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 .
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 after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.114 has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim status
The examiner acknowledged the amendment made to the claims on 12/22/2025.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 14-17 and 19-22 are pending in the present application. Claims 4-7, 10-13 and 18 are previously cancelled. Claims 1 and 14 are currently amended. Rest of claims are previously presented. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 8-9, 14-17, and 19-22 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 14-17, and 19-22 ae rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 14 recite a meat batter that comprises 60-95 wt% at least one of raw material of meat and meat by-product. The examiner does not find the support for such a limitation in the disclosure as originally filed. It is noted that para. [0058] of the instant specification recites that the meat batter comprises 60-95% protein, however, such a recitation cannot be interpreted that the meat batter comprises the same amount of raw material of meat by meat by-product, since the raw material does not contain 100% protein.
Claims 2-3, 8-9 and 21 depend from claim 1, and claims 15-17, 19-20 and 22 depend from claim 14, and therefore incorporate the written description deficiency therein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 14-17 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cully US Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0100591 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Cully) in view of Cadet PH 26746 A (hereinafter referred to as Cadet), Ray US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0320085 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Ray), Reiser US Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0208612 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Reiser), Rolan US Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0268112 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Rolan) and Schlebusch US Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0314933 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Schlebusch).
Regarding claims 1-3, 8-9, 14, 17 and 19-22, Cully teaches a process for the production of a meat analogue (e.g., non-meat food product having the appearance and texture of cooked meat; 0004), comprising the steps of: preparing a protein-containing batter (e.g., dough) that is an emulsion by mixing in a mixer (e.g., a mixing device; see 0045) at least water and at least one of vegetable protein (0005; 0045; Fig. 1); conveying the batter via a pump to a single heating unit (e.g., a heating device such as a pipe through which the dough passes, containing a rotor and a stator, or a heat exchanger; see 0054) (0052; Fig. 1; 0054); conveying the batter from an entrance to an exit of the single heating unit while heating the batter in the single heating unit to a temperature from 110-180 °C (0054; Fig. 1; 0044); transferring the heat-treated batter from the single heating unit to a cooling unit such as a heat exchanger via a pump such as a positive displacement pump (0044; Fig. 1: 0055-0056); cooling the heat-treated batter by moving through the cooling unit (0057) so that the heat-treated batter gradually cools down (0057); and dividing the cooled heat-treated product into pieces by a grid, static or vibrating cutter (e.g., knife) in conjugation with a rotating type cross-cutting device (0058-0060).
Cully teaches what has been recited above but is silent regarding the pump for transferring the batter to the heating unit being a positive displacement pump. However, Cully teaches that the pump for transferring the heated batter from the heating device to the cooling unit is a positive displacement pump, which could control pressure to prevent moisture flashing and/or can provide pressure to push the heated dough into and through the cooling device (0055). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Cully by using a positive displacement pump to transfer the batter from the mixer to the heating unit with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that it is recognized that a positive displacement pump could control pressure to prevent moisture flashing and/or can provide pressure to push a product into and through a temperature-treating device.
Cully teaches what has been recited above but is silent regarding the protein source for the meat analogue being a raw material of meat or a by-product thereof wherein the meat or meat by-product is combined with water to form a batter; further, while Cully teaches that the heating unit is a pipe through which the dough passes, containing a rotor and a stator, or a heat exchanger (0054), Cully is silent regarding the pipe or the heat exchanger being a scraped surface heat exchanger comprising a tubular device and at least one heat jacket that has five different temperature zones in an incremental manner configured to apply heat to the surface of the device from the entrance to the exit; additionally, Cully is silent regarding the batter comprising meat is heated to a temperature above the melting point of the protein, and that the heated batter is cooled to a temperature that is below water boiling point at ambient pressure.
Cadet in the same field of endeavor discloses a meat analogue (e.g., cooked meat or fish product) that is prepared by a process comprising transferring, through a positive displacement pump, a meat batter (a mixture) comprising ground animal meat having more than 50% moisture and a technological agent to a tubular (e.g., cylindrical) scraped surface heat exchanger and heating (e.g., cooking and sterilizing) to a temperature to 125-140 °C, cooling the meat batter to a temperature of 80-95 °C and dividing (page 2, line 24-30; page 3, line 9-17; page 4, line 3-20; example 8). Cadet further teaches that the scraped surface heat exchanger is heated via a steam contained in a double jacket of the scraped surface heat exchanger (page 3, line 17; page 6, line 1-2).
Ray in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of making a meat analogue (e.g., meat-like food chunks) comprising combing, in a mixer, ground animal meat or a by-product thereof with water to form a meat slurry in the form an emulsion; transferring the meat slurry by a pump into one or more scraped surface heat exchangers that has a tubular device to heat the slurry; and cutting the heated slurry into pieces (0013; 0046-0048; 0075; 0051; 0037). Further, Ray teaches that a scraped surface heat exchanger allows a product to be heated in an efficient and consistent manner, and that the meat slurry is heated as it passes through the scraped surface heat exchanger by supplying a steam contained in a heat jacket that surrounds the outer wall of the tubular device of the scraped surface heat exchangers (0076; 0037). Additionally, Ray teaches that a temperature gradient can be established along the scraped surface heat exchanger (0048).
Reiser in the same field of endeavor teaches that a meat analogue is prepared by combining meat meal or a by-product thereof with water to form a dough, heating the dough to 100-150 °C to yield a heated dough; conveying, through a pump, the heated dough to a cooling device and cooling the heated dough to a temperature of 100 °C or less (such as 20-100 °C, 50 -100 °C or 75- 100 °C) such that the resulting product (e.g., meat analogue) has correct consistency (0013; 0019; 0030; 0067; 0072). Reiser further teaches that the meat analogue can be cut or diced to desired size (0077).
Rolan in the same field of endeavor teaches a method of preparing a meat analogue comprising combining ground animal meat, plant protein and water to form a mixture; heating the mixture in a heating device to a temperature of 100-180 °C so as to denature the protein in the mixture; wherein the heating device (e.g., the extruder) includes multiple heating zones (for example, four or five temperature zones) that can be controlled to independent temperatures, wherein heating is delivered through the steam or hot water contained in a barrel jacket, and where the temperatures of the heating zones are preferably set to increase the temperature of the mixer as it proceeds through the heating device (0017; 0050; 0057; 0091).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Cully by replacing part or all vegetable protein with ground animal meat or a by-product thereof to prepare an emulsified meat batter for making the meat analogue with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that vegetable protein and animal protein (e.g., meat or meat by-product) are functional equivalents for making a meat analogue thus substituting one for another for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. MPEP 2144.04 II. Substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is obvious.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Cully by using a positive displacement pump to transfer the batter/dough/slurry to the heating device with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established it is suitable to use such a pump to convey meat batter to a heating device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Cully by using a scraped surface heat exchanger that includes a tubular device with a steam-containing heat jacket that surrounds its outer wall to heat the batter with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that it is suitable to use such a heat exchanger to heat meat batter, and that a scraped surface heat exchanger that includes a tubular device with a steam-containing heat jacket that surrounds its outer wall allows a batter to be heated in an efficient and consistent manner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Cully by heating the batter to 100-140 °C or 100-150 °C or 100-180 °C and cooling the batter to a temperature of 80-95 °C or 100 °C or below such as 20-100 °C, 50 -100 °C or 75- 100 °C with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that aforementioned heating range is suitable for preparing a meat analogue from the a meat batter, and the aforementioned cooling range is for obtaining a meat analogue having correct consistency.
The temperature ranges as disclosed by prior art encompass or overlap with the ranges as recited in claims 1-2, 8-9 and 19, and necessarily encompass a temperature that is above the melting point of the protein. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Cully by including heat jacket which could include multiple heating zones such as five heating zones in the heating device where the temperature of the heating zones are set to increase the temperature of the batter as it travels through the heating device so as to better denature the protein in the batter. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have had a reasonable expectation of success for doing so because prior art has established that a temperature gradient can be established along the scraped surface heat exchanger in heating a meat batter by a heat jacket to make a meat analogue (see Ray 0048), and that a multiple heating zone arrangement with incremental temperature mode along the heater is suitable for denature protein in a batter.
Cully in view of Cadet, Ray, Reiser and Rolan as recited above teaches including heat jacket comprising multiple heating zones such as 5 heating zones in the scraped surface heat exchanger where the temperature of the heating zones are set to increase the temperature of the batter as it travels through the heating device; further Rolan teaches a five temperature zone arrangement the temperatures from the entrance to the exit are set differently from those recited in the claim (e.g., about 25 °C, about 50 °C, about 90 °C, about 130 °C, and about 150 °C, respective; 0057), thus not explicitly teaching that the temperatures from the entrance to the exit is about 50 °C, about 80 °C, about 110 °C, about 140 °C and about 170 °C, respectively.
However, Cully in view of Cadet, Ray, Reiser and Rolan teaches a temperature of heating the batter to 100-140 °C or 100-150 °C or 100-180 °C, and that the purpose of heating the batter is to denature the protein in the batter (see Rolan 0057). More importantly, Rolan teaches that the heating device may be set in other temperature zone arrangements as desired (0057). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the five temperatures from the entrance to the exit of the single scraped surface heat exchange based on desirability, provided that the temperature is incremental from the entrance to the exit, that the heated meat at the exit of the heat exchanger is at a temperature range of 100-140 °C or 100-150 °C or 100-180 °C, and that the protein in the meat batter is sufficiently denatured. As such the five temperatures from the entrance to the exit as recited in the claim are merely obvious variants of the prior art.
The tubular device of the SSHE necessarily has an interior surface (e.g., an inner wall) along which the meat matter conveys, and an exterior surface (e.g., an outer wall) for the heat jacket to surround (see Ray 0037). Further, where prior art teaches heating jacket for heating the exchanger and the heat exchanger includes multiple heating zones that can be controlled to independent temperatures (See Rolan para. 0076) , limitation in claims 21-22 about five heat jackets each of which for each temperature zone would have been obvious over the teaching of the prior art.
Where the limitations about five temperatures from the entrance to the exit and a scraped surface heat exchanger comprising a tubular device and heating jackets having multiple heating zones are rendered obvious by the cited arts in combination, the limitation about the temperature difference between the meat batter and the surface of the SSHE being between 10-30 °C during the travelling of the meat batter in the SSHE is also rendered obvious, for the reason that the limitation about the temperature different between the meat batter and the surface of the SSHE is a result of the arrangement of five temperature zones in the heat jackets (e.g., 50 °C, about 80 °C, about 110 °C, about 140 °C and about 170 °C, respectively from the entrance to the exit). See the instant para. that bridges pages 12-13 and example 2.
Cully in view of Cadet, Ray, Reiser and Rolan teaches mixing a raw material of meat or meat by-product with water, but is silent regarding the mixing ratio of the two. However, Cully teaches mixing dry ingredients (e.g., vegetable protein) and water to form a batter (e.g., a dough) that has moisture content of 40-67% (0045); Ray teaches that it is suitable to combine wet meat (e.g., meat slurry) with water (0046-0048) to form a meat batter (e.g., a meat emulsion) used for making a meat analogue; further, Reiser teaches that to make a meat analogue, a meat meal-containing meat batter (e.g., a dough) should have a water content of 37-50% (0085; 0013; 0030). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the amount of water added to the meat or meat by-product so as to ensure that the meat batter for making the meat analogue has 37-50% water with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that a meat batter with 37-50% water is suitable for making a meat analogue, and it is suitable to combine water with the meat or meat by-product. As such, the mixing ratio as recited in claims 1 and 14 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Cully in view of Cadet, Ray, Reiser and Rolan teaches an meat batter in an emulsion form comprising animal meat or a by-product thereof and water but is silent regarding the viscosity of the meat batter. Viscosity of the meat batter is necessarily a parameter of the solid content or water content in the meat batter. Given that the viscosity of the meat batter as the starting material will affect the viscosity of the end product (e.g., meat analogue), and how thick or runny a meat product is directly related to the texture of the meat product (note that Cully’s focus is to develop a meat analogue that has the texture of the cooked meat, see 0024), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the amount of water in the meat batter so as to ensure the meat analogue obtained has desired texture. As such, the viscosity value for the meat batter as recited in the claim is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Further, Schlebusch in the same field of endeavor teaches that a meat batter (e.g., a meat emulsion) formed of comminuted meat and water is subjected to pumping and heating to form a meat product, wherein the meat emulsion has a viscosity of at least 5000, 15,000, or 20,000 cP at 20 °C (Abstract; 0011; 0013; Fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Cully in view of Cadet, Ray, Reiser and Rolan by preparing an emulsified batter having a viscosity of at least 5000, 15,000, or 20,000 cP at 20 °C through varying the amount of water in the meat batter with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that such a viscosity range is suitable for the meat batter to be pumped and heated to form a meat product.
