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 .
Claim status
The examiner acknowledged the amendment made to the claims on 03/26/2026.
Claims 14-15 and 50-60 are pending in the application. are cancelled. Claims 14-15 and 50 are currently amended. Claims 51-60 are withdrawn in response to the restriction requirement . Claims 14-15 and 50 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14-15 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geistlinger US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0216106 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Geistlinger).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 50, Geistlinger teaches a method of preparing a food product such as a dairy analogue food product (e.g., a yogurt-like food product that comprises milk protein such as beta-lactoglobulin or BLG, 0008-0009; 0053), the method comprising: pasteurizing a composition comprising a native or recombinant BLG protein and a non-animal protein or hydrolysate thereof (0008; 0231; Example 1); cooling down the composition (0231; Example 1); and acidifying the cooled composition by adding lactic acid bacteria to the cooled composition and fermenting to obtain the yogurt-like food product (0227; 0232; Example 1). The BLG protein as disclosed by Geistlinger is necessarily coagulated because Geistlinger teaches the same step of acidifying BLG by lactic fermentation.
Additionally, Geistlinger teaches that the yogurt-like food product comprises only one milk protein such as BLG, and the amount of which is between 2-8 wt% (0008-0009; 0226), thus reading on the limitation that the BLG constitutes 100% of the total milk protein in the dairy analogue food product and that the dairy analogue food product comprises at least 2% BLG or 1.5-8% BLG as recited in claims 14 and 15.
Further, since the disclosure of Geistlinger does not mention including coagulation minerals in the composition that comprises BLG and non-animal protein or hydrolysate thereof to make the yogurt-like food product (Example 1), the limitation about the composition being substantially devoid of coagulation minerals is met by Geistlinger.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/26/2026 have been fully considered and the examiner’s response is shown below:
The arguments on pages 6-9 of the Remarks regarding Ryu are acknowledged but found irrelevant to the instant office action which does not rely on Ryu.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejection over Geistlinger, applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the Remarks that since Geistlinger teaches the combination of BLG and a non-animal protein (e.g. pea protein), the reference fails to teach a BLG only yogurt-like food product as claimed, or the limitation about “wherein BLG constitutes 100% of the total milk protein content of the dairy analogue food product”.
The examiner disagrees. Geistlinger teaches that the yogurt-like food product comprises only one milk protein such as BLG, and the amount of which is between 2-8 wt% (0008-0009; 0226), thus reading on the limitation that the BLG constitutes 100% of the total milk protein in the dairy analogue food product. A non-animal protein such as pea protein does not belong to milk protein. Further, applicant is remined that instant claims are not drawn to a BLG only yogurt-like food product, rather, they are to a BLG as the only milk protein type yogurt-like food product, which does not exclude a non-milk protein.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks that the BLG sample used in the example of Geistlinger contain ashes, which is crucial element in typical preparation of yogurt. Applicant thus concludes that Geistlinger teaches use of ash, or coagulation minerals.
The argument is considered but found unpersuasive. Applicant is relying on the example of the prior art to conclude that the raw material for the yogurt-like food product has to have ash or coagulation mineral. Such a reliance has misinterpreted Geistlinger. Nowhere in the teaching of Geistlinger discloses that ash or a coagulation mineral is a must-have ingredient in making the yogurt-like food product thus rendering applicant’s assertion that ash is crucial element in typical preparation of yogurt unpersuasive. To this end, “applicant must look to the whole reference for what it teaches. Applicant cannot merely rely on the examples and argue that the reference did not teach others.” In re Courtright, 377 F.2d 647, 153 USPQ 735,739 (CCPA 1967).
Conclusion
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 CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights