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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 18, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-7, 10
Withdrawn claims:
None
Previously canceled claims:
8, 9
Newly canceled claims:
None
Amended claims:
1
New claims:
None
Claims currently under consideration:
1-7, 10
Currently rejected claims:
1-7, 10
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Triantafyllou (US 2017/0318841 A1) in view of Chen (US 2012/0207877 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Triantafyllou teaches a process for preparing a liquid oat base or drink of improved oat protein content (i.e., a plant protein food or drink) comprising treating the oat protein with protein-deamidase (Abstract) where the protein deamidase is protein glutaminase ([0036], [0041]).
Triantafyllou does not teach treating the oat base or drink with a transglucosidase.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches of an enzymatically treated oat-based drink (Abstract) where the enzymes include transglucosidase ([0014]; claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Triantafyllou with the addition of transglucosidase. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Chen teaches that the enzyme treatment results in a creamy milk-like texture without filtration so that the nutrients of oats are retained (Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Triantafyllou teaches a process for preparing a liquid oat base or drink of improved oat protein content (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Triantafyllou teaches that the dosage of protein glutaminase is 1 U/g protein ([0052]), which falls within the claimed range of “0.05 U or more per 1 gram plant protein”.
Regarding claim 4, although the cited prior art does not teach that transglucosidase is used in an amount of 5 U or more per 1 g of a plant protein raw material, Chen teaches that transglucosidase was added in an amount to reach a specific viscosity ([0040]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount of transglucosidase added during routine optimization to arrive at an oat composition with the desired viscosity. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) states “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.” "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, the claimed range would be obvious.
Regarding claim 5, although the cited prior art does not teach the ratio of transglucosidase to protein deamidase, Chen teaches that transglucosidase was added in an amount to reach a specific viscosity ([0040]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the amount of transglucosidase added compared to the protein deamidase during routine optimization to arrive at an oat composition with the desired viscosity. MPEP §2144.05(II)(A) states “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.” "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus, the claimed range would be obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Triantafyllou teaches that the oat base is made by milling groats with water to obtain a mash containing from 8% to 13% by weight of dry substances ([0026]), equivalent to a water content of 87 to 92% of water, which falls within the claimed range of “0.5 parts by weight or more of water per 1 part of plant protein raw material”.
Regarding claim 7, Triantafyllou also teaches adding alpha-amylase to the oat base ([0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Triantafyllou teaches preparing a liquid oat base or drink of improved oat protein content (Abstract). One of ordinary skill would recognize that an oat drink has fluidity.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §102 of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 over Yamamoto: Applicant' s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive to the extent that the claims as presently amended would not be anticipated/obvious in view of Yamamoto. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Triantafyllou and Chen.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 2, 7, and 10 over Yamamoto and Triantafyllou; and claim 5 over Yamamoto and Motoki: Applicant' s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive to the extent that the claims as presently amended would not be anticipated/obvious in view of the previously cited prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Triantafyllou and Chen.
The rejections of claims 1-7 and 10 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