DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 4, 16, 21, and 24 have been canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-20, and 22-23 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-3, 5-15 and 17-20, and of species light fraction and concentration, in the reply filed on 8/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8, 13-14 and 18-19 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claims.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 15, 17, and 20 are being examined in this application, insofar as they read on the elected species of light fraction and concentration.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 15, 17, and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1c recites “(also referred to herein as an extract rich in small fragments)” (line 2-3) and “(also referred to herein as an extract rich in large fragments)” (line 3-4). It is unclear what the parenthetical information is conveying. Further, parenthesis are reserved for reference characters and information within parenthesis has no effect on the scope of the claims. See MPEP 608.01(m).
Claim 2, line 2, the recitation of “preferably” is indefinite as it is unclear if the limitation that follows is required to meet the scope of the invention.
Claim 9, line 2, recites the limitation “the fraction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, and claim 1 recites a light fraction and a heavy fraction. It is unclear what / which fraction is being claimed in claim 9. Applicant is required to amend the claim so as to provide proper antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 10, line 1-2, recites the limitation “the fraction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 is dependent from claim 9, claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, and claim 1 recites a light fraction and a heavy fraction. It is unclear what / which fraction is being claimed in claim 10. Applicant is required to amend the claim so as to provide proper antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 12, line 2, recites the limitation “the fraction”. Claim 12 is dependent on claim 1, and claim 1 recites a light fraction and a heavy fraction. It is unclear what / which fraction is being claimed in claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is required to amend the claim so as to provide proper antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
Claim 17, line 1-2, the recitation of combining two or more fractions” renders the claim indefinite. Claim 17 is dependent from claim 15, and claim 15 recites “a fraction”. In addition, claim 15 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 recites a light fraction and a heavy fraction. It is unclear what fractions besides the light and heavy fractions are being claimed in claim 17.
Claim 20, line 1-2, recites the limitation “the product”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is required to amend the claim so as to provide proper antecedent basis for this language in the claim. In addition, claim 1 does not recite any subsequent steps after step d. It is unclear how the limitation “the product of step d), or of any subsequent steps” is being claimed.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spickermann (WO 2020/127951 A2; 6/25/2020. Cited on IDS).
The instant claims recite a method of preparing a microbial cell extract, the method comprising: a) providing a microbial biomass in an aqueous alkaline suspension, at pH 7-11; b) mechanically disintegrating the microbial biomass at a temperature below 40 deg C using a non-denaturing process, such that the disintegrated biomass consists of a population of soluble compounds and suspended fragments characterized by a bimodal distribution and a particle size distribution (psd) at an average of around D50 < 4.5 µm; c) subjecting the disintegrated biomass to a solid-liquid separation process, to separate the disintegrated biomass into a light fraction (also referred to herein as an extract rich in small fragments) and a heavy fraction (also referred to herein as an extract rich in large fragments), wherein the light fraction consists of a population of soluble compounds and suspended fragments characterized by a bimodal distribution and a psd of D50 around 0.5um or lower; and the heavy fraction consists of a population of soluble compounds and suspended fragments having a psd of D50 > 0.5um; and d) further processing either or both of the light fraction and heavy fraction to optimize one or more functional properties of said fraction(s), preferably for use in food manufacturing or cosmetics manufacturing.
