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 .
Status of the Application
The status of the claims upon filing of the Response to Restriction stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-16
Withdrawn claims: 7-9 and 16
Canceled claims: None
Amended claims: None
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-6 and 10-15
Currently rejected claims: 1-6 and 10-15
Allowed claims: None
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-5 and 10-15, in the reply filed on 02/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that “no adequate reasons and/or examples have been provided to support a conclusion of patentable distinctness” and that the example provided by Examiner was not supported by evidence in the record (Applicant’s Remarks, p. 2, ¶2-¶3). This is not found persuasive because (i) the cited example that the product of Group II could be used for proteolysis of products unrelated to food or production of a cheese analogue contradicts Applicant’s first argument that no example has been provided, and (ii) the example is adequate as is without supporting evidence (MPEP 803 II, “Examiners must provide reasons and/or examples to support conclusions, but need not cite documents to support the restriction requirement in most cases.”).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-9 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/23/2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 10, and 13 recite “fat and/or oil, starch, and protein”, which is vague and indefinite in that it is unclear whether the “and/or” phrase applies only to (i) fat and/or oil or (ii) fat and/or oil, starch and protein. The claim is open to interpretation that starch and protein fall within a group of components that are part of the alternative to fat alone. For examination purposes, the starch and protein are interpreted as being required components.
Claims 2, 6, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are indefinite due to their dependence from claims 1, 4, 10, and 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holz-Schietinger et al. (U.S. 2015/0305361 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses a method for producing a cheese analogue ([0082]) comprising causing at least one protease to act on a mixture ([0176], [0179]) comprising fat/oil, protein (([0083]), and starch ([0234], [0238]).
As for claim 2, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses the protease as being an exo-type protease or an endo-type protease (0179]).
Regarding claim 4, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses a method for producing a cheese analogue ([0082]) comprising causing at least one protease to act on a mixture ([0176], [0179]) comprising fat/oil, protein (([0083]), and starch ([0234], [0238]) during production of the cheese analogue, wherein the method improves meltability and/or extensibility (i.e. stretchability) of a cheese analogue when heated ([0083], [0234]).
As for claim 5, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses the protease as being an exo-type protease or an endo-type protease (0179]).
Regarding claim 10, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses a method for producing a cheese analogue ([0082]) comprising causing at least one protease to act on a mixture ([0176], [0179]) comprising fat/oil, protein (([0083]), and starch ([0234], [0238]) (such that the cheese analogue would comprise fat/oil, starch, and protein) and heating/stirring the mixture ([0322]).
As for claim 11, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses the protease as being an exo-type protease or an endo-type protease (0179]).
As for claim 12, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses the mixture as further comprising a polysaccharide thickener ([0238], [0322]).
Regarding claim 13, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses a method for producing a cheese analogue ([0082]) comprising causing at least one protease to act on a mixture ([0176], [0179]) comprising fat/oil, protein (([0083]), and starch ([0234], [0238]) (such that the cheese analogue would comprise fat/oil, starch, and protein) and heating/stirring the mixture ([0322]). The limitation that the method is “for suppressing…separation of oil in step (b)” is considered to be implicit in that the aim may be met under certain method configurations that would fall within the scope of the claim. Specifically, absent any limitation regarding a minimum amount of oil or any heating parameters, such as time or temperature of the heating step, separation of oil in step (b) would not necessarily occur for methods with low oil content and minimal heating. Thus, performance of the method would achieve the aim of “suppressing …separation of oil in step (b)” where no separation would occur even without the protease activity.
As for claim 14, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses the protease as being an exo-type protease or an endo-type protease (0179]).
As for claim 15, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses the mixture as further comprising a polysaccharide thickener ([0238], [0322]).
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.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holz-Schietinger et al. (U.S. 2015/0305361 A1) in view of Yu et al. (U.S. 2018/0016563 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses the production method of claim 1.
Holz-Schietinger et al. does not disclose the mixture as further comprising α-glucosidase.
However, Yu et al. discloses the incorporation of α-glucosidase ([0244]) into cheese ([0248]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate α-glucosidase into the cheese analogue product of Holz-Schietinger et al. First, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses the inclusion of various enzymes “to help modulate the flavor, texture, and/or melting profile” ([0176]), which would prompt a skilled practitioner to consult a Yu et al. for such an enzyme. Since Yu et al. discloses the inclusion of α-glucosidase into cheese making processes in order to provide “benefits such as improved texture” ([0244], [0248]), a skilled practitioner would find the step of causing α-glucosidase to act on the mixture of Holz-Schietinger et al. for the purpose of improving texture to be obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses the production method of claim 4.
Holz-Schietinger et al. does not disclose the mixture as further comprising α-glucosidase.
However, Yu et al. discloses the incorporation of α-glucosidase ([0244]) into cheese ([0248]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate α-glucosidase into the cheese analogue product of Holz-Schietinger et al. First, Holz-Schietinger et al. discloses the inclusion of various enzymes “to help modulate the flavor, texture, and/or melting profile” ([0176]), which would prompt a skilled practitioner to consult a Yu et al. for such an enzyme. Since Yu et al. discloses the inclusion of α-glucosidase into cheese making processes in order to provide “benefits such as improved texture” ([0244], [0248]), a skilled practitioner would find the step of causing α-glucosidase to act on the mixture of Holz-Schietinger et al. for the purpose of improving texture to be obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG whose telephone number is (571)270-5272. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793