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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 06/18/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 1 and 3-7 are presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishimura et al. (JP 2004-261107 A1, machine translated in IP.com),hereinafter Nishimura, in view of Budolfsen et al. (US 2007/0031577 A1, cited in the IDS; Of record), hereinafter Budolfsen.
Nishimura teaches the preparation of sterilized soymilk with good flavor and rich feeling (Abstract). Nishimura teaches obtaining soybean milk by conventional method, i.e. immersing soybeans in water, which are finely pulverized, and subjected to centrifugal separator to remove the okara, obtaining the milk which can be used [0016].
Nishimura does not teach treating the soy product with multi-copper oxidase.
Budolfsen is in the same field of interest and recognizes the need for soy protein products with improved functional properties, e.g. improved ability to impart textural properties such as viscosity to food products [0003]. Budolfsen relates that treating soy protein with at least one oxidoreductase results in a soy protein product with improved functional properties, and discloses a method for producing a soy protein product by treatment of soy protein with at least one oxidoreductase (Abstract; Claims 1-4; [0004]). The soy protein preparation of Budolfsen has improved properties and higher viscosity compared to a similar soy protein product that has not been treated with an oxidoreductase [0049].
Regarding Claims 1, 3, and 7, Budolfsen expressly teaches an example wherein different soy protein concentrates and isolate are treated with laccase, which is a multi-copper oxidase as evidenced by the instant Claim 3 (Example 1). Budolfsen teaches suitable laccases include those derived from genuses inter alia Trametes, rendering Claim 4 obvious.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Budolfsen with Nishimura and treat the soybean product, i.e. soy milk, of Nishimura with at least one oxidoreductase results to obtain soy milk with improved functional properties, and higher viscosity, as desired according to use. One would use laccases such as those derived from genuses inter alia Trametes which Budolfsen teaches to be suitable for the intended use. Therefore, the claimed invention of the instant application would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. The known work in the field of soy milk would have prompted variations of it for use in the same field based on design incentives or other market forces where the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 5, Nishimura expressly teaches production of sterile soy milk using dehulled and hypocotyled soybeans, and swelled soybeans, which was refined with a grinder, and the okara separated (Example 1). The raw soy milk had a protein content of 4.5% [0031]. Regarding Claim 6, Nishimura teaches the sterilized soy milk have a viscosity of 20 to 250 mPa·s, which touches the claimed range (Claim 2). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. The range taught by Nishimura would serve as starting point to figure out optimal viscosity range. Since there is an exemplary teaching in the prior art of this variation, it would have been obvious to find the best ranges. The optimization of a result effective parameter is considered within the skill of the artisan. See, In re Boesch and Slaney (CCPA) 204 USPQ 215. In addition, “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“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 of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”). This is what research chemists do, optimization of result-effective variables through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05 IIA and B). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success due to the high level of skill in the art and the teachings of the references in the absence of evidence to the contrary, such as unexpected results.
Response to Remarks:
The crux of Applicant’s argument is that Budolfsen’s soy flour is dehulled but allegedly still contains soybean pulp.
The Examiner traverses this argument. Upon closer inspection of the teachings of Budolfsen, the reference teaches screening methods, which would remove the pulp [0027]. Such screening and use of sieve and cheesecloths separates the pulp, which Applicant acknowledged (See Remarks p. 3, 2nd paragraph).
Nevertheless, in order to move prosecution forward, the Examiner cites Nishimura as primary art, which unequivocally teaches the separation of the pulp/okara.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Blendtec. (Homemade Soy Milk Recipe - Blendtec. June 2, 2014. Obtained on 07/22/2026 from URL: <https://www.blendtec.com/blogs/recipes/soy-milk?srsltid= AfmBOooWEWWlAZh5jROKUDiRxX1CX7m8j0a77FlE487KOvIvMe73Er2X>.)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6 EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. 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.
/JANICE Y SILVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights