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 .
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed 12/30/2025 is
acknowledged. Claims 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-6, 8, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sustainable Yum (https://sustainableyum.com/homemade-raw-milk-ice-cream-recipe/, August 2013) in view of Rachel (https://www.bakedbyrachel.com/guinness-ice-cream-float/, March 2012).
Regarding Claims 1 and 8, Sustainable Yum teaches a vanilla flavored raw milk ice cream comprising raw milk (Page 4) which retains enzyme activity (Page 2, Paragraph 2). Note that the instant Specification teaches that raw (or unsterilized) milk has xanthine oxidase activity [0014].
Sustainable Yum does not address the addition of the food having xanthine oxidase activity to a raw material containing purines.
Rachel teaches the addition of any suitable ice cream to a beer (Page 5, “Ingredients”). Rachel teaches that this provides a product “full of creamy flavor” (Page 2). Note that the instant Specification teaches that fermented beer-taste beverages contain purines according to the Claim [0052].
It would have been obvious to have utilized the ice cream of Sustainable Yum in the product of Rachel, therefore adding a food having xanthine oxidase activity to a material containing purines, as claimed. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Sustainable Yum teaches a vanilla ice cream suitable for use in the product of Rachel, and Rachel teaches that the combination has a desirable flavor. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. Additionally, note that combination of Sustainable Yum and Rachel results in a “processed food” according to the Claim.
Additionally, note that the limitation of a “raw material” is broadly interpreted to mean any material.
Regarding Claims 2 and 5, Sustainable Yum does not address the xanthine oxidase activity. However, given that the instant Specification teaches that raw (or unsterilized) milk has xanthine oxidase activity [0014], the food of modified Sustainable Yum is interpreted to meet the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 3, Sustainable Yum does not address the uricase activity. However, given that the instant Specification teaches that raw (or unsterilized) milk has uricase activity [0027], the food of Sustainable Yum is interpreted to meet the limitations of the claim. Note that the addition of raw milk to a material meets the limitation of both Claims 1 and 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Sustainable Yum does not address whether the food is a purine-lowering agent. However, given that the instant Specification teaches that foods having xanthine oxidase activity lower purine content [0010], and that raw (or unsterilized) milk has xanthine oxidase activity [0014], the food composition of Sustainable Yum is interpreted to meet the limitations of the claim.
Regarding Claim 6, Rachel teaches the addition of raw milk to beer, which yields a beverage.
Regarding Claim 15, Sustainable Yum teaches the use of raw milk in an ice cream (Page 4). Note that the instant Specification teaches that raw (or unsterilized) milk has xanthine oxidase activity [0014].
Sustainable Yum does not address whether the xanthine oxidase converts xanthine into uric acid, thereby lowering the purine content, in a processed food.
Rachel teaches the addition of any suitable ice cream to a beer (Page 5, “Ingredients”). Rachel teaches that this provides a product “full of creamy flavor” (Page 2). Note that the instant Specification teaches that fermented beer-taste beverages contain purines according to the Claim [0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to add a food containing xanthine oxidase activity (an ice cream comprising raw milk) to a beer (a processed food which comprises purines). One would have been motivated to make such a modification to since Sustainable Yum teaches an ice cream suitable for the product of Rachel, and Rachel teaches that the combination of beer and ice cream provides a desirable “creamy flavor”.
Regarding the limitation wherein the xanthine oxidase converts xanthine into uric acid, thereby lowering the purine content, in a processed food, where Sustainable Yum teaches the food containing xanthine oxidase as claimed, and where Rachel teaches material containing purines, the method of modified Sustainable Yum is interpreted to convert xanthine into uric acid, thereby lowering the content of purines, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 16, Sustainable Yum teaches the use of raw milk in an ice cream (Page 4). Note that the instant Specification teaches that raw (or unsterilized) milk has xanthine oxidase activity [0014] and uricase activity [0027].
Sustainable Yum does not address the purine content in the food.
Rachel teaches the addition of any suitable ice cream to a beer (Page 5, “Ingredients”). Rachel teaches that this provides a product “full of creamy flavor” (Page 2). Note that the instant Specification teaches that fermented beer-taste beverages contain purines according to the Claim [0052].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to add a food containing xanthine oxidase activity (an ice cream comprising raw milk) to a beer (a processed food which comprises purines). One would have been motivated to make such a modification to since Sustainable Yum teaches an ice cream suitable for the product of Rachel, and Rachel teaches that the combination of beer and ice cream provides a desirable “creamy flavor”.
Regarding the limitation that the uricase convert xanthine oxidase to uric acid and uric acid is converted to allantoin and the content of purines is lowered, given that the product of the prior art comprises xanthine oxidase and purines as claimed, the product of the prior art is interpreted to have the properties as claimed.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sustainable Yum in view of Rachel as applied to Claim 7, above, and further in view of Food and Beverage Trainer ( https://www.foodandbeveragetrainer.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/BEER-TRAINING-PDF.pdf, 2014).
Regarding Claim 7, Sustainable Yum in view of Rachel teaches the addition of xanthine oxidase to a material containing purines (Guinness beer), as describe above in regards to Claim 1, but does not discuss utilizing a method according to the Claim.
Food and Beverage Trainer teaches a method for beer production. The method comprises a malting step (which is a saccharification treatment, Page 8), boiling, cooling, and fermenting (Page 14) with yeast (Page 19). Food and Beverage Trainer teaches that this method is utilized in the production of, e.g. Guinness beer (Page 27).
It would have been obvious to have utilized the method of Food and Beverage trainer in the production of Guinness, a material containing purines. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to since Food and Beverage Trainer teaches that the method produces the beer of Rachel.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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 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.
/D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights