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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Tables I and II are unclear and hard to read.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (JP 2000-210017).
A machine translation is cited below and has been provided by the Examiner.
Regarding Claim 1, Yamaguchi teaches a cheese-like food (Paragraph 7 of machine translation), comprising fat globules as Yamaguchi teaches the cheese-like food comprises 80% by weight or more of oil droplets are adjusted to a particle size in the range of 1.15-10.10 microns (Paragraph 6). Claim 1 recites “an abundance ratio of fat globules each having a diameter of from 7 microns to 19 microns is 30% or more”, where this is understood to mean that at least 30% or more of the fat globules have a particle size in the range 7-19 microns. Since Yamaguchi teaches that 80% or more of the oil droplets have a particle size in the range of 1.15-10.10 microns, this range overlaps with the recited range and therefore renders obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, the claimed limitation of 30% or more fat globules having a particle size in the claimed range. Claim 1 also recites “an abundance ratio of at globules each having a diameter of 20 microns or more thereto is less than 8%”, which is understood to be that less than 8% of the fat globules have a diameter of 20 microns or more. Since Yamaguchi teaches that 80% or more of the fat droplets have a particle size in the range of 1.15-10.10 microns, this reads on 100% of the fat droplets in the disclosed range, therefore rendering obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art no fat droplets having a particle size of 20 microns or greater. Therefore, Applicant’s claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, in light of the teachings of Yamaguchi.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamaguchi teaches a protein content of the cheese-like food in the range of 2-15% by weight, more preferably 4-10% by weight (Paragraph 7), which is less than 13% by mass, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, while Yamaguchi does not specifically teach the claimed oil-off, since Yamaguchi teaches a fat globule/droplet size distribution that teaches and renders obvious the claimed limitations, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected a comparable oil-off value as well.
Regarding Claims 4-6, Yamaguchi teaches a method of manufacturing a cheese-like food and teaches or renders obvious the limitations relating to the fat globule diameter and protein content, as set forth above. Regarding the claimed method steps, Yamaguchi teaches preparing an aqueous phase by mixing a casein sodium (sodium caseinate) with water (Paragraph 14, Example 1), where the casein sodium casein is a raw material as claimed, further teaching adding butter (fat) and oil and lecithin and sufficiently emulsifying the mixture at 60C, all done in a homomixer with stirring (Paragraph 14, Example 1). Yamaguchi teaches the homomixer has a stirrer having a relatively strong shearing force (Paragraphs 8-12). Yamaguchi is deemed to teach the melting apparatus because Yamaguchi teaches the fat and oil components used have melting points of about 15-40̊C and since Yamaguchi teaches emulsifying and heating the mixture at a temperature of 60̊C, the fats and oils would be melted at the above temperature. Therefore, Yamaguchi teaches stirring the components together, adding water and heating the contents of the melting apparatus, while stirring, to melt the contents. While Yamaguchi does not specifically teach adding water under a state in which stirring is stopped, since Yamaguchi teaches the final cheese-like product is formed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that whether the ingredients are added all together or sequentially, would not have significantly affected the final cheese-like product. Therefore, it would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the method steps to most efficiently prepare the cheese-like product. Furthermore, it has been found that “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.” See MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, as set forth above, Yamaguchi teaches adding the sodium caseinate, which is understood to be a solid material.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (JP 2000-210017) in view of Atapattu et al. (USPA 2014/0154388).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamaguchi is taken as cited above in the rejection of Claim 4 but does not teach the raw material does not further contain natural cheese.
Atapattu teaches of preparing cheese-like products and teaches that cheese analogues are typically categorized as dairy, partial dairy or non-dairy, depending on whether the fat and/or dairy components are from dairy or vegetable sources (Paragraph 4). Atapattu teaches that casein is one of the major components in cheese analogues and this protein is commonly found in mammalian milk, making up 80% of the proteins in cows milk (Paragraph 6). While it is not entirely clear what is meant by “natural cheese”, since Yamaguchi teaches adding sodium caseinate, and casein is present in natural cheese product, Yamaguchi is seen to teach adding “natural cheese” in terms of adding components that make up natural cheese.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA A WATTS whose telephone number is (571)270-7368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 9am-4:30pm.
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.
JENNA A. WATTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1791
/JENNA A WATTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791 6/10/2026
Prosecution Insights