Spickermann teaches a method for preparing a yeast protein concentrate (Abstract), comprising providing a suspension comprises yeast cells (a microbial biomass), adjusting the pH of the suspension to a value between 6.5 and 8.5, lysing the yeast cells by mechanical means at a temperature of below 40℃ (mechanically disintegrating using a non-denaturing process), subjecting the soluble fraction of the lysate to filtration (by concentration), and drying the solution obtained from filtration (p.3 last para, p.4 first para, p.11 para 3, p.13 para 2, Example 1), wherein the pH of the suspension is adjusted to pH 7.5 using NaOH (an aqueous alkaline suspension) (p.22 last para), yeast cell lysis is achieved by use of a bead mill (mechanically disintegrating using a non-denaturing process, such that the disintegrated biomass consists of a population of soluble compounds and suspended fragments characterized by a bimodal distribution and a particle size distribution (psd)) (p.8 para 2), separation of the soluble from the insoluble fraction is performed by centrifugation and filtration (p.10 para 3), filtration uses filters with pore sizes of 0.2-15 µm (the light fraction consists of a population of soluble compounds and suspended fragments characterized by a bimodal distribution and a psd of D50 around 0.5um or lower depending on the pore size, and the heavy fraction consists of a population of soluble compounds and suspended fragments having a psd of D50 > 0.5um depending on the pore size, since filters used have pore sizes of 0.2-15 µm) (p.11 para 2). Yeast cells comprise a yeast belonging to the genus Saccharomyces or a yeast belonging to the genus Pichia (p.5 para 2). The pH is re-adjusted to a value between 6.5 and 8.5, e.g., about 7.0 (p.10 para 2). The solution obtained after filtration is subjected to ultra-high-temperature processing (p.12 para 3). The protein concentrates prepared by the method are used for the preparation of a protein-rich food or feed product (p.7 para 3, p.21 para 4).
Spickermann does not teach the method wherein the disintegrated biomass as well as the light and heavy fractions have the claimed bimodal distribution and psd (claim 1).
However, Spickermann does teach the method comprises mechanically disintegrating the microbial biomass at a temperature below 40 deg C using a non-denaturing process as claimed. Furthermore, Spickermann does teach the method comprises separating the disintegrated biomass using centrifugation and filtration techniques, wherein filtration uses filters with pore sizes of 0.2-15 µm. In other words, one skill in the art can achieve a separation that results in a light fraction consists of a population of soluble compounds and suspended fragments characterized by a bimodal distribution and a psd of D50 around 0.5um or lower, and a heavy fraction consists of a population of soluble compounds and suspended fragments having a psd of D50 > 0.5um, depending on the pore size of the filter selected for use in the separation process.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize bimodal distribution and particle size distribution of fragments to achieve a desirable outcome, since Spickermann discloses a method for preparing a yeast protein concentrate comprises the claimed mechanical disintegration and separation steps, which are used to generate and control a precise bimodal distribution and particle size distribution. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference to optimize bimodal distribution and particle size distribution of fragments, with a reasonable expectation for successfully preparing a yeast protein concentrate.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spickermann (WO 2020/127951 A2; 6/25/2020. Cited on IDS) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 15, and 20 above, further in view of Al-Mutwalli et al (Journal of Membrane Science and Research. 2020;6:138-146.).
Spickermann does not teach the method comprises using dia-filtration (claim 5), and combining two or more fractions prior to subjecting the combination to a thermal treatment (claim 17).
However, Spickermann does teach the method comprises subjecting the soluble fraction of the lysate to filtration, wherein the solution obtained after filtration is subjected to ultra-high-temperature processing. Al-Mutwalli teaches performance evaluation of ceramic membrane on ultrafiltration and diafiltration modes for efficient recovery of whey protein (Title), comprising using diafiltration with 15kDa membrane, comprises adding specific amount of distilled water to a feed stream, wherein a permeate stream is collected separately while a concentrated stream is returned to a feed tank (combining two or more fractions), samples are taken from feed, permeate, and concentrate stream, wherein the percentage of protein increased with the increasing of diafiltration cycles (p.140 col left – para 2, p.145 col left – para 1-2).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate dia-filtration and to subject a combined two or more fractions to a thermal treatment, since Spickermann discloses a method for preparing a yeast protein concentrate comprises using filtration, wherein the solution obtained after filtration is subjected to ultra-high-temperature processing, and Al-Mutwalli discloses that the percentage of protein increased with the increasing of diafiltration cycles, wherein diafiltration involves returning a concentrated stream back to a feed tank (two or more fractions are combined). In addition, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio of water to a light fraction when using diafiltration, since Al-Mutwalli discloses that adding water during diafiltration is critical (p.139 col left – para 2). Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference to incorporate dia-filtration using an optimized water to a light fraction ratio, and to subject a combined two or more fractions to a thermal treatment, with a reasonable expectation for successfully preparing a yeast protein concentrate.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spickermann (WO 2020/127951 A2; 6/25/2020. Cited on IDS) as applied to claims 1-3, 6-7, 15, and 20 above, further in view of Ogawa et al (JP2017140023A; 8/17/2017. Cited on IDS).
Spickermann does not teach the method comprises preparing an emulsion having the claimed oil:water mass ratio (claims 9-11), and adjusting the pH to an alkaline pH (claim 12).
However, Spickermann does teach the method wherein the protein concentrates prepared by the method are used for the preparation of food. Ogawa teaches a method for producing an oil-in-water food emulsion (para 0014), wherein a yeast extract is blended in the emulsion (para 0035), the blending ratio of oil in the oil-in-water emulsion is in the range of 5 to 30% by mass (para 0019), the blending ratio of water in the oil-in-water emulsion is in the range of 58 to 93% by mass (para 0020), and the emulsion stability is improved when the pH is 8.3 or more and 9.7 or less (para 0025).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare an emulsion having the claimed oil:water mass ratio and pH, since Spickermann discloses a method wherein yeast protein concentrates are used for the preparation of food, and Ogawa discloses a yeast extract-containing oil-in-water food emulsion having the claimed oil:water mass ratio, and adjusting pH to 8.3 or more and 9.7 or less improves the emulsion stability. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to prepare an emulsion having the claimed oil:water mass ratio and pH with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 15, 17, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 7, 15, 20-21, 23-25, and 27 of co-pending Application No. 18/848,360 (referred to as the ‘360 application) in view of Spickermann (WO 2020/127951 A2; 6/25/2020. Cited on IDS), Al-Mutwalli et al (Journal of Membrane Science and Research. 2020;6:138-146.), and Ogawa et al (JP2017140023A; 8/17/2017. Cited on IDS).
Claims 1-3, 7, 15, 20-21, 23-25, and 27 of the ‘360 application recite a method of preparing a microbial cell extract, the method comprising: a) providing a microbial biomass in an aqueous alkaline suspension; b) mechanically disintegrating the microbial biomass at a temperature below 35°C to produce a disintegrated biomass, wherein the disintegrated biomass consists of a population of soluble compounds and suspended fragments characterized by a bimodal distribution and a particle size distribution (psd) at an average of around D50 < 4.5pm; c) separating the disintegrated biomass into a light fraction and a heavy fraction comprising fragments of different sizes suspended in an aqueous mixture, wherein the light fraction comprises fragments in the range 0.1-3 µm and the heavy fraction comprises fragments above 1 µm, wherein the volumetric ratio of the heavy fraction to the starting disintegrated biomass is 0.65 or more; and d) selecting only said heavy fraction.
‘360 application does not teach the method comprises using dia-filtration (claim 5), and subjecting a fraction (claim 15) or a combination of fractions to a thermal treatment (claim 17).
Spickermann teaches a method for preparing a yeast protein concentrate (Abstract), comprising providing a suspension comprises yeast cells (a microbial biomass), adjusting the pH of the suspension to a value between 6.5 and 8.5, lysing the yeast cells by mechanical means at a temperature of below 40℃ (mechanically disintegrating using a non-denaturing process), subjecting the soluble fraction of the lysate to filtration (by concentration), and drying the solution obtained from filtration (p.3 last para, p.4 first para, p.11 para 3, p.13 para 2, Example 1), wherein the pH of the suspension is adjusted to pH 7.5 using NaOH (an aqueous alkaline suspension) (p.22 last para), yeast cell lysis is achieved by use of a bead mill (p.8 para 2), separation of the soluble from the insoluble fraction is performed by centrifugation and filtration (p.10 para 3), filtration uses filters with pore sizes of 0.2-15 µm (p.11 para 2). The pH is re-adjusted to a value between 6.5 and 8.5, e.g., about 7.0 (p.10 para 2). The solution obtained after filtration is subjected to ultra-high-temperature processing (p.12 para 3). In addition, Al-Mutwalli teaches performance evaluation of ceramic membrane on ultrafiltration and diafiltration modes for efficient recovery of whey protein (Title), comprising using diafiltration with 15kDa membrane, comprises adding specific amount of distilled water to a feed stream, wherein a permeate stream is collected separately while a concentrated stream is returned to a feed tank (combining two or more fractions), samples are taken from feed, permeate, and concentrate stream, wherein the percentage of protein increased with the increasing of diafiltration cycles (p.140 col left – para 2, p.145 col left – para 1-2).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate dia-filtration and to subject a fraction or a combined fractions to a thermal treatment, since the ‘360 application and Spickermann both disclose a method for preparing a yeast protein concentrate comprises using filtration, Spickermann discloses that the solution obtained after filtration is subjected to ultra-high-temperature processing, and Al-Mutwalli discloses that the percentage of protein increased with the increasing of diafiltration cycles, wherein diafiltration involves returning a concentrated stream back to a feed tank (two or more fractions are combined). In addition, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio of water to a light fraction when using diafiltration, since Al-Mutwalli discloses that adding water during diafiltration is critical (p.139 col left – para 2). Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference to incorporate dia-filtration using an optimized water to a light fraction ratio, and to subject a fraction or a combined fractions to a thermal treatment, with a reasonable expectation for successfully preparing a yeast protein concentrate.
References cited above do not teach the method comprises preparing an emulsion having the claimed oil:water mass ratio (claims 9-11), and adjusting the pH to an alkaline pH (claim 12).
However, the ‘360 application and Spickermann do teach the method wherein the protein concentrates prepared by the method are used for the preparation of food. Ogawa teaches a method for producing an oil-in-water food emulsion (para 0014), wherein a yeast extract is blended in the emulsion (para 0035), the blending ratio of oil in the oil-in-water emulsion is in the range of 5 to 30% by mass (para 0019), the blending ratio of water in the oil-in-water emulsion is in the range of 58 to 93% by mass (para 0020), and the emulsion stability is improved when the pH is 8.3 or more and 9.7 or less (para 0025).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare an emulsion having the claimed oil:water mass ratio and pH, since the ‘360 application and Spickermann both disclose a method wherein yeast protein concentrates are used for the preparation of food, and Ogawa discloses a yeast extract-containing oil-in-water food emulsion having the claimed oil:water mass ratio, and adjusting pH to 8.3 or more and 9.7 or less improves the emulsion stability. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to prepare an emulsion having the claimed oil:water mass ratio and pH with a reasonable expectation of success.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 15, 17, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 15-16, and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No 12588687B2 (referred to as the ‘687 patent) in view of Spickermann (WO 2020/127951 A2; 6/25/2020. Cited on IDS), Al-Mutwalli et al (Journal of Membrane Science and Research. 2020;6:138-146.), and Ogawa et al (JP2017140023A; 8/17/2017. Cited on IDS).
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 15-16, and 18-20 of the ‘687 patent recite a method for preparing a microbial cell product, said method comprising: i) providing an aqueous suspension comprising microbial cells; and ii) subjecting said suspension to mechanical cell disintegration at a temperature in the range of 15-35°C., at a pH value in the range of 7-11, to obtain an aqueous suspension comprising disintegrated microbial cells; iii) separating the suspension to provide an extract enriched in small cell fragments wherein the extract enriched in small cell fragments has a particle size distribution of D50 equal to or less than 500 nm, wherein said small cell fragments have a size in the range of 0.1-3 μm, and an extract enriched in large cell fragments wherein the extract enriched in large cell fragments has a particle size distribution of D50 more than 500 nm, wherein said large cell fragments have a size in the range of 3-10 μm.
‘687 patent does not teach the method comprises using dia-filtration where the ratio of water to the light fraction is approximately 1:1 and wherein the membrane used for diafiltration is in the range of 10kDa – 1000kDa (claim 5), and subjecting a fraction (claim 15) or a combination of fractions to a thermal treatment (claim 17).
However, the ‘687 patent does teach the method comprises using dia-filtration. Spickermann teaches a method for preparing a yeast protein concentrate (Abstract), comprising providing a suspension comprises yeast cells (a microbial biomass), adjusting the pH of the suspension to a value between 6.5 and 8.5, lysing the yeast cells by mechanical means at a temperature of below 40℃ (mechanically disintegrating using a non-denaturing process), subjecting the soluble fraction of the lysate to filtration (by concentration), and drying the solution obtained from filtration (p.3 last para, p.4 first para, p.11 para 3, p.13 para 2, Example 1), wherein the pH of the suspension is adjusted to pH 7.5 using NaOH (an aqueous alkaline suspension) (p.22 last para), yeast cell lysis is achieved by use of a bead mill (p.8 para 2), separation of the soluble from the insoluble fraction is performed by centrifugation and filtration (p.10 para 3), filtration uses filters with pore sizes of 0.2-15 µm (p.11 para 2). The pH is re-adjusted to a value between 6.5 and 8.5, e.g., about 7.0 (p.10 para 2). The solution obtained after filtration is subjected to ultra-high-temperature processing (p.12 para 3). In addition, Al-Mutwalli teaches performance evaluation of ceramic membrane on ultrafiltration and diafiltration modes for efficient recovery of whey protein (Title), comprising using diafiltration with 15kDa membrane, comprises adding specific amount of distilled water to a feed stream, wherein a permeate stream is collected separately while a concentrated stream is returned to a feed tank (combining two or more fractions), samples are taken from feed, permeate, and concentrate stream, wherein the percentage of protein increased with the increasing of diafiltration cycles (p.140 col left – para 2, p.145 col left – para 1-2).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate dia-filtration and to subject a fraction or a combined fractions to a thermal treatment, since the ‘687 patent discloses a method for preparing a yeast protein concentrate comprises using diafiltration, Spickermann discloses that the solution obtained after filtration is subjected to ultra-high-temperature processing, and Al-Mutwalli discloses that the percentage of protein increased with the increasing of diafiltration cycles, wherein diafiltration involves returning a concentrated stream back to a feed tank (two or more fractions are combined). In addition, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the ratio of water to a light fraction when using diafiltration, since Al-Mutwalli discloses that adding water during diafiltration is critical (p.139 col left – para 2). Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference to incorporate dia-filtration using an optimized water to a light fraction ratio, and to subject a fraction or a combined fractions to a thermal treatment, with a reasonable expectation for successfully preparing a yeast protein concentrate.
References cited above do not teach the method comprises preparing an emulsion having the claimed oil:water mass ratio (claims 9-11), and adjusting the pH to an alkaline pH (claim 12).
However, the ‘687 patent and Spickermann do teach the method wherein the protein concentrates prepared by the method are used for the preparation of food. Ogawa teaches a method for producing an oil-in-water food emulsion (para 0014), wherein a yeast extract is blended in the emulsion (para 0035), the blending ratio of oil in the oil-in-water emulsion is in the range of 5 to 30% by mass (para 0019), the blending ratio of water in the oil-in-water emulsion is in the range of 58 to 93% by mass (para 0020), and the emulsion stability is improved when the pH is 8.3 or more and 9.7 or less (para 0025).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare an emulsion having the claimed oil:water mass ratio and pH, since the ‘687 patent and Spickermann both disclose a method wherein yeast protein concentrates are used for the preparation of food, and Ogawa discloses a yeast extract-containing oil-in-water food emulsion having the claimed oil:water mass ratio, and adjusting pH to 8.3 or more and 9.7 or less improves the emulsion stability. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference and routine practice to prepare an emulsion having the claimed oil:water mass ratio and pH with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN Y FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3541. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571)272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Lynn Y Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights