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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 submissions filed on April 1, 2026, and May 1, 2026, have been entered.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are pending in the application. Any previous rejections not repeated below have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spickermann et al. (WO 2020/169553) with evidence provided by Gregory et al. (WO 2019/060851).
Regarding claims 1-3, Spickermann et al. teach a method for producing a processed hemp food or drink or food ingredient, the method comprising a step (a) of “providing a mechanically disintegrated hemp seed material” followed by a step (c) of incubating with a protease (p. 3, paragraph starting “Thus, in a first aspect”). Spickermann et al. goes on to define the “mechanically disintegrated hemp seed material” as “any type of hemp seed material” including commercially available disintegrated hemp seeds, protein concentrates from hemp seeds, as well as complete hemp seeds, including hulled or dehulled seeds (p. 3 last paragraph; p. 4 second paragraph). Spickermann et al. further states that the hemp seed material in step (a) can be mixed with an aqueous medium (p. p. 4 second paragraph).
Therefore, while Spickermann et al. do not specifically teach an “aqueous dispersion of crushed hemp seed nuts,” given Spickermann et al. teaches “any type of hemp seed material” for use in their process, it would have been obvious to have utilized an “aqueous dispersion of crushed hemp seed nuts” with the reasonable expectation that the process would still function as expected based on the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding the preamble “for imparting umami to an aqueous dispersion of crushed hemp seed nuts,” this is considered a statement of intended use. Where the steps of the method of the prior art are the same as the claimed step of “treating the aqueous dispersion of crushed hemp seed nuts with a protease derived from a filamentous fungus,” the method of the prior art is considered render obvious instant claim 1.
Proteases taught by Spickermann et al. for use in their invention include the filamentous fungal derived proteases Sumizyme LPL-G and ProteAX (p. 9, paragraph starting “The enzyme”).
ProteAX is an Aspergillus oryzae derived protease according to the instant specification at [0020].
Gregory et al. teach Sumizyme LPL-G is an Aspergillus oryzae derived protease [0084].
Therefore, given the small number of proteases taught by Spickermann et al., one of ordinary skill looking to the teachings of Spickermann et al. would have at once clearly envisaged the claimed protease.
Regarding the inactivation step, after the proteolysis, Spickermann et al. teach that the hemp seed extract (e.g., an aqueous dispersion of crushed hemp seed nuts) is sterilized (p. 11, 2nd full paragraph). This sterilization step is considered to meet the claimed inactivation of the protease because the heat from the sterilization would inactive the enzyme.
Regarding claim 6, the protease treatment is taught to be performed at a temperature preferably between about 40 to 60°C, which overlaps the claimed temperature range, and for a time between 1-36 hours (p. 9 last paragraph), which overlaps the claimed time, thereby rendering the claimed treatment time and temperature obvious.
Regarding the amount of protease to be included, Spickermann et al. teach the protease is included in an amount ranging from 0.1% to 5% protease preparation per dry matter. Spickermann et al. do not report the amount of protease as U/g of hemp protein. However, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that the amount of enzyme to be included in the preparation could be adjusted based on the desired amount of proteolysis to occur and the conditions (e.g., time and temperature) under which the reaction was occurring. Thus, arriving at an enzyme amount as claimed would have required no more than routine experimentation, and would have been expected to provide a desired result of a sufficient amount of proteolysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 1, 2026, and May 1, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the method of present claim 1 imparts umami to hemp milk itself by subjecting the hemp milk to a protease, while the prior art of Spickermann removes the lipophilic components and is therefore a “hemp seed extract” and not a “hemp milk” as claimed (April 1 Remarks, pp. 4-5).
This argument is not persuasive. Initially, it is noted that the claimed method “comprises” the claimed steps, leaving it open to additional, unrecited steps. Further, looking to the teachings of Spickermann et al., step (d) on p. 3 says that the fat content is “reduced”. Spickermann et al. does not require that all fat is removed.
In the April 1 Remarks, at p. 4, Applicant again points to the results shown in in Table 1 at the instant specification. However, as stated previously, the Table shows only the protein content of “hemp milk” where the hemp milk is treated with either bacterial or fungal protease. Given that Spickermann et al. teach treating a solution of ground hemp seed in water with a protease, as detailed in the rejection above, the instant claims continue to be rendered obvious over the teachings of Spickermann et al. as detailed above.
In the Remarks filed May 1, on p. 4, Applicant argues that where the claims now recite an “aqueous dispersion of crushed hemp seed nuts,” this material differs significantly from the material processed in the method of Spickermann et al.
This argument is not persuasive. As stated in the rejection above, Spickermann et al. defines the “mechanically disintegrated hemp seed material” as “any type of hemp seed material” including commercially available disintegrated hemp seeds, protein concentrates from hemp seeds, as well as complete hemp seeds, including hulled or dehulled seeds (p. 3 last paragraph; p. 4 second paragraph). Spickermann et al. further states that the hemp seed material in step (a) can be mixed with an aqueous medium (p. p. 4 second paragraph).
Therefore, while Spickermann et al. do not specifically teach an “aqueous dispersion of crushed hemp seed nuts,” given Spickermann et al. teaches “any type of hemp seed material” for use in their process, it would have been obvious to have utilized an “aqueous dispersion of crushed hemp seed nuts” with the reasonable expectation that the process would still function as expected based on the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKKI H. DEES whose telephone number is (571)270-3435. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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, Tricia Mallari can be reached at 571-272-4729. 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.
Nikki H. Dees
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights