DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. The status of the claims stands as follows: Pending claims: 1-17, 20-23 Withdrawn claims: 12-17, 20-23 C ancelled claims: 18-19 Claims currently under consideration: 1-11 Currently rejected claims: 1-11 Allowed claims: None Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 is acknowledged. Claim s 12-17 and 20-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/25/2025 . Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). Claim Objections Claim 2 is objected to because “A non-dairy fermented food product” should be read as “The non-dairy fermented food product” . Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 1 recites that the food product comprises “an oat derived material comprising dry matter in an amount of 5-20 % by weight of the food product”. However, it is unclear as to whether the “5-20 % by weight of the food product” refers to (A) the amount of all the oat derived material in the food product; or (B) the amount of dry matter from the oat derived material in the food product. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be interpreted as meaning option (B) per page 4, lines 14-18 of the present specification . Claim 7 recites that “said oat derived material comprises 5-15 % protein by weight”. However, it is unclear as to whether the “5-15 % protein by weight” refers to (A) the amount of protein in the oat derived material based on dry weight of the oat derived material (as required by claim 6 from which claim 7 depends); (B) the amount of protein in the oat derived material based on the total weight of the oat derived material; or (C) the amount of protein from the oat derived material contained in the food product based on the total weight of the food product. Therefore, the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be interpreted according to option (A) per page 4, lines 6 -8 of the present specification. Regarding claim 9 , the term " preferably " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of this examination, the limitations following the term “preferably” will not be considered as part of the claim. Regarding claim 11 , the phrase " yoghurt like " renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed ( i.e., what products are encompassed by the term “yoghurt like” ), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of this examination, the phrase will be interpreted as meaning a yogurt. Claims 2-6, 8, and 10 are rejected by reason of dependency from claim 1. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alho-Lehto (US 2011/0159145; IDS citation), hereinafter referred to as “ Lehto ” . Regarding claims 1 and 11, Lehto discloses a non-dairy fermented food product in the form of a plant-based yogurt [0045] as recited by present claims 1 and 11. Lehto teaches that the product comprises: an oat derived material (corresponding to oat suspension) , wherein the oat derived material comprises 3-50 wt.% dry matter [0051], such as 10 wt.% [0072], [0074]. Lehto teaches that the oat derived material may be used in a total amount of 96.5 wt.% of the food product [0101]; therefore, Lehto discloses that the product may comprise the dry matter from the oat derived material in an amount of 9.65 wt.%, which falls within the concentration range recited by present claim 1. Lehto teaches that the product may further comprises at least one fat in an amount of 0.5-5 wt.% (corresponding to 0.5-5 g vegetable oil/fat per 100 g yogurt); and at least one vegetable protein in an amount of 0.1-10 wt.% (corresponding to 0.1-10 g purified protein per 100 g yogurt) [0045], which fall within the concentrations recited in present claim 1. Lehto teaches that the product may further comprise a stabilizer in an amount of 0.05-10 wt.% (corresponding to 0.05-10 g stabilizer per 100 g yogurt) [0045], wherein the stabilizer may be starch [0101]. Therefore, Lehto at least suggests an amount of starch in the product which encompasses the concentration recited in present claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portions of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art references, particularly in view of the fact that; "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages" In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also In re Malagari , 182 USPQ 549,533 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05. I. Regarding claims 2, 3, 4, and 5, Lehto teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the food product may comprise at least two proteins in the form of oat protein and soy protein [0074], [0101] as recited by present claims 2, 3, 4, and 5. Regarding claims 6 and 7, Lehto teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the oat derived material may contain 0.1-20 wt.% protein based on dry weight of the oat derived material [0027], which encompasses the protein concentrations recited in present claims 6 and 7. Lehto also discloses that the oat derived material may comprise 0.5-5 wt.% fat based on total weight of the product [0045]; and that the oat derived material may comprise 3-50 wt.% dry matter [0051], such as 10 wt.% [0072]. Therefore, Lehto discloses amounts of fat which at least overlap the concentration recited in present claim 7 (e.g., oat derived material containing 0.5 wt.% fat and 10 wt. % dry matter contains 5 wt.% fat by dry weight of the oat derived material) . The selection of a value within the overlapping range renders the claimed concentration obvious. MPEP 2144.05. I. Regarding claim 8, Lehto teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the food product contains at least one starch as a stabilizer [0101]. Lehto does not disclose whether the added starch is native starch and/or modified starch. However, the starch would necessarily be at least one of the two options. Therefore, the stabilizer of starch of Lehto fulfills the claim limitation. Regarding claims 9 and 10, Lehto teaches the invention as described above in claim 1, including the food product may further comprise calcium, vitamins, minerals, stabilizer, fiber, sugar (corresponding to saccharose), and/or lactic acid bacteria [0045], [0063] as recited in present claims 9 and 10. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2847 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Nikki Dees can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /KELLY P KERSHAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 1791