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 .
Claim status
The examiner acknowledged the amendment made to the claims on 01/14/2026.
Claims 5-6, 9-11, 14, 16 and 18-20 are pending in the application. Claims 5, 6, 9 and 11 are currently amended. Claims 7-8, 12-13, 15 and 17 are currently cancelled. Claims 10, 14 and 16 are previously presented. Claims 18-20 are newly presented. Claims 5-6, 9-11, 14, 16 and 18-20 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the dipeptide is mixed with the food at 0.05 to 2% by weight relative to the food” in the last line should read “where the content of the dipeptide by weight of the processed food is 0.05 to 2%”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 5-6 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu CN103275176 A (English translation relied upon for reference, hereinafter referred to as Hu).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 10-11, Hu teaches adding an ACE inhibitory dipeptide Tyrosine-Serine (e.g. YS) to a milk powder to obtain an antihypertensive milk powder, or adding Tyrosine-Serine to fresh milk and inoculating the fresh milk with a starter culture obtain an antihypertensive yogurt (abstract; 0037-0044; Examples 6 and 10), wherein the amount of Tyrosine-Serine by weight of the milk powder is 0.6% (0038, 0.6 g YS is mixed with 100 gram mil milk powder), and that of Tyrosine-Serine by weight of the yogurt milk is ~0.06% (0040, 60 mg YS is added to 100 ml milk). Milk powder or yogurt is interpreted to meet the limitation about the processed food.
Regarding the limitation that the processed food has enhanced umami as recited in claims 5-6, given that Hu teaches adding YS to a processed food, it logically followed that the processed food as disclosed by Hu has enhanced umami compared with a control that is devoid of YS. See In re Best.
Similarly, because the actual steps recited in Hu and the instant claim 11 are the same, the recited purpose of enhancing umami as recited in claim 11 does not result in a manipulative difference between the claim and prior art since prior art necessarily provides the purpose.
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.
Claims 5, 6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bree WO 2006/084560 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Bree).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 10-11, Bree teaches adding a composition that comprises one or more blood pressure lowering (e.g., ACE inhibiting) peptides to a food product, wherein the peptides can be a dipeptide such as Tyrosine-Proline (e.g., YP), and the food product can be a dairy type food product such as yogurt and ice cream (page 2, line 20-33; page 14, line 15-30; page 15, line 5-24). Bree further teaches that the food product has a good taste (page 2, line 24-25). An yogurt or ice cream is interpreted to read on the processed food as recited in claims 5-6 and 10-11.
On the amount of Tyrosine-Proline by weight of the food, Bree teaches that the food product comprises at least 1 mg/kg one or more of the ACE inhibiting peptides (claims 4- 6), and in another embodiment, Bree teaches that yogurt or ice cream contains 0.1-15% or 0.1-20% (page 14, line 26 and page 15, line 14) of ACE-solid which is a dried concentrate rich in one or more ACE inhibiting peptides including Tyrosine-Proline (page 8, line 15- 28, page 9, line 24-29, page 10 line 7-21). As such, the amount of Tyrosine-Proline by weight of the food product encompasses the range as recited in claims 5-6 and 11. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding the limitation that the processed food has enhanced umami as recited in claims 5-6, given that Bree teaches adding Tyrosine-Proline to a processed food, it logically followed that the processed food as disclosed by Bree has enhanced umami compared with a control that is devoid of Tyrosine-Proline.
Similarly, because the actual steps recited in Bree and the instant claim 11 are the same, the recited purpose of enhancing umami as recited in claim 11 does not result in a manipulative difference between the claim and prior art since prior art necessarily provides the purpose.
Claims 9, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu as applied to claims 5, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Kim KR20020072486 A (English translation relied upon for reference, hereinafter referred to as Kim).
Regarding claims 9, 14 and 16, Hu as recited above teaches yogurt but is silent regarding that the yogurt contains (0.01-10%) glutamine.
Kim in the same field of endeavor teaches adding 0.005-0.5% L-glutamine to a yogurt so as to deliver a gastric wall regeneration effect (page 2, 5th para. above Example 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Hu by including 0.005-0.5% L-glutamine to the yogurt of Hu so as to deliver a gastric wall regeneration effect. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claims 9, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bree as applied to claims 5, 6 and 11 above, and further in view of Kim KR20020072486 A (English translation relied upon for reference, hereinafter referred to as Kim).
Regarding claims 9, 14 and 16, Bree as recited above teaches yogurt but is silent regarding that the yogurt contains (0.01-10%) glutamine.
Kim in the same field of endeavor teaches adding 0.005-0.5% L-glutamine to a yogurt so as to deliver a gastric wall regeneration effect (page 2, 5th para. above Example 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Bree by including 0.005-0.5% L-glutamine to the yogurt of Hu so as to deliver a gastric wall regeneration effect. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. To this end, no art in the record teaches a processed food comprising Tyrosine-Glutamine at an amount of 0.05-2%. To this end, Ozeki US Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0217321 A1 (hereinafter “Ozeki”) teaches a food or drink comprising Tyrosine-Glutamine (e.g., tyrosyl-glutamine) for improving tic disorder (Abstract; 0009; 0075). However, Ozeki fails to teach the proportion for Tyrosine-Glutamine in the food.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on 01/14/2026 with respect to claims 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.
Applicant asserts on page 9 of the Remarks that the specification demonstrates that dipeptides such as YQ exhibited enhanced umami intensity, pH stability, improved sensory characteristics, and synergy with added glutamine.
The assertion is considered but found moot over the new ground of rejection. Further, the showing in the examples of the instant specification is not commensurate in scope with independent claims 5, 6 and 11, given that those claims recite more than YQ.
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 CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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 H 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791