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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11 are pending and currently under examination and the subject matter of the present Office Action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2026 and 11/19/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention.
In this case, the Abstract recites “…with which it is possible to impart improved stretch property to a plant cheese”, which can be construed as speculative application. As such, correction is required.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: For consistency with the field terminology, “plant cheese” should be replaced throughout the Specification with “plant-based cheese”.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“Aspergillus” in Claims 4 and 11 should be italicized.
For consistency with the field terminology, “plant cheese” in Claims 1, 9, and 10 should be replaced throughout the Specification with “plant-based cheese”.
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Palaniswamy et al. (WO2022076349 A1), hereinafter Palaniswamy.
Palaniswamy discloses methods and compositions for making analog cheese comprising crosslinked plant protein (Abstract).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10, Palaniswamy expressly teaches preparing analog cheese with pea protein and bromelain protease (Example 1); and different bromelain treatments (Fig 1B and 1C; [0005]). Palaniswamy relates that for analog cheeses where bromelain is used, it is also deactivated [0008]. Proteases such as bromelain and papain soften and tenderize the analog cheese [0007]. Palaniswamy teaches embodiments where additional texturizing ingredients such as starch are added to adjust the hardness of cheese [0011]. As such, while Palaniswamy does not exemplify the claimed method, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to take guidance from Palaniswamy and prepare an analog cheese by treating a plant protein-containing substrate with a protease to soften its texture for cheese, and then add starch as texturizing agent to adjust the hardness.
Regarding Claim 7, Palaniswamy expressly teaches an analog cheese comprising 4% starch and 15.39% total protein, which the Examiner calculates to be equivalent to 0.26:1 starch to plant protein.
Regarding Claim 9, Palaniswamy has taught all the claimed features as discussed supra. Because Palaniswamy taught the production of the claimed plant cheese, which the instant claim and specification notes to improve the stretch property [0012], the art therefore renders obvious the feature of the claim that allowing a protease to act on a material containing a plant protein, deactivating the protease, and mixing a starch would improve the stretch property of a plant-based cheese as it is an inherent property. It is noted that In re Best (195 USPQ 430) and In re Fitzgerald (205 USPQ 594) discuss the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter, which there is reason to believe inherently includes functions that are newly cited, or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to “prove that subject matter to be shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on” (205 USPQ 594). There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.
Claims 2, 4-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Palaniswamy, as applied to Claims 1, 7, and 9-10 above, and in view of Holz-Schietinger et al. (JP 2016-502868 A, cited in IDS, machine translated in IP.com), hereinafter Holz-Schietinger.
Regarding Claims 2-4 and 11, Palaniswamy is silent on the fungus-derived protease, particularly from a Aspergillus.
Holz-Schietinger discloses methods and compositions for making cheese replicas by inducing enzymatic coagulation of non-dairy milk (Abstract; Claim 1). Holz-Schietinger teaches the different proteases suitable for the cheese making include papain, bromelain, rennet, protease derived from Aspergillus oryzae etc. (p. 25, 2nd paragraph).
It would also have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the bromelain protease of Palaniswamy with other proteases including those derived from Aspergillus oryzae. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding Claim 5, Palaniswamy does not teach adding and deactivating the peptidase together with the protease.
Holz-Schietinger expressly teaches preparing cheese replica by adding proteases and/or lipases with nut milk, e.g. the combination of papain (protease) and fromase (peptidase) to nut milk (Examples 1 and 2). Holz-Schietinger teaches protein denaturation by heating (p. 26, 7th paragraph; p. 28, last paragraph). In some embodiments, solidification includes a combination of two or more methods, which may use transglutaminase which can be combined with other proteins, making it compatible with Palaniswamy (p. 29, 3rd to last paragraph). Palaniswamy teaches that certain combinations of proteases and lipases create different flavor profiles according to testers, e.g. nutty, sweet, fruity etc. (p. 23, last paragraph). Hence, one with ordinary skill in the art would have applied the known technique of combining different enzymes starting with, for example, a protease and peptidase as taught by Holz-Schietinger, to obtain different flavor profiles. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding Claim 6, Holz-Schietinger teaches additives selected from the group consisting of isolated amino acids or food products, yeast extract, miso, organic acids etc. (Claim 32). Holz-Schietinger relates that organic acids can control flavor production by bacteria in non-dairy substitutes (p. 19, last paragraph).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Palaniswamy, as applied to Claims 1, 7, and 9-10 above, and in view of Komansilan et al. (Curr. Res. Nutr Food Sci Jour., Vol. 9(2) 578-587 (2021)), hereinafter Komansilan.
Regarding Claim 8, Palaniswamy does not teach the protease activity range.
Komansilan is in a related field and teaches rennet substitution in cheese production for product diversification, and various factors such as religious concerns, diet limitation and ban on calf rennet in several countries (Abstract; Introduction, 2nd paragraph). Komansilan discloses the study on physicochemical characteristics and protein profile of cottage cheese made by using the crude extract of bromelain enzyme (Abstract). Komansilan teaches the protein content of cottage cheese added with different bromelain enzyme concentrations showed significant differences, with the highest protein content when 3% bromelain concentration was used, with the bromelain enzyme having a specific activity at 4.5 units/mg protein (p. 582, L. Col.; Table 1). 3% bromelain had more efficient protease activity which affect the protein content of the product, producing optimum cheese yield (p. 582, R. Col., 1st paragraph; p. 583, R. Col., 1st paragraph). By Examiner’s calculation, the specific activity is equivalent to 4500 U/g plant protein, which is within the claimed range.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Komansilan to that of Palaniswamy, and use the bromelain concentration and activity in accordance to Komansilan. As such, one would start with 3% concentration of bromelain having a protease activity at to 4500 U/g plant protein, which Komansilan teaches to be efficient as a rennet substitute in initiating milk coagulation.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10-6 EST.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (571) 270-3475. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JANICE Y SILVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights