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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: it appears the “s” in “αs” should be a subscript. Appropriate correction is required.
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 12-15 and 19 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “at least 90%”, and the claim also recites “at least 95%” and “at least 99%” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “at least 90%”, and the claim also recites “at least 95%” and “at least 99%” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “at least 95%”, and the claim also recites “at least 99%” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “at least 90%”, and the claim also recites “at least 95%” and “at least 99%” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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(s) 1-11, 15-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobson et al. (US 2006/0062885) in view of Barbarini (US 2023/0189833).
Regarding Claim 1, Jacobson (‘885) teaches a cheese or cheese-like product comprising a) about 0.2 to about 35% by weight of casein (See paras. 49, 50, no more than 6%.), b) one or more hydrocolloids, comprising at least one of a starch or a gum (See paras. 49, 50.), however, fails to expressly set forth the types and amounts of caseins.
It is noted that Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing caseins with any one particular profile over another.
Barbarini (‘833) teaches a product similar to Jacobson (‘885) that provides plant-based protein rich food produces wherein the casein proteins are alpha proteins (See Abs., paras. 4, 31, 66, 113, 120, 121, Claim 44.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earlies effective filing date since Barbarini (‘833) and Jacobson’s (‘885) cheese-like product are substantially similar as Applicant’s it would have been obvious to select a casein with the profiled as claimed and as taught by Barbarini (‘833) for Jacobson’s (‘885) product that is effective for providing a plant-based product that satisfies the preference of a user.
Regarding Claim 2, Jacobson (‘885) teaches wherein the cheese or cheese-like product comprises at least one starch (See paras. 57, 75 and claim 9.).
Regarding Claim 3, Jacobson (‘885) teaches wherein the at least one starch comprises a modified starch (See paras. 57, 75 and claim 9.).
Regarding Claim 4, Jacobson (‘885) teaches wherein the modified starch is modified potato starch (See para. 57.).
Regarding Claim 5, Jacobson (‘885) teaches wherein the cheese or cheese-like product comprises at least about 1% by weight starch (See para. 75, 2%.).
Regarding Claim 6, Jacobson (‘885) teaches wherein the cheese or cheese-like product comprises from about 1% to about 30% by weight starch (See para. 75, 2%.).
Regarding Claim 7, Jacobson (‘885) teaches wherein the cheese-like product is a vegetarian or vegan cheese (See para. 75.).
Regarding Claim 8, Jacobson (‘885) teaches wherein the cheese or cheese-like product is a pasta filata cheese or pasta filata cheese-like product (See Abs. claim 1, no specific properties are set forth in the claim.).
Regarding Claim 9, Jacobson (‘885) teaches wherein the pasta filata cheese or cheese-like product is a mozzarella or mozzarella-like product (See Abs. claim 1, no specific properties are set forth in the claim.).
Regarding Claim 10, Jacobson (‘885) teaches the product discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the α1-casein or α2-casein is recombinant α1-casein or recombinant α2-casein.
Barbarini (‘833) teaches a product similar to Jacobson (‘885) that provides plant-based protein rich food produces wherein the casein proteins are recombinant including are alpha proteins (See Abs., paras. 4, 31, 66, 113, 120, 121, Claim 44.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earlies effective filing date since Barbarini (‘833) and Jacobson’s (‘885) cheese-like product are substantially similar as Applicant’s it would have been obvious to select a casein as taught by Barbarini (‘833) for Jacobson’s (‘885) product that is effective for providing a plant-based product that satisfies the preference of a user.
Regarding Claim 11, Jacobson (‘885) teaches the product discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the recombinant α1-casein or recombinant α2-casein is a bovine α1-casein or α2-casein, or variant thereof.
Barbarini (‘833) teaches a product similar to Jacobson (‘885) that provides plant-based protein rich food produces wherein the casein proteins are recombinant including are bovine alpha proteins (See paras. 31, 66, 113, 120, Claim 43, 44.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earlies effective filing date since Barbarini (‘833) and Jacobson’s (‘885) cheese-like product are substantially similar as Applicant’s it would have been obvious to select a casein as taught by Barbarini (‘833) for Jacobson’s (‘885) product that is effective for providing a plant-based product that satisfies the preference of a user.
Regarding Claim 15, Jacobson (‘885) teaches the product discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein αs-casein comprises at least 95% or 99% by weight of total protein in the cheese or cheese-like product.
Barbarini (‘833) teaches a product similar to Jacobson (‘885) that provides plant-based protein rich food produces wherein the casein proteins are recombinant including are alpha proteins (See Abs., paras. 4, 31, 66, 113, 120, 121, Claim 44.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earlies effective filing date since Barbarini (‘833) and Jacobson’s (‘885) cheese-like product are substantially similar as Applicant’s it would have been obvious to select a casein as taught by Barbarini (‘833) for Jacobson’s (‘885) product that is effective for providing a plant-based product that satisfies the preference of a user.
Regarding Claim 16, Jacobson (‘885) teaches wherein the cheese or cheese-like product comprises about 0.5 to about 30% by weight total protein (See paras. 49, 50, no more than 6%.).
Regarding Claim 17, Jacobson (‘885) teaches a cheese or cheese-like product comprising a) about 0.2 to about 35% by weight of casein (See paras. 49, 50, no more than 6%.), b) from about 1% to about 30% by weight of one or more starches (See paras. 49, 50.), however, fails to expressly set forth the types and amounts of caseins.
It is noted that Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing caseins with any one particular profile over another.
Barbarini (‘833) teaches a product similar to Jacobson (‘885) that provides plant-based protein rich food produces wherein the casein proteins are alpha proteins (See Abs., paras. 4, 31, 66, 113, 120, 121, Claim 44.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earlies effective filing date since Barbarini (‘833) and Jacobson’s (‘885) cheese-like product are substantially similar as Applicant’s it would have been obvious to select a casein with the profiled as claimed and as taught by Barbarini (‘833) for Jacobson’s (‘885) product that is effective for providing a plant-based product that satisfies the preference of a user.
Regarding Claim 18, Jacobson (‘885) teaches teaches the product discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the recombinant α1-casein is a mature bovine α1-casein.
Barbarini (‘833) teaches a product similar to Jacobson (‘885) that provides plant-based protein rich food produces wherein the casein proteins are recombinant including are bovine alpha proteins (See paras. 31, 66, 113, 120, Claim 43, 44.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earlies effective filing date since Barbarini (‘833) and Jacobson’s (‘885) cheese-like product are substantially similar as Applicant’s it would have been obvious to select a casein as taught by Barbarini (‘833) for Jacobson’s (‘885) product that is effective for providing a plant-based product that satisfies the preference of a user.
Regarding Claim 20, Jacobson (‘885) teaches wherein the pasta filata cheese or cheese-like product is a mozzarella or mozzarella-like product (See Abs. claim 1, no specific properties are set forth in the claim.).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights