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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on July 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 15, 2026.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferawati et al. (“The Application of pulse Flours in the Development of Plant-Based Cheese Analogues: Proximate Composition, Color and Texture Properties”, Foods, 10(9), (September 17, 2021), pp. 1-11) in view of Carpenter et al. (US 5,807,601) and as evidenced by Vestkorn (Vestkorn Faba Bean Flour, https://vestkorn.com/vestkorn-faba-bean-flour/, 2026, downloaded September 17, 2026).
Regarding claims 1-6, Ferawati et al. disclose a cheese analogue comprising 17.5 % faba bean flour (i.e., broad bean), 68.9% water, 10.5% rapeseed oil, and stabilizer (p. 4/Table 1). Ferawati et al. disclose the cheese analogue is made by a process comprising the following steps (p. 3/Figure 1):
PNG
media_image1.png
418
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ferawati et al. disclose the faba bean flour is heated treated (heating over boiling water bath until the mixture reaches 60⁰C- p. 3/Figure 1).
Here, given the combination of faba bean flour, water, oil and stabilizer are mixed with a blender, the composition is considered an emulsion.
As evidenced by Vestkorn, faba bean (i.e., broad bean) flour comprises around 48% carbohydrates. Here a value of around 48% is considered to encompass values above and below 48% including 50%.
While Ferawati et al. disclose adding 17.5% faba bean flour, the reference discloses: (a) that the water content of the cheese analogue composition can be adjusted (see p. 3/Figure 1); and (b) the ratio of flour to water and the amount of stabilizer can be adjusted to achieve a cheese product with a desired texture (e.g., sliceable). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted, in routine processing, the amount of added faba bean flour in the cheese analogue composition to obtain a product with desired sensory properties (e.g., texture or type of cheese).
While Ferawati et al. disclose a cheese analogue composition comprising a stabilizer, wherein the stabilizer is kappa-carrageenan or xanthan gum (p. 3/2,3,2 Determination of Stabilizer Type and Concentration), the reference is silent with respect to a swelling-inhibiting starch.
Carpenter et al. teach an imitation cheese product comprising 3 -30% starch, 0-30% lipid, 20-60% water, 0.5 to 5% hydrocolloid and 0.5% to 25% non-starch carbohydrates (Abstract). Carpenter et al. teach the starch is modified, for example cross-linked (C3/L24-67). Carpenter et al. teach the amount of starch used in the imitation cheese will depend on the functional characteristics required for the cheese. For imitation cheese products that do not need to melt, the starch level can be high, up to 30% of the composition and where the product needs to have good melt properties, the starch level needs to be lower, in the range of 3-5% (C4/L12-24). Carpenter et al. teach the imitation cheese has the body, texture and eating qualities of natural dairy cheese (C2/L54-60, C4/L25-34).
Ferawati et al. and Carpenter et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely imitation cheese. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added a modified starch (e.g., cross-linked starch), as taught by Carpenter et al., to the cheese analog composition of Ferawati et al. to obtain a cheese analog body, texture and eating qualities similar to natural dairy cheese.
Given the combination of Ferawati et al. and Carpenter et al. teach a cheese analogue composition comprising components substantially similar to those of the presently claimed cheese-like product, inherently the composition would exhibit a pH in the broadly claimed range of 3.5 to 7.5.
Regarding claim 7, Ferawati et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Ferawati et al. disclose a cheese analogue composition free of animal-derived material (p. 2/2.1 Materials, p. 4/Table 1).
Regarding claim 8, Ferawati et al. disclose a Gouda-like product with similar texture properties as reference Gouda cheese (i.e., food product comprising the cheese analogue composition disclosed by Ferawati et al – p. 9/3.2.3/Texture Properties).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rasskazova et al. (“Field Pea Pisum Sativum L. as a Perspective Ingredient for Vegan Foods: A Review”, Research for Rural Development, Volume 35, (2020) pp. 125-131) teaches the use of field peas for vegan foods intended as animal product alternatives with acceptable sensory properties. Rasskazova et al. is silent with respect to specific cheese analogue compositions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights