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 .
Response to Amendment
1. The amendment filed on 9/23/25 has been entered. Claims 49-50, 52-57, 59-68 and 73-74 remain pending in this U.S. Patent Application, with claims 49-50, 52-57, 59-61, and 73-74 being examined on their merits.
2. Claims 1-48, 58 and 69-72 were previously canceled, claim 51 has been newly canceled and its limitations incorporated into independent claim 49, claims 62-68 were previously withdrawn by being directed to a non-elected invention, and claim 74 has been newly added.
3. Claim 49 has been amended to include the limitations of canceled claim 51 of “wherein the food matrix is a fruit or a vegetable or a marine plant”, to add the limitation of “to generate an enriched food matrix”, to delete the previous limitations of “wherein the protein(s) are derived or constituted of animal proteins, wherein the peptide(s) are derived from an hydrolysate of animal proteins, wherein the quantity of peptide(s) and/or protein(s) is increased by at least 10% in dry weight compared to the quantity of peptide(s) and/or protein(s) in the original food matrix”, and to add the new limitations for the enriched food matrix of “meets the conditions necessary to make the nutritional claim "source of proteins"” and for the impregnation solution comprising “15-30%” of a native serum protein isolate.
4. Claim 57 has been amended to include the limitation of “wherein the protein content of the native serum protein isolate, on dry weight, is at least 95 g for 100 g of dry product”, and to delete the previous limitation of “wherein the impregnation solution further comprises a protein hydrolysate”.
5. The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 9/23/25 has been considered by the Examiner, however is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 49-50, 52-57, 59-61, and 73 based upon the 35 U.S.C. 103 of previous claims 49-56 and 59-61 over the prior art of record Shibata as set forth in the last Office action because: Applicant urges that Shibata relates to an impregnation method with an enzyme solution, and while Shibata teach impregnation with enzymes (which are proteins), Shibata explicitly differentiates impregnation with enzymes and impregnation with proteins (see Shibata, p.10, l.519-523) and nothing in Shibata’s disclosure teaches away from using the other proteins disclosed by Shibata in greater amounts. Further, the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claim(s) 49, 50, 52-57, 59-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. [WO 2016199766 A1], hereinafter Shibata, in view of, Michiels et al. [US 20160165930 A1], hereinafter Michiels, and Breuille et al. [WO 2016058919 A1], hereinafter Breuille, evidenced by Russell et al. [US 20040131750 A1], hereinafter Russell, and Chartrand et al [Influence of amino acids in dairy products on glucose homeostasis: The clinical evidence, 2017], hereinafter Chartrand.
Regarding claim 49, Shibata teaches a method for enriching a food matrix [Shibata, Title, Abstract] with peptide(s) and/or with protein(s) [Shibata, p.10, l.519-522], comprising the following steps:
obtaining a food matrix from plant origin [Shibata, p.8, l.409-418] permeable to liquids (permeable to liquid, impregnation substance used may be in liquid form) [Shibata, p.11, l.557-559] wherein the food matrix is a fruit [Shibata, p.8, l.415-417] or a vegetable [Shibata, p.8, l.409-415] or a marine plant (algae such as kelp, nori and hijiki) [Shibata, p.8, l.421];
placing said food matrix in contact [Shibata, p.12, l.632-633] with an impregnation solution composed of a liquid (impregnation substance used may be in liquid form) [Shibata, p.11, l.557-559], comprising one or more peptide(s) and/or one or more protein(s) [Shibata, p.10, l.519-522], and optionally one or more isolated amino acid(s) [Shibata, p.10, l.525-526] and/or one or more aroma(s) [Shibata, p.7, l.374];
impregnating said food matrix with said one or more peptide(s) and/or one or more protein(s) [Shibata, p.6, l.255-258], by applying an under-pressure [Shibata, p.1, l.10-14; p.6, l.264-268] comprised between 5 and 20 millibars (1 kPa to 5 kPa, equivalent to 10 millibar to 50 millibar) to the food matrix (i.e., carrots) in contact with said impregnation solution (enzyme solution) [Shibata, p.6, l.255-258, and Example 1 on p.19, l. 962, 976-979] to generate an enriched food matrix (since the generating of an enriched food matrix depends on the substances used in the impregnating solution, i.e., proteins, amino acids, vitamins, minerals, as taught by Shibata) [Shibata, p.10, l.519-528 and l.531-532].
