DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated March 26, 2026 (amendment) amending claims 1, 3-4, 6 and 18, adding new claims 30-36 and canceling claims 2, 5, 10-17, 19-21 and 26-27 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9 and 30-36 as filed with the amendment have been examined. Claims 18, 22-25 and 28-29 have been withdrawn from consideration. No amendments have been filed.
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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, at line 4 after “with an enzyme,” delete [[or]], and , in line 5 before “cystine” insert --or --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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, 3-4, 6-9 and 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2009/0297662 A1 to Kawaguchi et al. (Kawaguchi) in view of either (i) US2002/0187243 A1 to Kuroda et al. (Kuroda) or (ii) JPH11225704 A to Tanaka (Tanaka), of record.
All references to Hayashi refer to its Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which was provided in an earlier Office Action.
The Office interprets the recited unrefined crude sugar as including, but not limited to any sugar from a source wherein the sugars themselves are not refined, including sugars from milk and sugars made by boiling down the juice of a plant like sugarcane or beet and sugars not made by centrifugation, as disclosed in the instant specification at page 7 line 32 to page 8, line 15.
Regarding instant claims 1, 4, 6-7, 30-32 and 36, Kawaguchi discloses at the Abstract a method for producing a seasoning having a meat like flavor (“livestock meat flavor- imparting agent”) made by a method of mixing a yeast extract containing at least one of cysteine (“cysteine derived from a cysteine-containing yeast extract”(B) as in claims 1, 4 and 31) and glutathione (claim 31, also a “glutathione-containing yeast extract”) and a saccharide (A), wherein at [0018] the method comprises heating the mixture. At [0019], Kawaguchi discloses sucrose as its saccharide. Further still, Kawaguchi at [0026] discloses mixing from 0.01 to 50 parts by weight of the saccharide with 100 parts by weight of the yeast extract. In Example 3, Kawaguchi discloses mixing and heating 1.2 g of saccharides with 6.7 g of a cysteine-containing yeast extract (B) or wherein about 4.5 parts by weight of (B) is heated with respect to 1 part by weight of (A) containing 4.5 wt% of cysteine as in claims 1, 6 and 30; or, in terms of cysteine about 0.3 g of cysteine or 0.25 parts by weight (B) is heated with respect to 1 part by weight of (A) (claims 31-32 and 36).
Further, Kawaguchi does not give an example using a crude unrefined sugar (A) as in claims 1 and 31.
Kuroda at Abstract discloses seasoning compositions comprising 1 to 10 parts sucrose, 1 to 7.5 parts monosodium glutamate, 0.05 to 1 parts sodium inosinate or guanylate and 100 parts potassium chloride, all parts by weight, to impart a salty flavor to food with reduced sodium, wherein at [0022] the sucrose comprises raw sugar or unrefined crude sugar. Further, at [0023] the sodium inosinate or guanylate comprises a yeast extract. In the method, Kuroda discloses at [0062] heating the ingredients to boil in water.
Tanaka at the Abstract discloses a seasoning made by heating raw sugar together with proteins from miso and meat, which provides at [0001] on page 1 a seasoning having the umami of meat. Further, at [0011] at the top of page 4 Tanaka discloses seasonings comprising red beet sugar as well as (at [0004] on page 2) a Japanese sugar which is unrefined cane sugar and made (at [0001] on page 1 by heating raw sugar, miso and a cysteine-containing raw material as a ground meat. The Office considers the recited unrefined sugar to include the Japanese sugar and the red beet sugar of Tanaka.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of either Kuroda or Tanaka for Kawaguchi, to use an unrefined crude sugar as in Tanaka or Kuroda for its sucrose as saccharide. All references disclose making seasonings from heating mixtures of sucrose with amino acids or their polymers. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kawaguchi would have found it obvious to use an unrefined crude sugar as its sucrose saccharide to impart a more desirable flavor in its seasoning as in Tanaka or Kuroda.
Regarding instant claim 3, Kawaguchi at [0024] discloses cysteine hydrochloride as a desirable form of cysteine.
Regarding instant claims 7 and 33, Kawaguchi at [0018] discloses mixing and heating its cysteine and saccharide at from 80 to 130 °C.
Regarding instant claims 8 and 34, Kawaguchi at [0018] discloses mixing and heating its cysteine and saccharide from 0.5 to 8 hours or 30 to 480 minutes which the claimed 15 to 200 minutes overlaps. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", the Office considers that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.I. The ordinary skilled artisan in Kawaguchi would have found it obvious to mix and heat its mixture for the claimed period because Kawaguchi discloses that such a heating and mixing time makes for a desirable meat flavoring seasoning.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 35, Kawaguchi at [0036] discloses using its seasoning by sprinkling it over rice. The Office considers the claimed livestock meat flavor- imparting agent for animal-free food products as including the seasoned rice of Kawaguchi.
Claim 31-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2007166902 A to Hayashi et al. (Hayashi) in view of JPH11225704 A to Tanaka (Tanaka).
All references to Hayashi and Tanaka refer to its Clarivate machine translation, a copy of each of which was provided in an earlier Office Action.
The Office interprets the recited crude sugar as including, but not limited to any sugar from a source wherein the sugars themselves are not refined, including sugars from milk and sugars made by boiling down the juice of a plant like sugarcane or beet and sugars not made by centrifugation, as disclosed in the instant specification at page 7 line 32 to page 8, line 15.
Regarding instant claims 31 and 33-34, Hayashi at Abstract on page 1 discloses a method for producing a seasoning having a roast meat flavor (“livestock meat flavor- imparting agent”) in which saccharides and are added to a yeast extract containing glutathione (“glutathione-containing yeast extract”) containing 8 wt% of glutathione followed by heating the mixture. In Example 1 on page 4, Hayashi discloses the method comprising heating 30 parts of the yeast extract, 3 parts of onion extract and 3 parts xylose (about 2.4 parts glutathione per 3 part sugar) sugar by heating at 90 °C (claim 33) for 1 hour (claim 34).
Further, the Office interprets the recited cysteine as meaning free cysteine. Thus, in the recited (B) of at least one selected from the group consisting of glutathione, a glutathione-containing yeast extract, and a cysteine-containing yeast extract, only the cysteine-containing yeast extract must comprise cysteine. Accordingly, the recited limitation “wherein 0.01 to 50 parts by weight of cysteine contained in (B) is heated with respect to 1 part by weight of (A)” is considered an optional claim limitation. While the Office considers optional claim limitations, the claims themselves do not require them.
Still further, Hayashi does not disclose an unrefined crude sugar as in claim 31. However, Hayashi at [0009] on page 3 discloses sucrose as a suitable sugar.
Tanaka at the Abstract discloses a seasoning made by heating raw sugar together with proteins from miso and meat, which provides at [0001] on page 1 a seasoning having the umami of meat. Further, Tanaka at [0011] at the top of page 4 Tanaka discloses seasonings comprising beet sugar as well as (at [0004] on page 2) a Japanese sugar which is unrefined cane sugar and made (at [0001] on page 1 by heating raw sugar, miso and a cysteine-containing raw material as a ground meat. The Office considers the recited unrefined cane sugar to include the Japanese sugar and the red beet sugar of Tanaka.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Tanaka for Hayashi to use a crude sugar, such as beet sugar as in Tanaka or an unrefined cane sugar as in Tanaka to provide the sucrose for making its seasoning. Both references disclose making meat flavor seasonings by heating a sugar and a cysteine, a salt thereof or z cysteine-containing raw material. The ordinary skilled artisan in Hayashi would have desired to use a crude sugar as in Tanaka for its flavor and nutrient content to make a more desirable meat flavored seasoning.
Regarding instant claim 36, the claim does not require cysteine in (B). While the Office considers optional claim limitations, the claims themselves do not require them.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2007166902 A to Hayashi et al. (Hayashi) in view of JPH11225704 A to Tanaka (Tanaka) as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of GB1206265 A to Kitada et al.
