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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/15/2026 has been entered.
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 9, 11, 16-20, 26-27 are 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 9 is rejected as one cannot have 93% of the continued phase because at a minimum 8% of this dispersed phase is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "fatty composition" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11, 16-20, 26-27 are rejected as the rely on claim 9 as an independent or base claim and include all the recitations of claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 9, 11, 16-20, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0077942 (MCKEE) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0291188 (MILNE) and United States Patent Application No. 2013/0045322 (WUBBOLDTS), as evidenced by http://veganbaking.net/articles/tools/fat-and -oil-melt-point-temperatures (Vegan Baking).
PNG
media_image1.png
468
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
243
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claims 9, 18-20, MCKEE teaches a water-in-oil emulsion having a continuous non-aqueous phase (i.e., a fatty composition) and a disperse aqueous phase, the at least one lipophilic flavor compound being dissolved or dispersed in the continuous phase and the at least one hydrophilic flavor compound dissolved or dispersed in the disperse phase [0005].
MCKEE teaches in [0022] that the emulsion can be added to food products in general where a meat flavor is desired.
MCKEE does teach that water soluble fibers such as xanthan “may be” added as a thickener [0014] and [0016]. MCKEE is silent as to how much thickener can be added. However, it is noted that Example 1 does not appear to contain a thickener. Example 6 contains the thickener candela wax in an amount of about 1% (i.e., 1 part candelia wax/99.91 parts for the remaining ingredients). Given Example 1 contains no thickeners and Example 6 provides a thickener in an amount of 1%, it would have been obvious that thickeners are optional and if present, can be in amounts no more no more than 5% by weight of the emulsion.
MCKEE does teach that plant oils such as soy can be used [0015].
MCKEE teaches in [0020] that emulsifiers are added to the oil first prior to adding any water.
In Example 1 of MCKEE, the aqueous phase comprises 55%, providing 45% of oil [0030]-[0034]. However, it would have been obvious to vary the amount of phases based on the desired physical characteristics of the emulsion.
In Example 1 of MCKEE, the aqueous phase comprises 55% of an aqueous phase, providing 45% of oil [0030]-[0034]. However, the principles of stabilization of W/O emulsions are well known to the art, and the skilled person will readily comprehend what is required in each case, or can determine what is needed by simple, non-inventive routine experimentation. Examples include the use of comestible surfactants, emulsifiers and thickeners. There is available to the art a considerable number of these, of different physical characteristics and capabilities, and the selection of a suitable material or combination is within the skill of the art [0014].
It would have been obvious to vary the amount of phases based on the desired physical characteristics of the emulsion.
MCKEE is silent as to adding meat flavors.
MILNE teaches a meat analogue composition comprising simulated meat flavorings such as pork flavor, pepperoni flavor, smoke powder, chicken flavor, beef flavor, seafood flavor, savory flavorings (e.g., onion, garlic), and mixtures thereof. In addition, thermally-preformed, texturized vegetable protein components are also preferably included in the composition when a sausage or pepperoni meat analogue is desired. It would have been obvious to add a meat flavoring to MCKEE, as the flavors simulate meat flavorings.
MCKEE and MILNE are silent as to having sold particle dispersed within the oil and particular amounts of emulsifiers.
WUBBOLDTS teaches a pourable edible oil composition, suitable for use in the preparation of a food product, comprising from 1% to 15% by weight of fat particles dispersed in a liquid oil [0026]. This would be approximately a 85: 15 ratio of liquid to solid particles and falls within that claimed. By producing a fatty composition in this manner, the compositions may be stored at a higher temperature than the mixing temperature [0024]. It also results in a mixture of liquid oil and structuring agent that remains pourable on storage but allows the structuring properties of the structuring agent to be “released” at a later stage in the process when a food product is manufactured [0008].
The solid fat particle can be cocoa butter [0014]. The liquid oil can be soybean oil, rapeseed oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, corn oil and mixtures thereof [0015].
It is also noted that WUBBOLDTS relies on emulsifiers. Compositions of WUBBOLDTS optionally contain an emulsifier, such as lecithin, more preferably in an amount of up to 2% by of the composition. Preferably, the emulsifier is incorporated in (or otherwise associated with) the fat particles. In other words, the fat particles preferably comprise an emulsifier prior to mixture with the liquid oil. [0027].
Vegan Baking evidences that cocoa butter (i.e., the fat particles in WOBBOLT) has a melting point of 34-38oC (i.e., higher than at least 30oC and no higher than 15oC, as claimed) and that soybean oil (i.e.., the liquid oil in WOBBOLTS) liquid oil has a melting point is
-16oC (i.e., no higher than 15oC).
WUBBOLTS also teaches the fatty composition can be added to an emulsion, such as a water-in-oil or oil-in-water emulsion. When the food product is in the form of an emulsion, it may be formed by a method which comprises mixing the composition with a water phase [0028].
It would have been obvious to use the fatty composition of WUBBOLDTS in MCKEE, as WUBBOLDTS teaches that the oil composition has greater stability and remains pourable.
PNG
media_image3.png
61
633
media_image3.png
Greyscale
MCKEE teaches that xanthan gum (i.e., a water-soluble fiber) can be used as a thickener at [0016] and claim 11. Thus, it would have been obvious to add a water -soluble fiber to the composition, as MCKEE teaches that water-soluble fibers in the form of xanthan can be added as a thickener.
PNG
media_image4.png
194
634
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to claims 16-17, MCKEE is silent as to adding solid fat particles.
WUBBOLDTS teaches a pourable edible oil composition, suitable for use in the preparation of a food product, comprising from 1% to 15% by weight of fat particles dispersed in a liquid oil [0026].
The solid fat particle can be cocoa butter [0014].
It would have been obvious to use the fatty composition of WUBBOLDTS in MCKEE, as WUBBOLDTS teaches that the oil composition has greater stability and remains pourable.
PNG
media_image5.png
82
605
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
95
602
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to the elastic shear modulus of claims 26-27, Applicant has chosen to use parameters that cannot be measured by the Office, for the purpose of prior art comparison, because the office is not equipped to manufacture prior art products and compare them for patentability. 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, as a prima facia case of obviousness has been properly established, the burden is shifted to the applicant to show that the prior art product is different.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant submits that amended Claim 1 is commensurate in scope with the unexpected results provided in the application. It is argued that the unexpected results demonstrated in Figure 5 were observed in both the emulsion of Example 1 and the emulsion of Example 2.
However, the results of Figure 5 are based on Examples that are still not commensurate in scope with the current claims. The temperature-dependent behavior of the material as prepared in the previous examples is shown in FIG. 5 for the case of Example 2 for a temperature sweep test performed from 5° C. to 80° C (see [0156] of the published version of this application). Moreover, both Example 1 and Example 2 rely on precise amounts and types of ingredients (e.g., pork fat, juicy flavor, cocoa butter, specific types and amounts of oils and specific types of emulsifiers) not reflected in the claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP A DUBOIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-6:00p.
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 on 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.
/PHILIP A DUBOIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights