Patent Application 16093025 - COMPOUNDS THAT MODULATE CALCIUM-SENSING RECEPTOR

Title: COMPOUNDS THAT MODULATE CALCIUM-SENSING RECEPTOR ACTIVITY FOR MODULATING KOKUMI TASTE AND PET FOOD PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME

Application Information

Invention Title: COMPOUNDS THAT MODULATE CALCIUM-SENSING RECEPTOR ACTIVITY FOR MODULATING KOKUMI TASTE AND PET FOOD PRODUCTS CONTAINING THE SAME
Application Number: 16093025
Submission Date: 2025-04-08T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2018-10-11T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2018-10-11T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 426
National Sub-Class: 537000
Examiner Employee Number: 87456
Art Unit: 1793
Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 2
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

US 0344407🔗

Office Action Text

DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114), the Response and Amendment filed 03/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by virtue of the amendment of the claims: (1) the objection to claim 29 has been withdrawn; and (2) the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 51 has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 29, 31, 32, 34-38, 40, and 51-54
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously canceled claims: 1-28, 30, 33, 39, 41-50, and 55-58
Newly canceled claims: None
Amended claims: 29 and 51
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 29, 31, 32, 34-38, 40, and 51-54
Currently rejected claims: 29, 31, 32, 34-38, 40, and 51-54
Allowed claims: None

Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/27/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –

(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

Claim 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 51-54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Lengerich (U.S. 6,723,358 B1), as evidenced by Hancock et al. (U.S. 2015/0344407 A1).
Regarding claim 29, Van Lengerich discloses a food product (C3, L23-L24) comprising fendiline (C8, L62-L67; C9, L1-L10; C9, L25-L27; C13, L21) in an amount of about 1-85% by weight (C13, L26-L35). Hancock et al. discloses the structure of fendiline ([0006]), which corresponds to the claimed structure when R9 is phenyl. Fendiline has a molecular weight of 315.5 g/mol. A concentration of about 1-85% by weight equates to about 0.03-2.69 M, which overlaps the claimed range. Van Lengerich thus discloses a food product comprising the claimed compound (when R9 is phenyl) at a concentration of about 1 mM to about 1 M. The disclosure is considered to be sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range due to the breadth of the claimed range and the lack of any effect required as a result of the inclusion of the compound. MPEP 2131.03 II.
As for claim 31, the taste characteristics of a particular compound are considered to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 (“if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”). Since Van Lengerich discloses a food product comprising the claimed compound in amounts that meet and exceed the maximum amount of claim 29, the compound is considered to be present in an amount effective to increase a kokumi taste of the food product, as determined by a panel of taste tasters.
As for claim 32, the taste characteristics of a particular compound are considered to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 (“if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”). Since Van Lengerich discloses a food product comprising the claimed compound in amounts that meet and exceed the maximum amount of claim 29, the compound is considered to be present in an amount effective to increase the palatability of the food product, as determined by a panel of taste testers.
As for claim 34, Van Lengerich discloses the food product comprises a pet food product (C18, L4-L6, L12-L13).
As for claim 35, Van Lengerich discloses the food product as being a feline or canine pet food product (C18, L12-L13).
As for claim 37, Van Lengerich discloses the pet food as being an “animal feed” (C18, L12), which is presumed as being a dry pet food product.
As for claim 38, Van Lengerich discloses a method of mixing a food product with the fendiline (C14, L29-L30). Van Lengerich discloses the fendiline as being in an amount of about 1-85% by weight (C13, L26-L35). The taste characteristics of a particular compound are considered to be inherent. MPEP 2112.01 (“if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”). Since Van Lengerich discloses a food product comprising the claimed compound in amounts that meet and exceed the maximum amount of claim 29, the compound is considered to be present in an amount effective to increase a kokumi taste of the food product, as determined by a panel of taste tasters.
As for claim 51, Van Lengerich discloses the compound is present at a concentration of about 10 mM to about 1 M (C13, L26-L35, where a range of 1-85% by weight equates to about 0.03-2.69 M fendiline). The disclosure is considered to be sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range due to the breadth of the claimed range and the lack of any effect required as a result of the inclusion of the compound. MPEP 2131.03 II.
As for claim 52, Van Lengerich discloses the compound is present at a concentration of about 0.0001-10% w/w in the food product (specifically, 1-85% by weight) (C13, L26-L35). The disclosure is considered to be sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range due to the lack of any effect required as a result of the inclusion of the compound. MPEP 2131.03 II.
As for claim 53, Van Lengerich discloses the compound is present at a concentration of about 0.001-5% w/w in the food product (specifically, 1-85% by weight) (C13, L26-L35). The disclosure is considered to be sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range due to the lack of any effect required as a result of the inclusion of the compound. MPEP 2131.03 II.
As for claim 54, Van Lengerich discloses the compound is present at a concentration of about 0.01-1% w/w in the food product (specifically, 1-85% by weight) (C13, L26-L35). The disclosure is considered to be sufficiently specific to anticipate the claimed range due to the lack of any effect required as a result of the inclusion of the compound. MPEP 2131.03 II.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Lengerich (U.S. 6,723,358 B1), as evidenced by Hancock et al. (U.S. 2015/0344407 A1) and Jensen et al. (Jensen, A. and Brauner-Osborne, H., “Allosteric Modulation of the Calcium-Sensing Receptor,” Current Neuropharmacology, 2007, 5, 180-186).
Regarding claim 40, Van Lengerich discloses the flavor composition of claim 29, including consumption of the product by a human or animal (C18, L4-L6). Jensen et al. discloses that fendiline is a relatively weak allosteric potentiator of CaR (i.e., calcium-sensing receptor) (p. 182, column 2, ¶2). Van Lengerich thus essentially discloses a method of modulating the activity of a calcium-sensing receptor comprising contacting a receptor with the composition, where consumption of a fendiline-containing food composition implicitly indicates the fendiline contacts a calcium-sensing receptor upon mastication of the food product.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Lengerich (U.S. 6,723,358 B1), as evidenced by Hancock et al. (U.S. 2015/0344407 A1).
As for claims 36, the disclosure of Van Lengerich that the food product may be pet food products (C18, L12-L13) is adequate to deem the claimed requirement that the product is wet obvious, since such a pet food type is extremely commonplace in the art.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant has overcome the objection of claim 29 based on amendment to the claim. Accordingly, the claim objection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112: Applicant has overcome the 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection of claim 51 based on amendment to the claim. Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 29, 31, 32, 34-38, 40, and 51-54 over Tachdjian II: Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot to the extent they address Tachdjian II because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant further argued that “claim 29 has been amended to reflect the following 11 compounds…” (Applicant’s Remarks, p. 7, ¶3).
Claim 29 is not limited to just the 11 listed compounds, though, which undermines Applicant’s arguments related to those specific compounds, since the claim is not commensurate in scope with the arguments (Applicant’s Remarks, p. 7, ¶3 – p. 8, ¶1).
The rejections of claims 29, 31, 32, 34-38, 40, and 51-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been maintained herein, in view of newly-cited prior art references.
Conclusion
Claims 29, 31, 32, 34-38, 40, and 51-54 are rejected.
No claims are allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG whose telephone number is (571)270-5272. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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 on 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.

/JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793