Kitada is equivalent to JP4717548 and to US3620772 A, of record.
As applied to claim 31, Hayashi at Abstract on page 1 and Example 1 as modified by Tanaka at Abstract, [0004] and [0011] discloses a method for producing a livestock meat flavor-imparting agent comprising heating an unrefined crude sugar (A) and (B) at least one selected from the group consisting of glutathione, a glutathione-containing yeast extract, and a cysteine-containing yeast extract, wherein 0.01 to 50 parts by weight of cysteine contained in (B) is heated with respect to 1 part by weight of (A).
Hayashi as modified by Tanaka does not disclose a method wherein the meat flavor- imparting agent is for animal-free food. However, the Hayashi seasoning does not contain animal products.
Kitada at Example 2 on page 4 makes a drink from its Maillard product meat flavor seasoning and water and at Example 3 on page 4 makes a vegetarian soup from water, the seasoning and buckwheat (soba) noodles.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Kitada for Hayashi as modified by Tanaka to use its livestock meat flavor- imparting agent in an animal-free food like the soup or drink of Kitada. All references disclose seasonings having a meat flavor made from sugar and protein or amino acids. The ordinary skilled artisan in Hayashi as modified by Tanaka would have desired to use its meat flavored flavor-imparting agent in an animal-free food as in Kitada to enable those who do not eat meat to enjoy food with a meaty flavor.
Response to Arguments
10. In view of the amendment dated March 24, 2026, the following rejections have been withdrawn as moot:
The rejections of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend;
The rejections of claims 1-4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN107334128 A1 to Zhang et al.;
The rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH11225704 A to Tanaka;
The rejections of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2007166902 A to Hayashi et al. in view of JPH11225704 A to Tanaka;
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN107334128 A1 to Zhang et al.; and,
The rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2007166902 A to Hayashi et al. in view of JPH11225704 A to Tanaka and further in GB1206265 A to Kitada et al.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 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.
Regarding the positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment dated March 24, 2026 (Reply), the Office has fully considered the positions taken and does not find the positions persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding the position taken in the remarks filed with the Reply that Hayashi teaches away from the use of unrefined crude sugar in the method as claimed because Hayashi recites xylose in its example and prefers (at [0009]) xylose for its reactivity, the Office respectfully disagrees. Even if Hayashi prefers to use xylose, it cannot teach away from its own disclosure of sucrose as a suitable sugar at [0009]. Further, it does not follow from Hayashi’s disclosure about xylose that an unrefined crude sugar would be less reactive than a refined sugar, especially as there is no showing or disclosure that the phenolics or other compounds in an unrefined sugar don’t actually catalyze reactivity, such as by protonating amino acids.
The rejections over Zhang are withdrawn only to promote compact prosecution because the cysteine and cane sugar therein are disclosed as minor ingredients. However, the claims only recite relative amounts of (A) and (B) relative to each other and not amounts of (A) and (B) relative to the claimed livestock meat flavor-imparting agent. Contrary to the position taken in the reply, Zhang at Embodiment 4 on page 4 mixes and heats 0.05 parts L-cysteine with 0.015 parts cane sugar and is within the claimed ratio of 1 to 30 parts by weight of (B) with respect to 1 part by weight of (A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US7,108,884 B2 to Nishimura et al. (Nishimura) discloses at Abstract a flavor-enhancing agent made by heating a mixture of a cysteinylglycine and sugar, which at Example 3 on col. 6 is produced by mixing in 100 ml of water 5 g of xylose. Into the solution was dissolved 1 g of one of cysteine, glutathione, and cysteinylglycine. The three, thus resulting solutions were heat-treated at 95 °C for 2 hours. At col. 5, lines 16-19, Nishimura discloses sucrose as a suitable example of a sugar.
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 ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
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.
/A.E.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791 /Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights