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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 6/3/26. Claims 1-3,6-8 are amended and claims 5, 11-14 are cancelled. Claims 1-4, 6-10 are pending.
The previous 112 second paragraph and 102 rejections are withdrawn due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the new limitation “ wherein the process is free of any step for removing whey” is not supported by the origin disclosure. Applicant points to original claim 11 for support; however, the original claim recites “ free of any pre-drainage steps for removing the whey”. The language is not the same as in the current amendment because the previous free from step is specific to “ pre-drainage steps”, not to all of any step for removing whey. Paragraph 0006 discloses “ particularly does not apply whey removal nor washing in the cheese vat”. The omission of the whey removal is directed to the cheese vat only and does not support “ free of any step for removing whey”. Example 1 discloses that the curd/whey mixture was pumped into the Casomatic buffer tank and from there the curd was transferred in a Casomatic drainage column. This disclosure indicates that the whey is separated out from the curd/whey mixture because only the curd in transferred. The disclosure clearly contradicts the claimed limitation “ free of any step for removing whey”. Applicant was not in possession of a process in which all the steps of removing whey are omitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2,6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkerman ( WO 98/48636).
For claims 1,2 Akkerman discloses a process of making semi-hard cheese such as Maasdam cheese comprising the steps of providing raw milk, separating the milk into cream and skim milk, subjecting the skim milk to ultrafiltration to obtain skim milk fraction concentrated in protein (UF retentate) and UF permeate, subjecting the UF permeate to nanofiltration to obtain fraction reduced in lactose ( NF permeate), blending NF permeate, UF retentate which is the skim milk fraction and cream to obtain cheese milk, subjecting the cheese milk to pasteurization, adding starter culture, rennet to start coagulation, subjecting the coagulated mass to after treatment to produce the cheese. With regard to the protein, fat and lactose content, claim 1 recites the alternative of and/or. Akkerman discloses the cheese milk comprises 3.8% protein, 3.5% fat and 2.7% lactose. Both the fat and lactose fall within the claimed ranges ( see page 4 lines 15-18) . Akkerman does not disclose any washing operation. On page 1, Akkerman discusses the disadvantage of the washing and discloses on page 2 lines 6-10 that “ the present invention aims to alleviate the above disadvantage and is to that end characterized in that milk with a reduced lactose content is used. The washing of the curd can be omitted”. As to the free of any step for removing whey, Akkerman does not disclose removing whey before coagulaton and the curd/whey mixture is put into a Casomatic draining unit and the curd blocks are placed in molds. This processing is the same as the example disclosed in the instant specification. Thus, it’s considered as free of any step for removing whey because the same processing steps are carried out. ( see example 1)
For claim 6, Akkerman discloses the cheese milk comprises 3.8% protein, 3.5% fat and 2.7% lactose. The fat falls within the claimed range. ( see page 4 lines 15-18)
For claim 8, Akkerman discloses cheese milk comprises 3.8 % proein, 4.1% fat and 3.4% lactose. ( see example 2, page 5 lines 30-31)
For claims 9-10, Akkerman discloses the coagulation is conducted at 30 degrees C. The aftertreatment includes cutting, molding, brinning etc.. ( see example 1). There is no disclosure of washing
Akkerman does not disclose packaging as in claim 1 and the protein content as in claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to package the cheese to make commercial product to keep it clean and sterile. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to vary the amount of protein a little depending on protein content desired. Generally, difference in concentration does not support patentability in absence of showing of criticality or unexpected result.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkerman (WO 98/48636) in view of Mankiewitz ( 2019/0274326).
Akkerman does not discloses the steps in claims 3-4.
Mankiewitz discloses a method for producing cheese. Mankiewitz discloses to treat the milk to bactofugation to separate out the bacteria. ( see abstract)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to subject the milk to bactofugation as disclosed in Mankiewitz to ensure the milk is free from bacterial contamination to enhance the stability and safety of the cheese product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/3/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues that claim 1 defines cheese whey having a protein content of at least 4% while Akkerman cheese milk has a protein content of 3.8%. Applicant states that since the cheese milk of claim 1 and the cheese milk of Akkerman differ, the cheeses produced from them must also be different. This argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not limit the cheese milk having a protein content of at least 4%. Claim 1 recites the alternative of and/or. Akkerman discloses the cheese milk comprises 3.8% protein, 3.5% fat and 2.7% lactose. Both the fat and lactose fall within the claimed ranges ( see page 4 lines 15-18) . Applicant’s statement of the cheese produced must be different is not supported by factual evidence. Akkerman produces the same cheese as recited in claim 2. There is no property, characteristic or any feature recited in the claims that distinguish the cheese produced in the claimed method from the cheese produced in the Akkerman method. Claim 7 recites a higher protein content. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to vary the amount of protein a little depending on protein content desired. Generally, difference in concentration does not support patentability in absence of showing of criticality or unexpected result.
Applicant also points to the new limitation of “ free of any step for removing whey and of any washing operation”. The limitation does not define over Akkerman. Akkerman does not disclose any washing operation. On page 1, Akkerman discusses the disadvantage of the washing and discloses on page 2 lines 6-10 that “ the present invention aims to alleviate the above disadvantage and is to that end characterized in that milk with a reduced lactose content is used. The washing of the curd can be omitted”. As to the free of any step for removing whey, Akkerman does not disclose removing whey before coagulaton and the curd/whey mixture is put into a Casomatic draining unit and the curd blocks are placed in molds. This processing is the same as the example disclosed in the instant specification. Thus, it’s considered as free of any step for removing whey because the same processing steps are carried out. ( see example 1)
With regard to claims 3,4, applicant argues Mankiewitz does not disclose cheese making process that obviates the need for or lacks any step for removing whey and of a washing operation. This argument is not persuasive because Mankiewitz is not relied upon to teach such feature. The reason for incorporating the Mankiewitz teaching is explained in the rejection and applicant does not argue the position taken. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
August 13, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights