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 .
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The Title is “Recombinant Milk Properties …” while the claimed invention is directed to “a food composition”. Please change the order of the language in the Title to reflect the claimed invention.
Abstract
The Abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is directed to inventions other than what is claimed. Please amend the Abstract so it is directed to the claimed composition. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 25. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 14, 17-19 and 26 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "said characteristic" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "said at least one characteristic".
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a β-casein" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "said β-casein".
Claim 18 recites the limitation "a α-S1 casein" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "said α-S1 casein".
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a α-S2 casein" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "said α-S2 casein".
Claim 26 is rejected as having an improper Markush group. The phrase “consisting of … or orange oil” should state “consisting of … and orange oil”.
Clarification and/or correction is required.
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) 1-5, 10-12, 14 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lanquar et al. (US 10,947,552).
Regarding Claim 1, Lanquar (‘552) teaches a composition comprising a) a plant-expressed recombinant fusion protein comprising: i) a first milk protein, and ii) a second milk protein (See Abs., col. 1, ll. 15-19, 23+, 56-63, col. 7, ll. 20-26, col. 16, l. 39+, col. 30, l. 4+, 17+ where the claim does not require the protein to be different.), however, fails to expressly disclose the composition being a food composition.
However, Lanquar (‘552) teaches the composition being safe and usable in food compositions (See Abs.). It would have been obvious and foreseeable prior to the earliest effective filing date that Lanquar’s (‘552) casein milk protein composition would be usable as a food composition as Lanquar (‘552) describes the composition as being safe and thus usable for food compositions. The incorporation of Lanquar’s (‘552) composition into food would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Regarding Claim 2, Lanquar (‘552) teaches wherein the first milk protein is a casein protein (See Abs., col. 1, ll. 15-19, 23+, 56-63, col. 7, ll. 20-26, col. 16, l. 39+, col. 30, l. 4+, 17+.).
Regarding Claim 3, Lanquar (‘552) teaches wherein the first milk protein is a casein protein (See Abs., col. 1, ll. 15-19, 23+, 56-63, col. 7, ll. 20-26, col. 16, l. 39+, col. 30, l. 4+, 17+.).
Regarding Claim 4, Lanquar (‘552) teaches wherein the first and second milk protein are a casein protein (See Abs., col. 1, ll. 15-19, 23+, 56-63, col. 7, ll. 20-26, col. 16, l. 39+, col. 30, l. 4+, 17+.).
Regarding Claim 5, Lanquar (‘552) teaches wherein the first and/or second milk protein are a casein protein selected from the group consisting of α-S1 casein, α-S2 casein, β-casein, κ-casein, para-κ-casein (See col.2, l. 5+, col. 11, l. 3+, col. 16, l. 45+.).
Regarding Claim 10, Lanquar (‘552) teaches wherein the alternative dairy food composition has at least one characteristic that is substantially similar to bovine milk selected from taste, appearance, mouthfeel, structure, texture, density, elasticity, springiness, coagulation, binding, leavening, aeration, foaming, creaminess, and emulsification (See Abs., col. 1, ll. 15-19, 23+, 56-63, col. 7, ll. 20-26, col. 16, l. 39+, col. 30, l. 4+, 17+).
Regarding Claim 11, Lanquar (‘552) teaches wherein the food is cheese (See col. 30, ll. 34-41.).
Regarding Claim 12, Lanquar (‘552) teaches wherein the food is cheese (See col. 30, ll. 34-41.).
Regarding Claim 14, Lanquar (‘552) teaches wherein the food composition has at least one characteristic that is substantially similar to a dairy food composition made with bovine milk, said characteristic selected from taste, appearance, mouthfeel, structure, texture, density, elasticity, springiness, coagulation, binding, leavening, aeration, foaming, creaminess, and emulsification (See Abs., col. 1, ll. 15-19, 23+, 56-63, col. 7, ll. 20-26, col. 16, l. 39+, col. 30, l. 4+, 17+.).
Regarding Claim 28, Lanquar (‘552) teaches wherein the first milk protein and the second milk protein are the same milk protein (See Abs., col. 1, ll. 15-19, 23+, 56-63, col. 7, ll. 20-26, col. 16, l. 39+, col. 30, l. 4+, 17+.).
Claim(s) 1-8, 10-12, 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Richani et al. (US 2018/0291392).
Regarding Claim 1, El-Richani (‘392) teaches a food composition (See paras. 158, 336, 339, 380.) comprising: a) a plant-expressed recombinant fusion protein (See paras. 11, 172-179, 188, 224.) comprising: (i) a first milk protein (See paras. 11, 172-179, 188, 224.); and (ii) a second milk protein (See paras. 11, 172-179, 188, 224.), however, fails to expressly disclose each within a single embodiment.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine them in the manner as claimed based on end use. Selecting what and how to combine would have been within the skill set a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a composition that is satisfactory for its intended use.
Regarding Claim 2, El-Richani (‘392) teaches wherein the first milk protein is a casein protein (See paras. 11, 172-179, 188, 224.).
Regarding Claim 3, El-Richani (‘392) teaches wherein the first milk protein is a casein protein (See paras. 11, 172-179, 188, 224.).
Regarding Claim 4, El-Richani (‘392) teaches wherein the first and second milk protein are a casein protein (See paras. 11, 172-179, 188, 224.).
Regarding Claim 5, El-Richani (‘392) teaches wherein the first and/or second milk protein are a casein protein selected from the group consisting of α-S1 casein, α-S2 casein, β-casein, κ-casein, para-κ-casein (See paras. 11, 172-179, 188, 224.).
Regarding Claim 7, El-Richani (‘392) teaches wherein the food composition does not comprise any non-transgenic animal milk proteins (See paras. 11, 284-285, 339.).
Regarding Claim 8, El-Richani (‘392) teaches wherein the food composition does not comprise any non-casein animal milk proteins (See paras. 11, 284-285, 339.).
Regarding Claim 10, El-Richani (‘392) teaches wherein the food composition has at least one characteristic that is substantially similar to bovine milk selected from taste, appearance, mouthfeel, structure, texture, density, elasticity, springiness, coagulation, binding, leavening, aeration, foaming, creaminess, and emulsification (See para. 339).
Regarding Claim 11, El-Richani (‘392) teaches food is cheese and processed cheese products, yogurt and fermented dairy products, fermented dairy products, frozen dairy products, frozen desserts, desserts, baked goods, toppings, soups, sauces, creams and creamers, baby formula, infant formula, milk, dairy beverages, clinical nutrition products, meat products, yogurt (See paras. 336, 338, 339.).
Regarding Claim 12, El-Richani (‘392) teaches the food composition which is a cheese composition (See paras. 336, 339.).
Regarding Claim 24, El-Richani (‘392) teaches the food composition comprising at least one lipid (See paras. 121, 336, 339, 380.).
Regarding Claim 25-27, El-Richani (‘392) teaches the food composition discussed above, however, fails to expressly describe the type of lipid.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select any known lipid based on end use. Selecting of lipid would have been within the skill set a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a composition that is satisfactory for its intended use.
Regarding Claim 29, El-Richani (‘392) teaches wherein the first milk protein and the second milk protein are a different milk protein (See paras. 11, 172-179, 188, 224.).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Richani et al. (US 2018/0291392) in view of “Foods For Bone Health: Get Your Calcium Here”, Prevention (2012).
Regarding Claim 9, El-Richani (‘392) teaches the food composition discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose which comprises calcium at a concentration of about 0.01 to about 2% by weight.
Given that El-Richani (‘392) teaches the dairy substitutes may be yogurt, cream cheese, fresh cheese (cottage cheese), frozen desserts, and milk (See paras. 336, 339.), and it is understood that, generally, yogurt has a calcium content of about 0.1-0.2%, cream cheese has a calcium content of about 0.1%, fresh cheese (cottage cheese) has a calcium content of about 0.06%, frozen yogurt has a calcium content of about 0.15%, and milk has a calcium content of about 0.1-0.2% as shown in Foods For Bone Health (See Table, pp. 2-3.), it would have been foreseeable and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select any portions of the disclosed ranges, including the instantly claimed range of calcium, from the ranges disclosed in Foods For Bone Health.
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 May 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights