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 .
The amendment filed 5/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-7, 10, 11, and 13-18 are pending. Claims 11, 13-15 are withdrawn. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites the limitation of wheat protein (gluten). For the purposes of examination, the wheat protein is interpreted to be limited to gluten.
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, 10, and 16 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 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.
Claims 17-18 are 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 in view of Ajami (US 2017/0105483).
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Sandoval teaches a meat replacement product as discussed above in regards to Claim 1, but does not specifically discuss types of meat replacement products.
Ajami teaches that a meat replacement product comprising pea and potato protein [0123] can be made into products such as meatballs [0100].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the product of Sandoval in a meatball product. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Ajami teaches that such products are suitable to meatball products.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues (Page 2 of Arguments) that Claim 18 of Sandoval teaches a composition “comprising” pea and potato protein, and therefore allows for additional proteins. Applicant additionally argues that nothing in Sandoval teaches or suggests utilizing only pea and potato proteins, and the present application demonstrates that the specific combination of only pea and potato protein is critical to the obtained results.
Applicant additionally argues that the instant Claim requires that the ratio is of potato protein to pea protein, not of the denatured patatin and legume seed globulin.
This argument is not convincing. First, note that prior art is available for all teachings and not only preferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. Where Sandoval teaches a product “comprising” the claimed proteins, Sandoval suggests an embodiment wherein the claimed proteins are the only proteins. Second, note that the claim, as written, does not require generic potato protein and pea protein, only denatured patatin and legume seed globulin. The potato and pea protein of the Claim are therefore interpreted to be the patatin and the legume seed globulin.
Applicant additionally argues that the consumer experience is the most relevant performance metric when assessing meat replacer products, and that aspects such as juiciness, firmness, bite, and shaping properties are difficult to measure quantitatively. Applicant additionally argues that the data at Tables 6 and 7 provide quantitative measurements of the “excellent” performance of the vegetarian meat replacer products as claimed.
This argument is not convincing. First, while consumer experience may be difficult to measure quantitatively, the only evidence provided for the alleged unexpected results of the claimed ratio is a statement that the “preferred balance” for properties was evaluated by an expert panel and found to be optimal within the claimed ratio. No quantitative details are shown, including quantitative details known in the art of evaluating consumer experience (e.g. numerical ratings). Second, the data at Tables 6 and 7 show that the measured physical quantities change monotonically with changing protein ratio. No information is provided regarding what constitutes “excellent” performance, nor are any arguments or discussion presented regarding what constitutes an unexpected result. Further, no comparative results are shown demonstrating the criticality of the claimed range. Note that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See MPEP 716.01(c)II. Additionally, the examples of the instant Specification are directed towards finished products, comprising ingredients in addition to the structured aqueous phase. The instant Claims only provide limitations regarding the structured aqueous phase. The showings in the Specification are therefore not commensurate in scope with the Claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights