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
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 10/22/25 is acknowledged. The Examiner puts on the record the renumbering of Claims 25-33. Applicant explained that the numbering of the preliminary amendment was wrong, and corrected the numbering in the current amendment. Claims 1, 5, 12, and 25 have been amended. Claims 6-10, 14-17, 21-24, 27-29, 32-33, and 36-55 are canceled claims. Claim 56 is new. Claims 1-5, 11-13, 18-20, 25-26, 30-31, 34-35, and 56 are presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Modified Rejection As Necessitated by the Amendment Filed 10/22/25
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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- 5, 11-13, 18-20, 25-26, 30-31, and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hurst et al. (GB874537A; Of record) hereinafter Hurst, in view of Ray et al. (CA 3118336), hereinafter Ray, and as evidenced by Cambridge Dictionary (Groundnut; Of record).
Hurst discloses a process of preparing a cheese-like product from groundnut protein, in which fat is added to an aqueous suspension or solution of groundnut protein, the suspension or solution containing fat is homogenized and the suspension or solution is heated either before or after the addition of fat, to at least 80° C. to facilitate subsequent curd formation, a curd is precipitated from the heat treated and homogenized suspension or solution by the action of acid, the curd is cut and the cut curd is drained, pressed and stored until the desired cheese-like flavor develops (p. 1, lines 14-28; Example 1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hurst teaches adding fat to an aqueous suspension or solution of groundnut protein, and facilitating curd formation by heat or acid rendering these claims obvious (p. 1, lines 14-25; p. 2, lines 5-14; Claim 1). Hurst teaches that after combining fat to the protein solution or suspension, heating is carried out to modify the groundnut protein to a form which facilitates curd formation (p. 1, line 72 to p. 2, line 14). The curd is precipitated from the suspension or solution, after the heating, by the action of acid (p. 2, line 59-62).
Hurst teaches homogenization, which encompass blending, and teaches that the heating step is before or after addition of fat (p. 1, lines 14-28). Hurst teaches that the heating is preferable done with agitation and homogenization, but does not expressly teach homogenizing with high shear (p. 2, lines 15-17, 55-58).
Ray is in the same field and teaches hard, non-dairy cheese composition (Abstract; Claim 1). Ray teaches embodiments wherein two or more different dietary fibers, flour, lipid, non-animal protein are mixed, adding water under high shear until a homogenous mixture is obtained, adding lipid and emulsifying under high shear, then heated until desired smooth, homogeneous texture is achieved (Claim 14; p. 10, lines 1-24).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ray with that of Hurst and perform the homogenization of the mixture under high shear in order to better emulsify the lipid, and obtain a smooth homogenous texture. Hence, one with ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known technique of homogenization under the high-shear, adapting the teaching of Ray to the teachings of Hurst. It can be expected that using this technique would lead to a smooth, homogenous mixture. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007
Regarding Claim 2, Hurst teaches draining and pressing the curd, which necessarily separates the curd from the liquid (p. 1, lines 25-28; Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 3, Hurst teaches draining and pressing the curd, which necessarily separates the curd from the liquid, and which would necessarily be performed with some type of strainer, filter or cloth (p. 1, lines 25-28; Claim 1). In the event that it is seen that Hurst is not specific about the type of material used for separating the curd from the liquid, then it would have been obvious given the teachings above. Furthermore, how or what material one uses for straining/pressing curd does not materially affect its components. The filter or cheesecloth are not related to subject matter eligibility issues. See MPEP 2106.05b. The identity of the item by which the curd is strained, pressed, or filtered is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular material was significant. It is the Applicant’s burden to show that the filter or cheesecloth recited is also an integral part of the claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Hurst teaches groundnut protein, reading on the plant-based protein, (p. 1, lines 29-38).
Regarding Claim 5, Hurst teaches groundnut protein (p. 1, lines 29-38). Groundnut is the same as peanut as evidenced by Cambridge Dictionary, and therefore is a legume.
Regarding Claim 11, Hurst teaches an aqueous suspension or solution of the groundnut protein (p. 1, lines 17-20).
Regarding Claim 12, Hurst expressly teaches addition of salt to the curd (Example 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Hurst expressly teaches heating the curd to 35 ˚C. for 10 mins, and then whey was separated, and the curd collected prior to addition of the salt (Example 1). As such, the curd would necessarily have cooled down from heating during the separation and collection steps prior to salting, i.e. mixing with salt (Example 1). In the case it is seen that Hurst does not expressly teach that the mixing is performed cold, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to mix the salt, flavoring etc. after cooling to prevent over-sweating or syneresis in the cheese which may affect its moisture content, or the texture, and overall quality.
Regarding Claim 18-20, Hurst teaches the preparation of the cheese base including heating at 97 ˚C, which is equivalent to 206.6 F, which overlaps with the temperatures recited in Claims 19-20; Hurst also teaches constant stirring, reading on the agitation step, and the formation of curd, and cooling (Example 1). Hurst teaches that firmer curd would be obtained by lowering the pH and cutting at about pH 6 (p. 5, lines 108-119). The cheese like products obtained resemble Cheddar type (p. 3, lines 41-49).
Regarding Claim 25, Hurst expressly teaches the groundnut meal being hydrated; fat is added; the mixture homogenized, then rapidly heated; and inoculated with Streptococcus lactis, and mixed strains of Lactobacillus casei and a commercial rennet, which produces lactic acid causing the pH to fall, causing the curd to form (Example 1). The Examiner interprets the production of lactic acid to read on the feature of adding an acid in this claim as with the mixing an acid in Claim 1. Because the curd forms, the pH is necessarily adjusted to at or below the isoelectric point, as this is an inherent property. Ray has taught the homogenization with high shear supra.
Regarding Claims 26, 30-31, and 35, the limitations in these claims have been addressed supra, and are rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 34, Hurst teaches adding salt which would give a salty or savory flavor (Example 1). Hurst expressly recites that its product resembled a hard cheese of the Cheddar type in texture and had a cheesy flavor (p. 3, lines 103-105).
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hurst in view of Ray, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Cai et al. (CA 2996820 A1), hereinafter Cai.
Hurst does not teach the claimed amounts of water, fat, and non-animal protein.
Cai is also in the cheese-making field, and teaches gentler cheese manufacturing process, and incorporating additives to extend the cooked shelf life of cheese, for example by stabilizing the protein and preventing denaturation (Abstract; p. 7, lines 23-31). Cai generically teaches its cheese composition comprises about 18 to about 35 % protein (Claim 1). Regarding the fat amount, Cai relates that the amount of fat in the cheese composition mainly depend on the type of cheese (p. 9, lines 12-15). Additives such as titanium dioxide, helps in keeping the protein segments intact, which contribute to extended cooked shelf life, and prevent the stringy appearance (p. 11, last paragraph to p. 12, 1st paragraph; Claim 3).
Cai gives an example of TiO2-treated cheese comprising 48.1% moisture, 23.5% fat, and 21.3% protein (Example 4; Table 1).
Hurst and Cai are in related fields. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Cai with that of Hurst and prepare the product of Hurst comprising water, fat, and non-animal protein starting with the amounts taught by Cai. One would have been motivated to do so as a skilled artisan would also consider employing treatments that would extend the cooked shelf life of its product and therefore start with the known amounts of water, fat, and protein components and adjust accordingly depending on the desired property such as hardness/softness.
Claims 1-5, 11-13, 18-20, 25-26, 30-31, 34-35 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Randolph et al. (WO 2019/209939 A2; Of record) hereinafter Randolph, and Ray et al. (CA 3118336), hereinafter Ray, as evidenced by Treehugger (7 Reasons to Roast Your Squash Seeds. Obtained on 06/10/25 from URL: <https://www.treehugger.com/reasons-to-roast-your-squash-seeds-4868560>).
Randolph discloses plant-based egg, milk, cheese, plant-based curds and other fermented products. (Abstract; [0003]).
Regarding Claim 1, Randolph teaches an aspect of the invention comprising: (a) providing a material comprising at least about 5% squash seed material, which is an excellent plant-based source of protein as evidenced by Treehugger (p. 2), and reads on the claimed non-animal protein,; and (b) comminuting the material to form the plant-based food product, wherein the plant-based food product has a water content of less than or equal to 80% by weight [0004]. In some embodiments, the method further comprises adding an aqueous material to hydrate the plant-based food product [0005]. While Randolph does not exemplify the step of mixing its non-animal protein with fat, Randolph clearly teaches incorporation of fats and oils in the first or second material, which would necessarily require that the fats and oils are mixed (Claim 7; [0015]-[0018]). The art further teaches curdling, which comprises adding an acid to the material to induce coagulation (Fig. 4; [0014]).
The teachings of Ray is set forth above regarding the homogenization under high-shear (Claim 14; p. 10, lines 1-24).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Ray with that of Randolph and perform the homogenization of the mixture under high shear in order to better emulsify the lipid, and obtain a smooth homogenous texture. Hence, one with ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known technique of homogenization under the high-shear, adapting the teaching of Ray to the teachings of Randolph. It can be expected that using this technique would lead to a smooth, homogenous mixture. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Randolph describes embodiments comprising thermal aggregation of the plant-based food product, and processing the curd, wherein the material is processed by filtering, etc., which reads on the feature of steps of curd separation and straining with a filter in these claims, respectively ([0006], [0042], Fig. 25; [0071]). Randolph gives a specific example wherein the soaked seeds are blended with water, then strained prior to fermentation (p. 58, Cheese 4).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Randolph’s squash seed material is an excellent plant-based source of protein as evidenced by Treehugger (p. 2), reading on the “plant-based protein”, and “other plant-based protein” in the claims. Furthermore, Randolph also gives examples with peanut and/or sesame seeds (p. 57, Cheese 3).
Regarding Claims 6-7 and 11-13, Randolph expressly teaches soaking and heat-rinsing 3 cups of sunflower and/or safflower seeds, comminuting by adding salt and water; then blending, then straining and fermenting; a portion is mixed with oil, and the mixture heated, then cooled, and additional flavors are added (p. 58, Cheese 4).
Regarding Claim 17, Randolph has taught adding an aqueous material to hydrate the plant-based food product [0005]; incorporation of fats and oils in the first or second material (Claim 7; [0015]-[0018]); heating, adding acid, or both to coagulate and obtain a curdled product I[0055], [0071], [0087]; Claims 13, 16, and 19-20).
Regarding Claim 18, Randolph teaches mixing the plant-based curd product with oils, flours, starches, protein isolates, protein powders, flavorings etc. to generate a cheese product with a moisture content of less than or equal to about 65% by weight, and thermal coagulation (Claims 16, 19, 24, and 46). Randolph teaches the cheese product may be a soft, firm, or hard cheese. Randolph teaches mixing the curd with tapioca starch and oil emulsifier, and carrageenan or agar-agar, then heat activated, cooled, and refrigerated to solidify, which reads on the features of heating, agitating, forming, and cooling the hard cheese base. However, (p. 58, Cheese 4). Randolph teaches different kinds of hard cheese replica including cheddar, gouda, and gorgonzola [00115]. The Examiner notes that one skilled in the art would know to stir in order to distribute the added ingredient uniformly, reading on the agitation step. Furthermore, the heating step would necessarily agitate the base product.
Regarding Claims 19-20, Randolph teaches embodiments wherein the plant-based product is configured to undergo the phase transition at a temperature of greater than or equal to about 30 ˚C to 80 ˚C, or higher which overlaps with the claimed temperatures [0119].
Regarding Claim 25, Randolph teaches soaking the seed, and comminution by blending, which reads on the homogenization step (p. 58, Cheese 4). Randolph has also taught inclusion of the fat and adding acid to form the curd (Claim 7; [0015]-[0018]; Claims 13, 16, and 19-20). Because the curd forms, the pH is necessarily adjusted to at or below the isoelectric point, as this is an inherent property.
Regarding Claims 26, 30-31, and 35, the limitations in these claims have been addressed in the rejections supra, and are rendered obvious.
Regarding Claim 34, Randolph teaches mixing flavorings to the plant-based curd ([0015]; Claim 24).
Regarding Claim 56, Randolph teaches a method for forming a plant-based curd product comprising greater than 15% protein by caloric value, which overlaps with the amount of protein claimed (Claim 16). The method further comprises emulsifying with oils etc. and generating a product with a moisture content of less than or equal to about 65% by weight (Claim 24). In some embodiments the moisture content of the composition is between about 50 % and 60 % by weight [0025]. Randolph also teaches that the plant-based food product may contain one or more plant-derived and/or non-plant derived oils at less than or equal to about 60%, 50 %, 40 %, 30 %, 20 %, 15 %, 12 %, 10 %, 8 %, 6 %, 4 %, 2 %, 1 % or less added oils by weight [00123]. The added oil may include vegetable oil, palm fruit oil, coconut oil etc. [00123].
Response to Remarks:
Applicant argues that Hurst does not disclose homogenizing with high-shear or adding an acid. Applicant argues that Randolph does not disclose homogenizing with high-shear.
Regarding the addition of acid, the Examiner traverses. Hurst recognizes Hurst teaches facilitation curd formation by heat or acid (p. 1, lines 14-25; p. 2, lines 5-14 and 59-62; Claim 1). Furthermore, Hurst expressly inoculation with Streptococcus lactis, and mixed strains of Lactobacillus casei and a commercial rennet, which produces lactic acid causing the pH to fall, causing the curd to form (Example 1). The Examiner interprets the production of lactic acid to read on the feature of adding or mixing an acid.
Regarding the homogenization at high shear, this feature has been rendered obvious supra. New secondary art Ray is relied on as necessitated by the amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sharma et al. Food Hydrocolloids. Volume 54, Part B, March 2016, pp. 266-277.
No claims are allowed.
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 JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10-6 EST.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792