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 1-4 and 7, in the reply filed on 14 April 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 5 and 6 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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, 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanaka USPN 5698245.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Tanaka teaches a method of producing a plant based food (bread dough) by causing maltotriose-generating enzyme and glucose oxidase to act on the bread dough. (Col. 3, line 55-Col. 4, line 5)
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka discloses the same method of causing maltotriose generating enzyme to act on plant-based raw material recited in claim 7 and therefore must satisfy the preamble recitation of saccharide reduction.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishikawa JP 2020039283 (translation provided 5/13/24 relied on herein for translation and reference).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Ishikawa teaches a method of producing oat milk comprising causing maltotriose generating enzyme to act on the oat milk. [0008,0019,0021]
Regarding claim 7, Ishikawa discloses that the maltotriose generating enzyme treatment reduces the saccharide content. [0013]
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka USPN 5698245 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Tanaka teaches what has been recited above. Tanaka further teaches that the raw material may be treated with α-amylase with the maltotriose-generating enzyme. (Col. 3, lines 48-53) While Tanaka does not disclose treating the raw material with α-amylase prior to maltotriose-generating enzyme, the selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. (MPEP 2144.04 IV. C.) Therefore, Tanaka renders obvious the limitations of claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michele L Jacobson whose telephone number is (571)272-8905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 10-6.
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.
/Michele L Jacobson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights