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 .
Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/7/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13-16 are pending. Claims 11, 13-15 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim recites a limitation of “pean protein” in Line 6 and should properly read “pea protein”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation of a meat replacer product with a “firm mouthfeel and increased elasticity”. The terms “firm” and “increased elasticity” are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For instance, no basis of comparison is provided for what distinguishes a “firm” product from a product that lacks firmness, or a product that has “increased elasticity” vs standard elasticity.
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.
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, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandoval (US 20080118607 A1), taken with evidentiary reference of Katzav (“Comparison of Thermal and High-Pressure Gelation of Potato Protein Isolates”, DOI:10.3390/foods9081041) and Gravel (“The role of the 7S/11S globulin ratio in the gelling properties of mixed β-lactoglobulin/pea proteins systems”, DOI: 10.1016/j.foodhyd.2024.110273, June 2024)
Regarding Claim 1, Sandoval teaches an edible composition for a meat replacer product [0014]. The composition comprises water and protein [0070], including pea and potato protein (Claim 18). Note that Claim 18 of Sandoval encompasses compositions comprising pea and potato protein as the only source of protein, as claimed, and is additionally a vegetarian product.
Note that potato protein comprises around 40% patatin (see evidentiary reference of Katzav, Page 2, Paragraph 1) and pea protein comprises 65-80% 7S and 11S globulins (see evidentiary reference of Gravel, Page 1, Column 1, Paragraph 2).
The composition may be prepared by mixing the protein with water in a ratio of 4:1, which results in a composition comprising 80% water and 20% protein [0070]. Note that the composition of Sandoval provides for, e.g. 15% potato protein and 5% pea protein, where 40% of potato protein is patatin, and 65-80% of the pea protein is 7S and 11S globulins, which is an overall composition of 6% patatin and 3.25-4% 7S and 11S globulin. This lies within the claimed range of water, patatin, and legume seed globulin of Claim 1. Additionally, 6% patatin and 3.25-4% pea protein is a ratio of 1:0.54 - 1: 0.67, which touches the claimed ratio.
Regarding the ratio of patatin to legume seed globulin, Sandoval does not teach a specific amount of either potato or pea protein. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that different proteins have different characteristics such as flavor. Additionally, where Sandoval speaks to different characteristics of different proteins, e.g. crosslinking ability at [0018], one of ordinary skill would have been able to have adjusted the amount of proteins to have arrived at ratios as claimed through no more than routine experimentation.
Regarding the limitation of a “structured aqueous phase”, given that Sandoval teaches a product which comprises pea and potato protein in the amounts claimed, the composition of Sandoval is interpreted to be a “structured aqueous phase” as claimed. Additionally, given that Sandoval teaches the product which is a “structured plant protein” [0070] comprising the claimed amounts of water, the product of Sandoval is interpreted to be a “structured aqueous phase” as claimed.
Regarding Claim 3, Sandoval teaches the inclusion of salts [0079], including sodium chloride which is an alkali salt. Sandoval does not specifically teach a “dissolved” alkali chloride salt; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the inclusion of an alkali chloride salt in a water-containing composition results in a dissolved alkali chloride salt.
Regarding Claim 4, Sandoval teaches that the composition may comprise the entirety of the edible composition, which touches the claimed range [0014].
Regarding Claim 6, Sandoval does not address the pH of the composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that proteins are neutral, with a pH of about 7, and thus that the composition of Sandoval is neutral or nearly neutral, and therefore lies within the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 8, Sandoval teaches that the meat replacer product has improved firmness and springiness compared to other products [0096].
Regarding Claim 10, Sandoval teaches a composition which can be, e.g. 80% water and 20% protein, as discussed above in regards to Claim 1. This amount of water and protein is sufficient to meet the limitations of Claim 10 for both the structured aqueous phase and the hydrated textured vegetable protein fibers.
For example, a product comprising 52% of the structured aqueous phase may comprise 98% water and 2% protein within the structured aqueous phase, according to Claim 1. The hydrated textured protein fibres comprise the remainder of the 48% of the composition, and may contain 40% protein and 60% water according to Claim 10. Thus, 100 grams of the edible composition comprises 20 grams of overall protein (1.05 from the structured aqueous phase + 18.95 from the hydrated protein fibres phase) and 80 grams of overall water (51.58 from the aqueous phase + 28.42 from the hydrated protein fibres phase).
Thus, the composition of Sandoval is interpreted to meet the composition limitations of Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 16, Sandoval teaches the use of pea, rice, lupin, and wheat protein (Claim 18).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandoval taken with evidentiary reference of Katzav and Gravel as applied to Claim 1, above, in view of Cavallini (US 2005/0003071)
Regarding Claim 5, Sandoval teaches a vegetarian meat replacer as discussed above in regards to Claim 1, and additionally teaches the inclusion of fats [0060] at .01-45% [0072], but does not discuss the inclusion of fats suitable for a vegetarian product.
Cavallini teaches a vegetarian meat analogue product (Abstract) comprising vegetable proteins [0024] and 10-15% of plant oil [0035]. Cavallini teaches that such a composition results in a vegetarian meat product with improved “texture, mouthfeel, and juiciness” (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a plant oil, as taught by Cavallini, for the fats of Sandoval. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to utilize a fat appropriate for a vegetarian product in an analogue meat composition that results in a good texture, mouthfeel, and juiciness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandoval taken with evidentiary reference of Katzav and Gravel as applied to Claim 1, above, and additionally with evidentiary reference of Ciabotti (“Chemical composition, protein profile, and isoflavones content in soybean genotypes with different seed coat colors”, Ciabotti et al./IFRJ 23(2): 621-629)
Regarding Claim 7, Ciabotti teaches that legumes typically contain about 8-20% albumin (Page 625, “ Protein Fractionation”) by protein fraction. Since pea protein, as taught by Sandoval, is derived from a legume, the composition of Sandoval is interpreted to contain the amount of albumin as claimed. Note that the product of Sandoval containing, e.g. 10% soy protein contains 0.8-2% albumin, which lies within the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues (Page 6 of Remarks) that Sandoval does not teach pea and potato protein in the absence of other proteins. Applicant additionally argues that Sandoval teaches proteins in combination with soy protein, and the actual teaching of Sandoval is a combination of wheat and soy protein. Applicant additionally argues that the combination of pea and potato protein outperforms the combination of soy and wheat proteins in terms of elasticity for a meat replacer product.
This argument is not convincing. Sandoval teaches pea and potato protein, and combinations thereof (Claim 18), which encompasses a composition comprising pea and potato protein as the only source of proteins. Additionally, note that prior art is available for all teachings and not only preferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123.
Applicant additionally argues (Page 7 of Remarks) that Sandoval does not teach pea and potato protein in the weight ratio range of 6:4 to 4:6. Applicant argues that the claimed ratio provides optimal results in terms of firmness and mouthfeel (Examples 5, 6, and 7), and are wholly unexpected.
This argument is not convincing. Tables 6 and 7 of Examples 5 and 6 show that average distance travelled upon breaking, average break force, and average compression force at 5 mm deformation change monotonically with changing pea:potato protein ratio. The only evidence for the alleged unexpected results of the claimed ratio is provided in Example 7, which simply states that the “preferred balance” for meatball properties was evaluated by an “expert panel” and found to be optimal within the claimed ratio. No quantitative measurement of the “preferred balance” or confidence level of the data is provided, nor is any discussion provided as to how e.g. modified compositions or cooking processes affect the “preferred balance” of meatball properties. Applicant has therefore not provided a comparative showing for criticality. The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)II.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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 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.
/D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791