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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/12/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-6, 9-34 are pending. Claims 9-26 and 29-32 are withdrawn. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigemura (US 9072313 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Shigemura teaches a method for identifying flavor compounds via cell-based assays (Column 50, Line 53-Colun 51, Line 4). Shigemura teaches that agonists of T1R1/T1R3 receptors (Column 5, Lines 25-28) include kokumi flavor compounds (Column 25, Lines 53-55). Note that the claimed sequences correspond to T1R receptors (see search report dated 10/1/2025).
Shigemura teaches that the method comprises introducing the compounds to receptors expressed in cell lines (Column 50, Line 59-61). Note that where Shigemura teaches receptor expression in a cell line, Shigemura teaches that the cells “transiently or stably” express the taste receptor, as claimed. Note that where Shigemura teaches that compounds are screened for “hits” against cell lines, Shigemura teaches comparison of the activity of the taste receptor in the presence vs. absence of the test compound.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to utilize the cell-based assays of Shigemura to identify kokumi flavor compounds. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Shigemura teaches that T1R receptors can be used to identify compounds that impart a kokumi flavor.
Regarding Claim 2, Shigemura teaches a method for identifying flavor compounds via cell-based assays (Column 50, Lines 53-Colun 51, Line 4). Shigemura teaches that agonists of T1R1/T1R3 receptors (Column 5, Lines 25-28) include kokumi flavor compounds (Column 25, Lines 53-55). Note that the claimed sequences correspond to T1R receptors (see search report dated 10/1/2025).
Shigemura teaches that the assay is run by comparing the dose response in the presence of the test compound while in the presence of known flavor compounds (Column 52, Lines 35-43).
Shigemura teaches that the receptors are expressed in cell lines (Column 50, Line 59-61). Note that where Shigemura teaches that compounds are screened for “hits” against cell lines, Shigemura teaches comparison of the activity of the taste receptor in the presence vs. absence of the test compound.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill to utilize the cell-based assays of Shigemura to identify kokumi flavor compounds, and additionally to have utilized the assay in the presence of known kokumi compounds. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Shigemura teaches that T1R receptors can be used to identify compounds that impart a kokumi flavor.
Regarding Claims 3 and 4, where Shigemura teaches further screening and testing of identified compounds (Column 50, Lines 6-67), Shigemura teaches “identifying” and “selecting” of the active test compounds as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, Shigemura teaches that the assay is run by comparing the dose response in the presence of the test compound while in the presence of known flavor compounds (Column 52, Lines 35-43). Note that it would have been obvious to have utilized the method of Shigemura to identify kokumi compounds, since Shigemura teaches that the method can be used to develop kokumi flavors, and additionally to have tested kokumi compounds in the presence of known kokumi compounds.
Claims 6, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigemura as applied to Claims 2 and 5, above in view of Xu (“Investigation of umami and kokumi taste-active components in bovine bone marrow extract produced during enzymatic hydrolysis and Maillard reaction”, DOI: 10.1111/ijfs.13893, July 2018)
Regarding Claims 6, 27, and 28, modified Shigemura teaches the method for identifying kokumi compounds as discussed above, but does not discuss specific kokumi compounds.
Xu teaches that gamma-glutamyl peptides such as γ -Glu-Val, γ -Glu-Cys and γ -Glu-Val-Gly are known to induce a kokumi taste (Page 2466, Paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to have utilize the peptides taught by Xu, including gamma-glutamyl peptides, as claimed, as the kokumi taste compound of modified Shigemura. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Xu teaches that such are known kokumi compounds.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shigemura as applied to Claims 1 and 2, above, and in view of Li (“Human receptors for sweet and umami taste”, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.072090199, 2002).
Regarding Claims 33 and 34, Shigemura teaches the method as discussed above in regards to Claims 1 and 2 but does not discuss measuring calcium ion concentration.
Li teaches that T1R response can be measured calcium response of the cells (Page 4693, “Results and Discussion, Paragraphs 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to measure the response of the assay via calcium ion concentration. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Li teaches measuring calcium response is a known method for measuring T1R response, and measuring calcium ion concentration is known method of measuring calcium response.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 27-28, and 33-34 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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