosecution
81 currently pending
Career history
700
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
57.9%
+17.9% vs TC avg
§102
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 619 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . DETAILED ACTION Status of Claims Note: The amendment of August 14th 2025 has been considered. Claims 2 and 4 have been amended. Claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 are cancelled. Claims 2, 4, 5 and 8-29 are pending in the current application. Claims 18-28 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 2, 4, 5, 8-17 and 29 are examined in the current application. Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. In view of the clarification filed on August 14th 2025, the rejection of claims 2 and 17 under 35 USC §112(b) had been withdrawn. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. Regarding claim 29: The phrase “the plant-based milk is from about 35wt% to about 50wt%” renders the claims indefinite, because it is unclear what is 35wt% to 50wt% of the milk means. Since the claim does not recite what 35wt% to 50wt% of milk is, a skilled artisan would not be reasonably appraised of the meaning of the phrase. Applicants are urged to correct and/or clarify the metes and bounds of the phrase and the claim as recited. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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 2, 4, 5 and 8-12, 15-17 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinkelaar et al., (US 2019/0116852 A2). Regarding claims 2, 4, 8, 9, 11 and 17: Kinkelaar discloses a culinary crème comprising 1-20wt% powdered oat milk (i.e., dairy-free milk) (see Kinkelaar abstract; paragraph [0008]; claim 4), 5-40wt% vegetable oil (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0007]; claim 3), 0.1-2wt% surfactant (e.g., sucrose fatty acid esters, sodium stearoyl lactylate (SSL), or combination thereof) (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0012]), 0.01-10wt% cellulose gum (CMC), locus bean gum, gellan gum, aginate gum, xanthan gum, native starches and/or modified starches (i.e., stabilizers and thickeners) (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0009]), 0.05-30wt% sweeteners (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0011]) and 0.001-2wt% flavoring agent (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0014]). Given the fact the relative contents of the constituents recited in claims 2, 4 and 9 overlap the relative contents in Kinkelaar, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Moreover, Kinkelaar discloses the culinary crème forms an unstable foam when whipped, which reverts back to its liquid form within about 0.05-5 minutes after being whipped (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0049]), which reads on the limitation “whippable topping”. As to the droplet size recited in claims 2 and 4: Kinkelaar discloses forming the crème (i.e., emulsion) by homogenization under high pressure and temperature (see Kinkelaar paragraphs [0023], [0024], [0033], [0034], [0072], [0074], [0077], [0079]; claims 19, 26 and 27), but fails to disclose the median droplet size of the emulsion formed; However, given the fact the emulsion in Kinkelaar is formed by homogenizing the same constituents and similar contents and conditions contemplated by applicant (see current specification paragraph [0012]), it is examiner position the claimed droplet size range recited in claims 2 and 4 is inherently present in the crème in Kinkelaar. As set forth in MPEP §2112.01, "where...the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on "inherency" under 35 USC 102, on "prima facie obviousness" under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products. See In re Brown, 59 CCPA 1036, 459 F.2d 531,173 USPQ 685 (1972)." In re Best, Bolton and Shaw 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977). Regarding claim 5: Kinkelaar discloses the vegetable oil comprises palm kernel oil, coconut oil, palm oil, soy oil, or combination thereof (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0007]). Regarding claim 10: Kinkelaar discloses the sweetener comprises, sugar, rice syrup, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, dextrose or combination thereof (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0011]). Regarding claim 12: Kinkelaar discloses the flavoring agent comprises cream flavoring, maple flavoring coffee flavoring, chocolate flavoring, spice flavoring, mint flavoring, butter flavoring and/or caramel flavoring (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0014]). Regarding claims 13 and 14: Kinkelaar disclose the crème comprises 1-20wt% powdered oat milk (i.e., dairy-free milk) (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0008]) and water wherein the ratio of water to dairy-free milk powder is 4-30:1 (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0006]). Since the contents of solid and water in claims 13 and 14 overlap the solids and water contents in Kinkelaar, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Regarding claim 15: Kinkelaar discloses the crème comprises surfactants, such as sodium stearoyl lactylate (SSL) (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0012]), which has an HLB (Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balance) value is 10-12, which means the crème is an oil-in-water emulsion. Regarding claim 16: Kinkelaar discloses the crème does not comprise milk, eggs, fish, shellfish, tree nuts, peanuts, wheat, or soybean (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0003]). Regarding claim 29: Kinkelaar discloses a culinary crème comprising 1-20wt% powdered oat milk (i.e., dairy-free milk) (see Kinkelaar abstract; paragraph [0008]; claim 4), 5-40wt% vegetable oil (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0007]; claim 3), 0.1-2wt% surfactant (e.g., sucrose fatty acid esters, sodium stearoyl lactylate (SSL), or combination thereof) (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0012]), 0.01-10wt% cellulose gum (CMC), locus bean gum, gellan gum, aginate gum, xanthan gum, native starches and/or modified starches (i.e., stabilizers and thickeners) (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0009]), 0.05-30wt% sweeteners (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0011]) and 0.001-2wt% flavoring agent (see Kinkelaar paragraph [0014]), which encompasses the language of claim 29 (see 35 USC §112(b) rejection, above). Response to Arguments In view of the clarification filed on August 14th 2025, the rejection of claims 2 and 17 under 35 USC §112(b) had been withdrawn. With regards to the prior art rejections, Applicant's arguments filed August 14th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 7-8 of the “Remarks” that the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because Kinkelaar discloses the culinary crème remains whipped for only 0.05-5 minutes, whereas the current specification discloses the whippable plant-based crème that has an overrun of 280% to 300% and 45-minute rosette time. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While the specification discloses the whippable plant-based crème that has an overrun of 280% to 300% and 45-minute rosette time, said stability values are not recited in the claims. Accordingly, the 0.05-5minutes of whipped state in Kinkelaar, meets the claimed limitations, as broadly interpreted. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00. 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. /ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 14, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 29, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Jul 31, 2024
Response Filed
Nov 03, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Feb 06, 2025
Response Filed
May 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 14, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599143
EMULSIFIED OIL AND FAT COMPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588688
METHOD FOR PRODUCING AN INGREDIENT COMPRISING A COMBINATION OF AT LEAST THREE MILK PROTEINS AND USE OF THE INGREDIENT OBTAINED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582135
DHA Enriched Polyunsaturated Fatty Acid Compositions
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12577593
DHA ENRICHED POLYUNSATURATED FATTY ACID COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12564198
METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SN-2 PALMITIC TRIACYLGLYCEROLS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
33%
Grant Probability
60%
With Interview (+27.2%)
4y 9m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 619 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