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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 4, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1, 7-13
Withdrawn claims:
None
Previously canceled claims:
2-6
Newly canceled claims:
None
Amended claims:
1, 7-12
New claims:
13
Claims currently under consideration:
1, 7-13
Currently rejected claims:
1, 7-13
Allowed claims:
None
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujioka (CA 3130907) as evidenced by Coconut Handbook (Coconut Handbook, “Chapter 8: The Chemistry of Coconut Milk and Cream”, TetraPak [accessed online September 28, 2026] https://coconuthandbook.tetrapak.com/chapter/chemistry-coconut-milk-and-cream).
Regarding claim 1, Fujioka teaches of a plant milk treated with deamidase such as protein glutaminase ([0012], [0017]) where examples of plant milk include coconut milk ([0013]). Although Fujioka does not teach the amount of enzyme per g of soluble solids content of the coconut milk, Fujioka teaches that the amount of enzyme added is within the range of 0.01 U/g protein to 500 U/g protein ([0022]), which would inherently overlap with the claimed range. Evidence to support that the disclosed amount of enzyme would overlap with the claimed range is provided by Coconut Handbook. Coconut Handbook discloses that coconut milk comprises 2.14-2.97% protein (p. 4, Table 8.2, row 8) and has a non-fat solids content of 2.7% (p. 2, Table 8.1, row 2). Thus, the enzyme of Fujioka is added in an amount of 0.008 U to 550 U per 1 g non-fat solids content of coconut milk, which overlaps with the claimed range of “10 U or more per 1 g of a soluble solid content”.
0.01
U
e
n
z
y
m
e
1
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
×
2.14
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
100
g
c
o
c
o
n
u
t
m
i
l
k
×
100
g
c
o
c
o
n
u
t
m
i
l
k
2.7
g
s
o
l
i
d
s
=
0.008
U
/
g
s
o
l
i
d
s
500
U
e
n
z
y
m
e
1
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
×
2.97
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
100
g
c
o
c
o
n
u
t
m
i
l
k
×
100
g
c
o
c
o
n
u
t
m
i
l
k
2.7
g
s
o
l
i
d
s
=
550
U
/
g
s
o
l
i
d
s
Although Coconut Handbook does not disclose that the non-fat solids content is soluble solids content, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the non-fat solids content would be the highest amount of soluble solids content because fat is known to be insoluble. As such, even if the soluble solids content is less than the non-fat solids content, the amount of enzyme added would still overlap with the claimed range of “10 U or more per 1 g of a soluble solid content”.
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges "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).”
Regarding claims 7-10, Fujioka teaches of a plant milk treated with deamidase such as protein glutaminase ([0012], [0017]) where examples of plant milk include coconut milk ([0013]).
The preamble recitation of “a flavor improving method”, as well as the limitations “to obtain a coconut milk with improved flavor” (claim 7), “enhanced sweetness” (claim 8), “enhanced milk feeling” (claim 9) and “enhanced coconut flavor” (claim 10), are directed towards the intended use of the claimed method based on a resulting property of the method. MPEP §2111.02(II) states if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Furthermore, MPEP §2112.02(II) states “when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978)”. Therefore, because the instant claims are directed to a property of the coconut milk treated with protein deamidase, Fujioka discloses the claimed method.
Regarding claims 11-13, Although Fujioka does not teach the amount of enzyme per g of soluble solids content of the coconut milk, Fujioka teaches that the amount of enzyme added is within the range of 0.01 U/g protein to 500 U/g protein ([0022]), which would inherently overlap with the claimed range. Evidence to support that the disclosed amount of enzyme would overlap with the claimed range is provided by Coconut Handbook. Coconut Handbook discloses that coconut milk comprises 2.14-2.97% protein (p. 4, Table 8.2, row 8) and has a non-fat solids content of 2.7% (p. 2, Table 8.1, row 2). Thus, the enzyme of Fujioka is added in an amount of 0.008 U to 550 U per 1 g non-fat solids content of coconut milk, which overlaps with the claimed ranges of “25 U or more per 1 g of a soluble solid content” (claim 11) and “25-125 U per 1 g of soluble solid content” (claims 12 and 13).
0.01
U
e
n
z
y
m
e
1
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
×
2.14
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
100
g
c
o
c
o
n
u
t
m
i
l
k
×
100
g
c
o
c
o
n
u
t
m
i
l
k
2.7
g
s
o
l
i
d
s
=
0.008
U
/
g
s
o
l
i
d
s
500
U
e
n
z
y
m
e
1
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
×
2.97
g
p
r
o
t
e
i
n
100
g
c
o
c
o
n
u
t
m
i
l
k
×
100
g
c
o
c
o
n
u
t
m
i
l
k
2.7
g
s
o
l
i
d
s
=
550
U
/
g
s
o
l
i
d
s
Although Coconut Handbook does not disclose that the non-fat solids content is soluble solids content, one of ordinary skill would recognize that the non-fat solids content would be the highest amount of soluble solids content because fat is known to be insoluble. As such, even if the soluble solids content is less than the non-fat solids content, the amount of enzyme added would still overlap with the claimed range of “25 U or more per 1 g of a soluble solid content” (claim 11) and “25-125 U per 1 g of soluble solid content” (claims 12 and 13).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges "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).”
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1, 7-12 over Fujioka: Applicant’s arguments filed September 4, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Examiner’s reliance on routine optimization is incorrect as Fujioka does not discuss the amount of enzyme as a result-effective variable for the claimed properties (Remarks, p. 4, ¶ 2-4).
This argument has been considered but is moot. The rejection of claims 1 and 11-13 above no longer rely on routine optimization to teach the claimed amount of protein glutaminase used. The Examiner maintains that Fujioka discloses an amount of enzyme used in the invention that overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Applicant further argued that the presently claimed method of manufacture is not obtainable with chickpea or soy milk whereas the invention of Fujioka is shown to work with both chickpea and soy milk (Remarks, p. 4, ¶ 5).
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. As described in the 35 USC 103 rejection above, Fujioka discloses the claimed invention. The data provided by the instant application to demonstrate that the claimed method did not work with chickpea or soy milk does not negate the disclosure of the claimed invention in Fujioka. The claims are merely directed to a method of manufacturing a coconut milk with protein glutaminase, which is taught by Fujioka. Thus, the claimed invention is rendered obvious.
Applicant's arguments as related to claim 1 were determined to be unpersuasive as detailed previously herein. Examiner further maintains that the dependent claims are properly rejected in light of the cited combinations of prior art as described in the claim rejections.
The rejections of claims 1, 7-13 have been maintained herein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00a-4:00p, F 8:00a-1:00p ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights