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 .
The amendment filed 6/25/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
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 1-3, 5-6, 8-13, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calmon (US 20220312794 A1) in view of Simell (WO 90/08476)
Regarding Claims 1, 5, and 6, Calmon teaches a method for producing plant proteins, including leguminous proteins (Abstract) such as soy [0027]. The method comprises separating the starch and polysaccharide components from the protein components in aqueous suspension [0039]. Calmon teaches that this produces a liquid fraction with concentrated protein [0039]. Calmon teaches further concentration of the protein fraction via, e.g. protein precipitation [0041].
Calmon does not address treating the liquid protein fraction with a phytic acid degrading enzyme.
Simell teaches that phytic acid (or phytate, Page 1, Lines 17-19) is common in plant seeds such as soy beans and interferes with assimilation of nutrients (Page 1, Line 25-Page 2, Line 2). Simell teaches that phytate may be removed by treating a plant protein isolate with a phytate degrading enzyme. Note that Simell teaches treatment of the plant protein in an aqueous suspension (Page 9, Line 32- Page 10, Line 6), which is a “liquid protein”. Simell additionally teaches re-suspending a protein product in aqueous suspension, and treating the aqueous suspension with a phytate degrading enzyme (Page 9, Lines 13-18). Simell therefore teaches the treatment of a “liquid protein fraction” and a “protein-enriched protein fraction” as claimed in Claim(s) 5 and 6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a phytate degrading enzyme as taught by Simell in the protein isolate product(s) of Calmon. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Simell teaches that phytate is common in plant seeds, and the treatment of a plant protein isolate with a phytate degrading enzyme removes phytate.
Regarding Claim 2, note that the instant Claim recites that the step “may comprise”, and the limitations of a precipitation stage and a separation stage are therefore optional. Regardless, Calmon teaches that the protein is precipitated and separated [0042 and 0045].
Regarding Claim 3, Calmon teaches that the protein is coagulated at pH 4-6 [0042].
Regarding Claim 8, Calmon does not address a proteolysis step. Absent evidence to the contrary, Calmon is interpreted to teach an extraction process that does not comprise proteolysis of the protein-enriched protein fraction, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, Simell teaches the use of phytase (Page 13, Lines 6-7).
Regarding Claim 10, Simell teaches that the protein is heated after treatment with the enzyme (Page 9, Lines 19-21 and Page 10, Lines 7-9).
Regarding Claim 11, Simell teaches the treatment of a protein fraction which is e.g. 10 grams of a protein fraction in 100 mL of water, which is 10% (Page 19, Example 4). Note that the “dry matter of the protein fraction” is interpreted to mean the amount of dry matter, encompassing both protein and other components, in a “protein fraction”.
Regarding Claim 12, Simell teaches that the phytic acid is reduced to below 1% (Page 18, Table 1).
Regarding Claims 13 and 19, Calmon does not teach an active hydrolysis step; absent evidence to the contrary, the protein of Calmon is interpreted to be unhydrolyzed, which is a degree of hydrolysis of “less than 15” and “less than 6%” as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15, Calmon teaches drying of the protein [0048].
Regarding Claim 16, Calmon teaches the treatment of plant proteins including beans, peas, and faba bean [0027]. Additionally, note that where Simell teaches that phytate is common in plant seeds (which encompasses beans), it would have been obvious to modify Calmon to utilize the method of Simell for any plant seed, including peas as claimed.
Claims 1, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calmon in view of Wong (US 2001/0018197 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Calmon teaches a method for producing plant proteins, including leguminous proteins (Abstract) such as peas [0001]. The method comprises separating the starch and polysaccharide components from the protein components in aqueous suspension [0039]. Calmon teaches that this produces a liquid fraction with concentrated protein [0039]. Calmon teaches further concentration of the protein fraction via, e.g. protein precipitation [0041].
Calmon does not address treating the liquid protein fraction, or the protein-enriched protein fraction, with a phytic acid degrading enzyme.
Wong teaches the removal of phytic acid (Abstract) from protein supplements comprising bean and pea protein [0002]. Wong teaches the use of phytase enzymes to degrade phytic acid [0025]. Wong teaches that such a treatment improves the nutritional value of the supplement [0002].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Calmon to utilize a step of treatment with phytic acid degrading enzyme, as taught by Wong. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to increase the nutritional value of the protein supplement. Note that where Wong teaches treatment of protein supplement product, Wong teaches the treatment of a “protein-enriched protein fraction” according to the Claim.
Regarding Claims 14 and 20, modified Calmon teaches a method as discussed above in regard to Claim 1.
Wong teaches the use of 0.1-10 wt% enzyme, relative to the weight of the protein [0025]. This overlaps and thereby renders obvious the claimed ranges.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calmon in view of Simell as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Goodnight (US 3995071 A, November 1976).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Calmon teaches the method of Claim 1 as discussed above. Calmon teaches that the extraction of proteins may be performed by “any type of suitable method” [0041] but does not address the use of membrane filtration.
Goodnight teaches a method for obtaining purified plant protein (Column 1, Line 1). Goodnight teaches that ultrafiltration via a semi-permeable membrane (Column 3, Lines 11-15) effectively retains high molecular weight proteins, and is cheaper to operate than other filtration types (Column 3, Lines 20-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize membrane filtration in the process of Calmon. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Calmon teaches the use of any suitable method for protein isolation, and Goodnight teaches that membrane filtration is an effective method for protein isolation.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calmon in view of Simell as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (“Functional Properties of Proteolytic Enzyme Modified Soy Protein Isolate”, DOI: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/jf00093a014, March 1990).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Calmon teaches the method of Claim 1 as discussed above but does not discuss a proteolysis step of the protein-enriched fraction.
Kim teaches that proteolysis of soy proteins improves solubility of the protein (Page 651, Column 1, Paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a proteolysis step in the method of modified Calmon. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve the solubility of the soy proteins.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calmon in view of Simell, taken with evidentiary reference of Teskeredzic (“Assessment of undephytinized and dephytinized rapeseed protein concentrate as sources of dietary protein for juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)” DOI: 10.1016/0044-8486(94)00334-K, April 1995)
Regarding Claim 14, Simell teaches the addition of a Finase enzyme at e.g. 150 PU (phytate-degrading units) per gram of substrate (Page 18, Table 1). A typical Finase product has an activity of 5,000 PU/gram (see evidentiary reference of Teskeredzic, Page 266, last line). Simell therefore teaches the addition of 150/5,000 = 3% of enzyme per weight of substrate, which touches the claimed range.
With a view towards compact prosecution, Examiner notes that the mass of an enzyme is generally unrelated to the activity of the enzyme. The instant Claim, which is directed towards a mass ratio of enzyme to substrate, encompasses a wide range of possible enzyme activities. One of ordinary skill would have recognized that the amount of enzyme could be adjusted based on the desired amount of enzymatic activity and the conditions under which the reaction was occurring, and therefore arriving at the claimed amount is considered to require no more than routine experimentation.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Calmon in view of Wong (US 2001/0018197 A1)
Regarding Claim 17, Calmon teaches a method for producing plant proteins, including leguminous proteins (Abstract) such as peas [0001]. The method comprises separating the starch and polysaccharide components from the protein components in aqueous suspension [0039]. Calmon teaches that this produces a liquid fraction with concentrated protein [0039]. Calmon teaches further concentration of the protein fraction via, e.g. protein precipitation [0041].
Calmon does not address treating the liquid protein fraction, or the protein-enriched protein fraction, with a phytic acid degrading enzyme.
Wong teaches the removal of phytic acid (Abstract) from protein supplements comprising bean and pea protein [0002]. Wong teaches the use of phytase enzymes to degrade phytic acid [0025]. Wong teaches that such a treatment improves the nutritional value of the supplement [0002].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Calmon to utilize a step of treatment with phytic acid degrading enzyme, as taught by Wong. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to increase the nutritional value of the protein supplement. Note that where Wong teaches treatment of protein supplement product, Wong teaches the treatment of a “protein-enriched protein fraction” according to the Claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Calmon teaches a method for producing plant proteins, including leguminous proteins (Abstract) such as peas [0001], and Wong teaches treatment of pea protein [0002].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Note that the rejection above has been modified and does not rely on Simell to teach enzyme treatment to reduce phytic acid.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 (Page 6 of Remarks), Applicant argues that Calmon is directed towards reducing off-flavors and Simell is directed towards reduction of anti-nutritional effects, and the prior art does not teach the reduction of bitterness.
This argument is not convincing. The motivation to treat reduce phytic acid is not required to be the same as that of the instant Application. See MPEP 2144 IV. Additionally, note that recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. See MPEP 2145 II.
Applicant additionally argues that Simell does not provide motivation to utilize a phytic acid degrading enzyme in the process of Calmon (Page 7 of Remarks).
This argument is not convincing. Where Simell teaches that phytate interferes with nutrient assimilation and the treatment of a plant protein isolate with a phytate degrading enzyme removes phytate, it would have been obvious to have treated the plant protein isolate with a phytate degrading enzyme. Note that Simell’s teaching of plant seeds encompasses beans.
Applicant additionally argues that Simell’s disclosure of aqueous soy protein suspensions does not teach that phytase treatment should be introduced at intermediate extraction stages (Page 7 of Remarks).
This argument is not convincing. Examiner notes that the claimed process at amended Claims 1 and 17 does not require that phytase treatment be introduced at “intermediate extraction stages”, but that a protein-enriched protein fraction be treated with a phytic acid degrading enzyme. The claim encompasses treatment with a phytic acid degrading enzyme at any point after the preparation of a “liquid protein fraction”, including e.g. enzyme treatment of a finished and dried protein product.
Applicant additionally argues (Page 7 of Remarks) that the disclosures of the instant Specification show that phytase treatment decreases bitterness.
This argument is not convincing. The motivation to treat reduce phytic acid is not required to be the same as that of the instant Application. See MPEP 2144 IV.
Applicant additionally argues (Page 8 of Remarks) that Simell does not teach the use of phytic acid degrading enzyme to reduce bitterness.
This argument is not convincing. The motivation to treat reduce phytic acid is not required to be the same as that of the instant Application. See MPEP 2144 IV.
Applicant additionally argues (Page 8 of Remarks) that the instant Specification demonstrates the criticality of the order of process steps, e.g. treating the liquid protein fraction of the protein-enriched protein fraction with phytic acid degrading enzyme to provide superior bitterness reduction.
This argument is not convincing. First, any enzyme treatment step performed subsequent to the concentration of a liquid protein fraction meets the limitations of the Claim. The claim(s) do not require, for example, that the liquid protein fraction undergo a specific amount of protein enrichment, or that intermediate process steps are not performed (e.g. drying and re-suspension) prior to enzyme treatment. Second, the Claims do not require a specific amount of bitterness reduction.
Applicant additionally argues (Pages 8-9 of Remarks) that the claimed leguminous plant is pea.
This argument is not convincing. Calmon teaches the treatment of plant proteins including beans, peas, and faba bean [0027]. Additionally, note that where Simell teaches that phytate is common in plant seeds (which encompasses beans), it would have been obvious to modify Calmon to utilize the method of Simell for any plant seed, including peas as claimed.
Applicant additionally argues (Pages 9 of Remarks) that the disclosures of Goodnight, Kim, and Teskeredzic do not address bitterness reduction.
This argument is not convincing. Goodnight, Kim, and Teskeredzic are not relied upon to address bitterness reduction.
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 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