Obviousness

I cannot perform a comprehensive obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for US patent 11825860 at this time.

The provided patent text includes a "Prior art keywords" section listing terms such as "gmp," "protein," "denatured," "whey," and "whey protein." While these keywords indicate areas of prior art relevant to the patent's subject matter, they do not constitute specific prior art references (e.g., patent numbers, journal articles, or publications) that can be individually analyzed for their disclosures and then combined to demonstrate obviousness.

Additionally, the "Detailed Description" section references two publications (Walstra et al., 2006, and Foegeding et al., 2011) to describe conventional compositions of whey. However, without access to the full content of these or other specific prior art references, and without explicit instruction to search for and analyze them, it is not possible to identify specific disclosures, determine a person having ordinary skill in the art's motivation to combine them, or formulate a proper obviousness argument for the claims of US11825860.

To conduct an obviousness analysis, specific prior art documents are required to determine if all limitations of the claims are disclosed, either explicitly or inherently, in one or more references, and to establish a rational motivation for combining such references if necessary.