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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 5-11 in the reply filed on December 17, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 17, 2025.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-11
Withdrawn claims:
1-4
Previously canceled claims:
None
Newly canceled claims:
None
Amended claims:
None
New claims:
None
Claims currently under consideration:
5-11
Currently rejected claims:
5-11
Allowed claims:
None
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected because the claim fails to recite an active method step. MPEP 2173.05(q) states: Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For example, a claim which read: "[a] process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon" was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).” For the purpose of examination, it is presumed that “fermentation” is “fermenting” or “performing fermentation” to recite an active method step.
Claims 6-11 are rejected due to dependency on claim 5.
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 5, 6, 8, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chanos (Chanos, Panagiotis, et al. “Application of mild pulsed electric fields on starter culture accelerates yogurt fermentation”, European Food Research and Technology, 246:621-630, published January 20 2020 [accessed online March 11 , 2026])(IDS Reference filed 11/20/2023) in view of Donsi (Donsi, Francesco, et al. “Pulsed Electric Field-Assisted Vinification of Aglianico and Piedirosso Grapes”, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58, 11606-11615, published November 1, 2020 [accessed online March 11, 2026]).
Regarding claim 5, the claim does not presently recite a standard transition phrase. MPEP §2111.03 states “The transitional phrases "comprising", "consisting essentially of" and "consisting of" define the scope of a claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim.” MPEP 2111.03(IV) states “Transitional phrases such as "having" must be interpreted in light of the specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended.” Because the examples of the instant specification recite steps not presently claimed, the claim is being interpreted as open-ended.
Chanos teaches of fermenting milk with pulsed electric fields (PEF) treated cultures (Abstract). Chanos also teaches a PEF treated starter culture treated at 1 kV/cm (which falls within the claimed range of “0.2 to 1 kV/cm”) at 4 Hz (which falls within the claimed range of “1 to 21 Hz”) with 50 pulses (which falls within the claimed range of “20 to 80 pulses”)(p. 624, Fig. description).
Chanos does not teach the starter culture being treated with rectangular monopolar pulses with a pulse duration of 5 to 8 µs.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Donsi teaches of a PEF system that provides monopolar square (i.e., rectangular) wave pulses with a pulse width (i.e., pulse duration) of 1-10 µs (p. 11607, col. 2, ¶ 4), which encompasses the claimed range of “5 to 8 µs”.
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 Chanos with the use of a PEF system as taught by Donsi. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2144.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 6, Chanos teaches that PEF used on starter cultures for yogurt manufacturing (p. 629, col. 1, ¶ 2). Although Chanos does not teach that the yogurt has a higher strength and lower syneresis due to treatment with the starter cultures, MPEP §2112.01 states where the claimed and prior art are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Because the yogurt of Chanos in view of Donsi is produced by a substantially identical process, the yogurt of the prior art would have the same properties as the yogurt produced by the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Chanos teaches that the fermentation medium is water with skim milk powder added (p. 622, col. 2, ¶ 3).
Regarding claim 9, Chanos teaches PEF treated starter culture treated at 1 kV/cm (p. 624, Fig. description). Chanos also teaches applying 5 pulses and 50 pulses to starter cultures (p. 625, col. 1, ¶ 1). Chanos also teaches of PEF used on starter cultures for yogurt manufacturing (p. 629, col. 1, ¶ 2). Although Chanos does not teach applying 20 pulses, one of ordinary skill would recognize that because 20 pulses falls between the test 5 and 50 pulses, one could also expect 20 pulses to result in successful treatment of yogurt cultures.
Chanos does not teach the PEF being performed at 0.2 kV/cm, a pulse duration of 5 µs or 8 µs, or 1 or 21 Hz.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Donsi teaches a PEF system with a voltage of 0-25 kV/cm (which encompasses the claimed values of “0.2 kV/cm” or “1 kV/cm”) a pulse width (i.e., pulse duration) of 1-10 µs (which encompasses the claimed values of “5 µs” or “8 µs”) and a pulse repetition rate of 1-1000 Hz (which encompasses the claimed values of “1 Hz” or “21 Hz”)(p. 11607, col. 2, ¶ 4).
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 Chanos with the use of a PEF system as taught by Donsi. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2144.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 11, Chanos teaches PEF treated starter culture treated at 1 kV/cm (p. 624, Fig. description). Chanos also teaches applying 5 pulses and 50 pulses to starter cultures (p. 625, col. 1, ¶ 1). Although Chanos does not teach applying 20 pulses, one of ordinary skill would recognize that because 20 pulses falls between the test 5 and 50 pulses, one could also expect 20 pulses to result in successful treatment of yogurt cultures.
Chanos does not teach the PEF being performed at 0.2 kV/cm, a pulse duration of 5 µs or 8 µs, or 1 or 21 Hz.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Donsi teaches a PEF system with a voltage of 0-25 kV/cm (which encompasses the claimed values of “0.2 kV/cm” or “1 kV/cm”) a pulse width (i.e., pulse duration) of 1-10 µs (which encompasses the claimed values of “5 µs” or “8 µs”) and a pulse repetition rate of 1-1000 Hz (which encompasses the claimed values of “1 Hz” or “21 Hz”)(p. 11607, col. 2, ¶ 4).
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 Chanos with the use of a PEF system as taught by Donsi. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2144.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chanos (Chanos, Panagiotis, et al. “Application of mild pulsed electric fields on starter culture accelerates yogurt fermentation”, European Food Research and Technology, 246:621-630, published January 20 2020 [accessed online March 11 , 2026])(IDS Reference filed 11/20/2023) in view of Donsi (Donsi, Francesco, et al. “Pulsed Electric Field-Assisted Vinification of Aglianico and Piedirosso Grapes”, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 58, 11606-11615, published November 1, 2020 [accessed online March 11, 2026]) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Furuichi (US 2019/0307141 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Chanos teaches that the culture treated with PEF is Streptococcus thermophilus (Abstract).
Chanos nor Donsi teach that the dairy product is mozzarella, or wherein the mozzarella has a higher firmness due to the treatment of the starter cultures with PEF.
However, in the same field of endeavor of dairy processing, Furuichi teaches Streptococcus thermophilus is also often used in the production of fermented foods including various cheeses such as mozzarella cheese ([0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Streptococcus thermophilus of Furuichi with the PEF treated Streptococcus thermophilus as taught by Chanos modified by Donsi to arrive at the claimed invention. The claim would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make this simple substitution of one known element for another and yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(B).
Although the cited prior art does not teach wherein the mozzarella has a higher firmness due to the treatment of the starter cultures with PEF, MPEP §2112.01 states where the claimed and prior art are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Because the mozzarella of Chanos in view of Donsi and Furuichi is produced by a substantially identical process, the mozzarella of the prior art would have the same properties as the mozzarella produced by the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Chanos teaches PEF treated starter culture treated at 1 kV/cm (p. 624, Fig. description). Chanos also teaches applying 5 pulses and 50 pulses to starter cultures (p. 625, col. 1, ¶ 1). Although Chanos does not teach applying 20 pulses, one of ordinary skill would recognize that because 20 pulses falls between the test 5 and 50 pulses, one could also expect 20 pulses to result in successful treatment of yogurt cultures. Chanos also teaches that the culture treated with PEF is Streptococcus thermophilus (Abstract).
Chanos does not teach the PEF being performed at 0.2 kV/cm, a pulse duration of 5 µs or 8 µs, or 1 or 21 Hz, or that the dairy product is mozzarella.
Regarding the PEF being performed at 0.2 kV/cm, a pulse duration of 5 µs or 8 µs, or 1 or 21 Hz, Donsi teaches a PEF system with a voltage of 0-25 kV/cm (which encompasses the claimed values of “0.2 kV/cm” or “1 kV/cm”) a pulse width (i.e., pulse duration) of 1-10 µs (which encompasses the claimed values of “5 µs” or “8 µs”) and a pulse repetition rate of 1-1000 Hz (which encompasses the claimed values of “1 Hz” or “21 Hz”)(p. 11607, col. 2, ¶ 4).
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 Chanos with the use of a PEF system as taught by Donsi. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A).
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2144.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding the dairy product being mozzarella, Furuichi teaches Streptococcus thermophilus is also often used in the production of fermented foods including various cheeses such as mozzarella cheese ([0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Streptococcus thermophilus of Furuichi with the PEF treated Streptococcus thermophilus as taught by Chanos modified by Donsi to arrive at the claimed invention. The claim would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make this simple substitution of one known element for another and yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(B).
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 Generally available M-Th 8:00a-5:00p, F 8:00-2:00.
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, 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