A meat emulsion having a viscosity of at least 5000, 15,000, or 20,000 cP at 20 °C reasonably overlaps with the range of 20,000-150,000 cp at 25°C, given that the difference between the two temperatures is marginal.
Therefore, Cully in view of Cadet, Ray, Reiser, Rolan and Schlebusch renders obvious claims 1-3, 8-9, 14, 17 and 19-22.
Regarding claim 15, Cully in view of Cadet, Ray, Reiser, Rolan and Schlebusch teaches using a positive displacement pump to transfer the batter to heating/cooling unit. Further Cadet teaches the pump is lobe type (Example 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Cully by using lobe type positive displacement pump with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason the prior art has established that such a type of pump is suitable for use in making a meat analogue.
Regarding claim 16, Cully teaches a packaging unit (0062). Cadet or Ray or Rolan teaches grinding meat (page 2, line 26 of Cadet; 0047 of Ray; 0091 of Rolan) which necessarily entails a grinder. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have included a grinder for grinding meat to make a batter/dough/slurry.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered and the examiner’s response is shown below:
The 35 USC 112(a) rejection of the limitation about the temperature difference between the meat batter and interior surface of the SSHE is withdrawn in view of the amendment made to the claims 1 and 14.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that cited references fail to teach the amounts of the raw material and water.
The argument is considered. However, it is submitted that the amount of raw material as recited in claim 1 or 14 is not sufficiently supported by the disclosure as originally filed. See the 35 USC 112(a) rejection set forth in the instant office action. Further, the examiner takes the position that the amounts of the raw material and water as recited is obvious over the teaching of the prior art, since Cully teaches mixing dry ingredients (e.g., vegetable protein) and water to form a batter (e.g., a dough) that has moisture content of 40-67% (0045); Ray teaches that it is suitable to combine wet meat (e.g., meat slurry) with water (0046-0048) to form a meat batter (e.g., a meat emulsion) used for making a meat analogue; further, Reiser teaches that to make a meat analogue, a meat meal-containing meat batter (e.g., a dough) should have a water content of 37-50% (0085; 0013; 0030). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the amount of water added to the meat or meat by-product so as to ensure that the meat batter for making the meat analogue has 37-50% water with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that prior art has established that a meat batter with 37-50% water is suitable for making a meat analogue, and it is suitable to combine water with the meat or meat by-product.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the Remarks that since Cully is directed to non-meat food product, any modification of Cully to obtain a meat-based meat analogue would render Cully “unsatisfactory for its intended purpose”.
The examiner disagrees. Prior art references have established that it is suitable to make a meat analogue from either vegetable protein and animal protein. Nothing in the prior art teaches that the proposed modification (e.g., substituting animal protein for vegetable protein) would have resulted in an “inoperable” meat analogue with undesirable properties. See MPEP 2143.01 V In re Urbanski, 809 F.3d 1237, 1244, 117 USPQ2d 1499, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (The patent claims were directed to a method of enzymatic hydrolysis of soy fiber to reduce water holding capacity, requiring reacting the soy fiber and enzyme in water for about 60-120 minutes. The claims were rejected over two prior art references, wherein the primary reference taught using a longer reaction time of 5 to 72 hours and the secondary reference taught using a reaction time of 100 to 240 minutes, preferably 120 minutes. The applicant argued that modifying the primary reference in the manner suggested by the secondary reference would forego the benefits taught by the primary reference, thereby teaching away from the combination. The court held that both prior art references "suggest[ed] that hydrolysis time may be adjusted to achieve different fiber properties. Nothing in the prior art teaches that the proposed modification would have resulted in an ‘inoperable’ process or a dietary fiber product with undesirable properties." (emphasis in original)). See also MPEP 2144.06 II, substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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 H 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights