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 .
The amendment filed 1/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 9-34 are pending. Claims 9-26, 29-32 are withdrawn. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.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.
Claims 1-6, 27-28, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misaka (“Development of a Cultured Cell-Based Human-Taste Evaluation System”, DOI:10.1271/bbb.130288, May 2014) 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 Claim 1, Misaka teaches a method for quantifying taste intensity (Page 1, Abstract). The method comprises utilizing a cell-based assay (Page 1, Section I, Paragraph 1) expressing human taste receptors to recognize specific taste compounds (Page 1614, Column 1, Paragraph 3).
Misaka does not specifically teach the use of the claimed polypeptide sequence to recognize kokumi tastes.
However, the claimed polypeptide sequences correspond to known human taste receptors (see search report dated 10/1/2025, Sequence ID 1, filename US-18-254-146-1.rai, Result #1, and Sequence ID 2, US-18-254-146-2.rai, Result #2).
Where Misaka teaches the use of human taste receptors in cellular assays, and where the claimed polypeptide sequences are known human taste receptors, it would have been obvious to have utilized the claimed polypeptide sequences in a cellular assay intended to recognize compounds that promote the perception of taste. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since the claimed polypeptide sequences are known human taste receptors.
Misaka additionally does not discuss quantifying a kokumi taste.
Xu teaches that a kokumi taste is produced by “taste-active peptides” (Abstract) which can be perceived by human taste assessors (Page 2468, “Sensory evaluation”). Xu additionally teaches that kokumi is known to activate taste receptors in humans (Page 2466, Paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Misaka in detecting compounds which can produce a kokumi taste. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Xu teaches that kokumi compounds are known to be perceived by human taste receptors.
Regarding Claim 2, Misaka teaches that low molecular weight compounds can modulate the perceived intensity of taste. Misaka teaches that amounts of a taste modulator compound, together with a known taste compound, can determine whether the flavor is enhanced by the presence of the taste modulator compound (Page 1615, “ Application of the Cellular Assay System to Screening for Effective Taste Enhancers”.
Misaka does not address the detection of a kokumi enhancing compound. Xu teaches that a kokumi taste is enhanced via “taste-active peptides” (Abstract) compared to a control substance (Abstract) in a human sensory panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Misaka in detecting compounds which can enhance kokumi taste. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Xu teaches that kokumi compounds are known to be perceived by human taste receptors and additionally that certain compounds are known to enhance kokumi tastes.
Regarding Claim 3-4, modified Misaka teaches identification of kokumi enhancing compounds (Abstract) according to Claim 1. Note that since Misaka teaches identification of taste compounds, and additionally teaches use of the compounds in e.g. food products (Page 1616, Paragraph 1), Misaka teaches the steps of “identification and “selection” as claimed.
Regarding Claim 5, Misaka teaches the cell assay as described above in regards to Claim 1. Misaka additionally teaches that low molecular weight compounds can modulate the perceived intensity of taste. Misaka teaches that amounts of a taste modulator compound, together with a known taste compound, can determine whether the flavor is enhanced by the presence of the taste modulator compound (Page 1615, “Application of the Cellular Assay System to Screening for Effective Taste Enhancers”).
Misaka does not address the detection of a kokumi enhancing compound. Xu teaches that a kokumi taste is enhanced via “taste-active peptides” (Abstract) compared to a control substance (Abstract) in a human sensory panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Misaka in detecting compounds which can enhance kokumi taste. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Xu teaches that kokumi compounds are known to be perceived by human taste receptors and additionally that certain compounds are known to enhance kokumi tastes.
Regarding Claim 6, 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 Xu. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Xu teaches that such compounds induce a strong kokumi taste.
Regarding Claim 27, Xu teaches that the test compounds (i.e. the “taste-active peptides” of Xu) impart a kokumi flavor (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 28, Xu teaches that the use of γ -Glu-Val, γ -Glu-Cys and γ -Glu-Val-Gly which are dipeptides and tripeptides.
Regarding Claims 33 and 34, Misaka teaches that the activation level of taste receptors is measured by measuring calcium channel activity, which is the same as measuring calcium concentration (Page 1613, “Measurement of Taste Intensities Using Human Taste Receptors”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 27-28 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
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 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