Shibata does not teach wherein the impregnation solution comprises 15-30% of a native serum protein isolate.
Regarding the amount of protein being 15-30% in the impregnation solution:
Michiels teaches a method for enriching a (base food substrate) food matrix from plant origin permeable to liquids such as fruits and/or vegetables [Michiels, 0008], wherein an impregnation solution (aqueous solution of an aqueous stabilizer) may be used for impregnation of the core of the food matrix/substrate [Michiels, 0065, 0008], and wherein the impregnation solution may comprise protein such as egg albumin in amounts of from 10-30% [Michiels, 0063, Table 8, 0030] or other proteins that are not derived from egg such as whey protein (whey protein is animal/cow derived protein), and wherein said proteinaceous component may be present in the impregnation solution in amounts of from 1-20% or 10-20% [Michiels, 0030-0031, and 0046, Table 6].
Furthermore, Russell is only being relied on as evidence for showing that it is known in the art to vacuum impregnate animal protein [Russell, 0034] into a foodstuff [Russell, 0009], where the foodstuff would have up to 40% of the concentrated protein therein [Russell, 0035-0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed amount of protein in the impregnation solution as taught by Michiels, and incorporate the desired animal protein amount in the impregnation solution in order to control the protein nutritional content of the food matrix as evidenced by Russell, and because Michiels teach that by impregnating the food matrix with the impregnation solution comprising protein of his invention would provide an impregnated food wherein the succulence and moisture content of the substrate (impregnated food matrix) is retained to a greater extent [Michiels, 0025] because the composition stabilizes the food product and prevent moisture loss during heating, particularly from the core of a coated product [Michiels, 0001]. Further, Shibata does not limit the type or amount of protein in the impregnation liquid, and teach that proteins are suitable for producing or generate an enriched food matrix, and because the impregnation material or substances can be appropriately selected as desired [Shibata, p.10, l.519-528 and l.531-536], it is reasonable to conclude that the claimed protein amount in the impregnation solution would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedure due to factors such as the ratios of the various ingredients, the desired amount of protein to provide to the consumer of the enriched food matrix, the porosity of the food product being treated (i.e., a very porous food matrix will absorb higher amounts of impregnation solution than a less porous food matrix), and/or the desired final taste characteristics in the method of Shibata in view of Michiels.
Regarding the enriched food matrix meeting the conditions necessary to make the nutritional claim "source of proteins", and the type of protein in the impregnation solution being specifically a native serum protein isolate, obtained by membrane filtration of cow's milk:
It is noted that Applicant defines "source of proteins" as a claim according to which a foodstuff is a source of proteins, or any other claim capable of having the same sense for the consumer, which can only be made if 12% at least of the energy value of the foodstuff is produced by proteins (see instant Specification, p.7, l.4-7).
Modified Shibata teaches the protein enriched food matrix, wherein the impregnation solution comprises 15-30% protein, but are silent regarding the enriched food matrix meeting the conditions necessary to make the nutritional claim "source of proteins", and the type of protein in the impregnation solution being specifically a native serum protein isolate, obtained by membrane filtration of cow's milk.
Breuille teaches a composition comprising a protein source [Breuille, 0001], wherein the composition may comprise whey protein [Breuille, 0008], and may be a food compositions, dietary supplements, nutritional compositions, nutraceuticals, powdered nutritional products to be reconstituted in water or milk before consumption, food additives, medicaments, drinks and combinations thereof [Breuille, 0021], wherein the protein source can be from animal origin such as milk proteins [Breuille, 0051] from cows [Breuille, 0053], may be a protein isolate [Breuille, 0052], and the composition may comprise protein in an amount of 0.2-100% in dry weight [Breuille, 0051], (equivalent to “the enriched food matrix meets the conditions necessary to make the nutritional claim "source of proteins"”, since the impregnation solution comprises a protein amount that encompass the claimed protein amount as discussed above in view of Shibata and Michiels, and the protein content of the native serum protein isolate of Breuille may be from 0.2 to 100%, (i.e., 0.2-100 g per 100 g of composition)). The disclosure teach an example where the protein isolate used is PROLACTA® 95 (“The product PRONATIV® 95 CLINICAL (also known by the trade name PROLACTA), has the particularity of being rich in leucine and is a native serum protein isolate derived from milk, obtained by membrane filtration as disclosed on p.21, lines 25-35 of the instant specification) [Breuille, 0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed native serum protein isolate, obtained by membrane filtration of cow's milk as taught by Breuille, in the method of modified Shibata, because Shibata and Breuille are both directed to increasing nutritional properties in foods by adding beneficial nutrients into said foods and also into medical foods, and because Breuille teach that by including the native serum protein isolate, obtained by membrane filtration of cow's milk in food products would aid in reducing loss of muscle (sarcopenia or muscle wasting, as disclosed on p.1, lines 25-35 of the instant specification), improve muscle functionality in elderly males who consumes the composition and/or the food comprising the protein-containing impregnated composition, relative to a diet lacking such a composition, [Breuille,0004-0005], and since Shibata already express interest in impregnation of food products with nutrients and additives having medicinal properties [Shibata, p.7, l.369-373, and p.10, 526-527] and also teach using low/high molecular weight substances including proteins to impregnate a food product [Shibata, p.6, l.286-288, and p.10, l.519-528] but simply did not mentioned the use of a specific native serum protein isolate obtained by membrane filtration of cow’s milk.
Further, given that the process and materials of preparing an enriched food matrix are the same to that in the instant claims, based on the disclosure in Shibata of an impregnation method of fruits and vegetables with impregnation solutions comprising proteins using vacuum, combined with the teachings in Michiels of impregnation methods of fruits and vegetables with impregnation solutions comprising whey proteins (cow derived protein) also using vacuum, where the amount of protein in the impregnation solution may be up to 20%, and Breuille teachings of using the same native serum protein isolate, obtained by membrane filtration of cow's milk used by Applicant, in amounts of 0.2-100%, it is reasonable to expect that the enriched food matrix made by the process of Shibata in view of Michiels and Breuille would have produced similar results.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 50, Shibata teaches the impregnation of the food material with the impregnating solution is suitable for the preparation of functional foods and foods that are to be enriched with minerals, vitamins, amino acids and other nutrients [p.10, l.529-536], which would offer beneficial activity for the health of organisms that consumes the impregnated food product.
Regarding claim 52, Shibata teaches the food matrix may be scalded beforehand by various pretreatments to relax the texture of the food matrix [p.8, l.429-430, 435-439], “the food matrix subjected to the enrichment method has been scalded beforehand, in other words has been blanched, in order to soften its surface and/or its fibres.” as disclosed in page 18, lines 23-25 of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 53, Shibata teaches the liquid impregnating substance may be selected from substances such as oil [p.10, l.23], may be in solution in a solvent such as water [p.12, l.633-634].
Regarding claim 54, Shibata teaches the impregnation solution may comprise both of one or more protein(s) [p.10, l.519-522], and one or more isolated amino acid(s) such as glycine and glutamic acid alone or in combination of two or more types [p.10, l.525-526].
Regarding claims 55-56, modified Shibata in view of Michiels and Breuille teaches the food matrix impregnated with whey protein [Michiels, 0030; Breuille, 0051-0054], and whey protein is rich in essential amino acids such as leucine, isoleucine and valine as evidenced by Chartrand [Chartrand, p.330, Introduction, left column, par.3].
Regarding claim 57, Shibata teaches the food product impregnated with an impregnation solution comprising protein(s), and modified Shibata in view of Breuille teaches wherein the protein content of the native serum protein isolate [Breuille, 0051-0053, 0092], on dry weight (since it may be a powdered nutritional product) , is at least 95 g for 100 g of dry product (the composition may comprise protein in an amount of 0.2-100% in dry weight [Breuille, 0051], (i.e., 0.2-100 g per 100 g of composition, which encompass the claimed protein content range on dry weight of at least 95 g for 100 g of dry product)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the claimed protein content of the native serum protein isolate on dry weight of at least 95 g for 100 g of dry product as taught by Breuille, based on the selected protein source and/or the desired/required daily dose to be administered to an individual subject based on factors such as the age, gender, and/or body weight of the consumer [Breuille, 0051].
Regarding claim 59, Shibata teaches the reduced/under pressure or vacuum treatment reaches a set pressure rapidly to 1 kPa (10 millibar) in about 10 seconds and may be completed in 60 seconds, and is followed by an increase/rise in pressure up to atmospheric pressure [p.21, l.1079-1083].
Regarding claim 60, Shibata teaches the impregnation method may be carried out by means of a vacuum packing machine [p.11, l.567, 570].
Regarding claim 61, Shibata teaches the impregnated food product may be dried after the reduced pressure impregnation step [p.18, l.942-943].
Claim(s) 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, in view of Michiels and Breuille as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Petit et al. [WO 2008110694 A2], hereinafter Petit.
Regarding claim 73, modified Shibata teaches the protein impregnated food product as discussed above, but is silent regarding the quantity of protein being determined by measure of total nitrogen content of the food matrix.
Petit teaches a method for producing a protein enriched food product [Abstract]. The protein-containing food product in Petit’s invention may be a solid food [0026], and comprise normal amounts of protein or high amounts of protein [0029]. Petit teach that the protein content of the food product is determined by the total nitrogen content in the food product [0029].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shibata to incorporate the teachings of Petit and provide a method for determining the amount of protein, since Shibata and Petit are both directed to the same field of increasing nutritional properties in foods by adding beneficial nutrients such as protein, and because it would have provided a way to measure the amount of protein in a food to classify said food as normal protein food or high protein food [Petit, 0029] in the method of modified Shibata.
Claim(s) 74 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata, in view of Michiels and Breuille as applied to claim 49 above, and further in view of Bovetto et al. [US 20090035437 A1], hereinafter Bovetto.
Regarding claim 74, modified Shibata teaches the protein impregnated food product wherein the enriched food matrix impregnated with the protein solution meets the conditions necessary to make the nutritional claim "source of proteins" as discussed above, but does not explicitly recites the enriched food matrix impregnated with the protein solution meets the conditions necessary to make the nutritional claim "rich in proteins."
It is noted that Applicant defines "rich in proteins" as a claim according to which a foodstuff is rich in proteins, or any other claim capable of having the same sense for the consumer, which can only be made if 20% at least of the energy value of the foodstuff is produced by proteins (see instant Specification, p.7, l.8-10).
Bovetto teaches protein compositions comprising whey protein isolate from cows (bovine) [Bovetto, 0063], particularly native whey obtained by milk microfiltration (membrane filtration) [Bovetto, 0062], suitable for food preparations or food matrix in any form [Bovetto, 0097, 0099], for added nutritional value and stabilization of foods [Bovetto, 0002], wherein the protein composition of the invention is suitable for producing enriched foods/consumables [Bovetto, 0033, 0097], and specifically a liquid protein composition that is particularly suitable for producing an enriched food matrix that meets the conditions necessary to make the nutritional claim "rich in proteins" (protein-rich foods/consumables) [Bovetto, 0112].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shibata to incorporate the impregnation of a food matrix with a protein solution that meets the conditions necessary to make the nutritional claim "rich in proteins", since modified Shibata teaches impregnation of food matrices with protein solutions and modified Shibata in view of Michiels teaches the claimed protein amounts in the impregnation solution (taught by Michiels), and since modified Shibata in view of Michiels also express interest in using protein compositions for nutritional purposes and food stabilization purposes [Michiels, 0030-0031], and modified Shibata in view of Breuille teaches using the same native serum protein isolate, obtained by membrane filtration of cow's milk (taught by Breuille) as required by the claims, since Breuille’s native serum protein isolate composition may comprise a protein content of at least 95 g for 100 g of dry product (the composition may comprise protein in an amount of 0.2-100% in dry weight [Breuille, 0051], (i.e., 0.2-100 g per 100 g of composition, which encompass the claimed protein content range on dry weight of at least 95 g for 100 g of dry product)) as explained above, and since Bovetto also teach using native serum protein isolate, obtained by membrane filtration of cow's milk as required by the claims, which would have provided for an impregnation protein solution that meets the conditions necessary to make the nutritional claim "rich in proteins", but simply did not mention the concept of "rich in proteins" since the protein being used is isolated and purified, and since Bovetto explicitly teach and/or express interest in producing protein-rich foods/consumables [Bovetto, 0112], which would require the use of an impregnation solution in the method of modified Shibata that is meets the conditions necessary to make the nutritional claim "rich in proteins", and because Bovetto teaches that the method and compositions would allow for the production of protein-enriched products at concentrations or amounts previously not attainable, and further provide the advantage of using the protein concentrate as a fat substitute while maintaining desirable structural, textural and organoleptic properties, and wherein a wider variety of low-fat product may be obtained [Bovetto, 0109].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 5-6 of Remarks, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of previous claims 49-56 and 59-61 over the prior art of record Shibata, Applicant urges that Shibata relates to an impregnation method with only an enzyme solution and not animal derived proteins. This argument is not persuasive because while Shibata teach impregnation with enzymes (which are proteins), Shibata explicitly differentiates impregnation with enzymes and impregnation with proteins (see Shibata, p.10, l.519-523). Moreover, while Shibata shows using enzymes in concentration of 1.0% in the impregnation solution, this does not teach away from using the proteins disclosed by Shibata (see Shibata, claim 14; p.6, l.255-258; p.10, l.519-522) in greater amounts.
On page 7 of Remarks, Applicant urges that Breuille describes the use of the commercial product PRONATIV® 95 CLINICAL as a product for oral administration to individuals and that Breuille do not teach an impregnation method.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Shibata is relied upon for the impregnation method, and since Shibata further teach that the selection of the impregnation material may be appropriately selected (see Shibata, p.10, l.531-536, it is the Examiner’s position that a skilled artisan would recognize the selection of the protein material taught by Breuille and include said native serum protein isolate, obtained by membrane filtration of cow’s milk (or PRONATIV® 95 CLINICAL) in the impregnation method of Shibata, in order to provide food products impregnated with high quality proteins to consumers and/or medicinal food products impregnated with proteins that are suitable for treating or reducing loss of muscle (sarcopenia or muscle wasting, as disclosed on p.1, lines 25-35 of the instant specification), improve muscle functionality in elderly males who consumes the composition and/or the food comprising the protein-containing impregnated composition, relative to a diet lacking such a composition, [Breuille, 0004-0005].
In response to applicant's argument that Breuille describes the use of the commercial product PRONATIV® 95 CLINICAL as a product for oral administration, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Further, because Breuille shows that the composition comprising native serum protein isolate, obtained by membrane filtration of cow’s milk may be suspended in a liquid prior to use and incorporated into foodstuffs [Breuille, 0021, 0024, 0044, 0072], and one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately envisage the use of Breuille composition in solution for use as the impregnation solution by vacuum in the method of modified Shibata since Breuille does not limit the manner in which the composition may be incorporated into foods.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 49-50, 52-57, 59-61, and 73 over the prior arts of Shibata in view of Hattori, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The rejection of claims 49, 50, 52-57, 59-61 have been modified in accord with the amendments over Shibata in view of, Michiels, and Breuille.
The rejection of claim 73 has been modified in accord with the amendments over Shibata in view of, Michiels, and Breuille, as applied to claim 49, and further in view of Petit.
Paragraphs 10-23 and 28-37 of the affidavit have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Regarding paragraphs 24-27 of the affidavit, Applicant urges that the commercial product PRONATIV® 95 CLINICAL used in Breuille is administered in an oral form at 20 g of product, and that Breuille is silent regarding impregnation of any food matrix, therefore a skilled artisan would have no idea whether an enriched food matrix meets the conditions necessary to make the nutritional claims “source of proteins” or “rich in proteins”. The argument is not persuasive because the rejection is based on the combination of references of Shibata in view of Michiels and Breuille, where all references are directed to the inclusion of proteins into food for enrichment of said foods for protein supplementation of a consumer, where Shibata and Michiels explicitly disclose impregnation of foods with proteins using vacuum and impregnation solutions in contact with the food to be impregnated, and Breuille teaches the same native serum protein isolate for inclusion into foods, where said native serum protein may be suspended in liquids, and one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize the suitability of said native serum protein isolate in solution for use as impregnating solution in the method of modified Shibata with reasonable expectation of success as explained above.
In regards to paragraphs 34 and 36 of the affidavit, Applicant directs the attention to the experimental results of Example 4 presented on pages 27 and 34, and Figures 2a and 3a of the instant Specification. The Examiner have considered the examples and notes that as explained above the references use the same process and raw material for inclusion of protein into plant derived food matrices, particularly Example 4, page 34, lines 5-19 and Figures 2a and 3a where the food matrix are apples which is the same food material suitable for vacuum impregnation methods disclosed by Shibata (see Shibata, p.8, l.15). It is further noted that the combination of various factors such as the type of the food matrix being impregnated, the amount of protein in the solution (15-30%), and the inclusion of an emulsifier, have a direct effect on the protein impregnation process. Based on the presented data, the use of emulsifier seems to have an effect on the protein impregnation process of the food matrix, for example when using emulsifier and protein amount of 15% the protein seems to be impregnated more than when no emulsifier is used, and when using emulsifier and protein amount of 30% the protein seems to be impregnated less than when no emulsifier is used. Unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, and the objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhao et al. [Practical applications of vacuum impregnation in fruit and vegetable processing, 2004], hereinafter Zhao;
Zhao teaches vacuum impregnation methods of porous food matrices such as fruits and vegetables and is a useful technique to quickly introduce external liquids in the porous structures of plant tissues [Zhao, p.434, par.1, left column]. The disclosure shows that vacuum impregnation using liquids is suitable for applications such as nutrition supplementation (i.e., enrichment of foods) [Zhao, p.435, Table 1].
Paes et al. [Effect of vacuum impregnation temperature on the mechanical properties and osmotic dehydration parameters of Apples, 2008], hereinafter Paes;
Paes teaches vacuum impregnation of a porous food matrix permeable to liquids, wherein the food matrix is a fruit (Apples) [Paes, p.799, Abstract, Introduction]. The process consists in applying an under-pressure or vacuum (P1) to a tank which contains the product immersed in a solution for a time (t1) sufficient for it to be de-aired, and subsequently restoring the pressure to atmospheric pressure (P2) while the product remains immersed for a time (t2). The disclosure teaches that vacuum impregnation methods using impregnation solutions are useful for filling the porous fraction of a porous food product with an external solution of the desired composition, allows water content reduction, solids gain, and a controlled impregnation of desired solutes in foods [Paes, p.799, Abstract, Introduction].
Kuwa et al. [US 20030091703 A1], hereinafter Kuwa;
Kuwa teaches a method for enriching a food matrix from plant origin permeable to liquids such as fruits and/or vegetables, wherein an impregnation solution may be used for impregnating the food matrix [Kuwa, 0041-0042] by contacting the food matrix with the impregnation solution and applying an under-pressure comprised between 5 and 20 millibars (1,000 and 10,000 Pa, equivalent to 10 and 100 millibar) [Kuwa, 0067-0068], the impregnation solution may comprise an enriching component (vitamin C in this case) at concentrations that are not particularly limited and may be in concentrations of from 1-50% or 5-30% [Kuwa, 0107-0108].
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 LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/L.E.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792