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 .
This office action is in regard to the application filed on February 9, 2022 and in response to a Request for Continued Examination filed on August 11, 2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 11, 2025 has been entered.
Status of Application
The amendment filed August 11, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 15 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-4 have been amended; claims 9, 10, 13, and 14 have been canceled. Claims 1-8, 11, 12, 15 are hereby examined on the merits.
The previous 112(b) rejections of claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 15 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s claim amendments.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goorhuis (UG PG Pub. 2004/0037922; cited on PTO-892 dated July 5, 2023) in view of Gonzalez-Martin et al. (NZ 538671; cited on PTO-892 dated July 5, 2023), herein after referred to as Gonzalez-Martin.
Regarding claims 1-4, 11, and 15, Goorhuis discloses a method for obtaining a sausage comprising [0037]:
preparing a non-gelled aqueous coating composition [0002; 0038-0039], said composition comprising water and 2-7 w/w% alginate (claims 1 and 2);
applying by co-extrusion the non-gelled aqueous coating composition around a food preparation, so as to coat the food preparation ([0038-0039]; claim 9);
bringing said coated food preparation into contact with a gelling agent [0040] so as to fix a casing formed from said aqueous coating composition around said food preparation (claim 8); in which the gelling agent is calcium chloride ([0044]; [0062]);
wherein the preparing comprises mixing the water and the alginate to form a mixture [0061].
Goorhuis also teaches that the gelling agent (calcium chloride) is applied to the coating composition after the composition has been extruded and coated around the food preparation [0062].
Goorhuis does not teach exposing the mixture to a high pressure of at least 1400 bar for at least 0.1 second and at most 3 minutes, at least 4200 bar for at least 0.1 second and at most 3 minutes, at least 1400 bar for at least 5 seconds and at most 3 minutes, at least 2000 bar for at least 3 seconds and at most 3 minutes, or at least 1800 bar for at least 0.1 second.
Gonzalez-Martin, in the same field of invention, teaches a mixture comprising a bioactive component, a stabilizer (e.g., alginate) (claims 1, 55, and 56), and water (Examples, [0190]), wherein the mixture is subject to a pressure treatment at 350-1000 MPa (3,500-10,000 bar) for 0-5 minutes (claim 2). The mixture being for incorporation into food and ingestible products [0002]. Gonzalez-Martin also teaches that the mixture is subjected to the high pressure treatment prior to being incorporated with a food product (claim 51). Thus, the high pressure processing step occurs prior to any further processing steps such as extrusion and coating, and accordingly, prior to contacting the food preparation with the calcium chloride.
The taught pressure range of 3,500-10,000 bar meets the claimed limitations of at least 1400, 1800, 2000, and/or 4200 bar and the taught holding time range of 0-5 minutes encompasses the claimed ranges of at least 0.1, 3, and 5 seconds and at most 3 minutes. Where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Gonzalez-Martin offers the motivation that the high-pressure processing of the mixture prevents the growth of at least one unwanted microorganism in the final product that would otherwise spoil the food product ([0001]; [0032]; claims 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of Goorhuis by incorporating the high pressure processing step of Gonzalez-Martin into the coating composition preparation step. One would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit preventing any growth of unwanted bacteria in the alginate mixture.
Regarding claim 5, Goorhuis teaches incorporating a polysaccharide into the water and alginate mixture [0014], the polysaccharide of which is guar gum [0015].
Regarding claim 6, Goorhuis teaches that the polysaccharide is guar gum and that the mixture comprises 2.5% alginate and 5% guar gum [0063], which is within the claim limitation of 2-7 w/w% sodium alginate and 0.5-6 w/w% guar gum.
Regarding claim 8, modified Goorhuis teaches that the pH of the mixture is held at a range of 3.2-4.8 (i.e., the pH of the mixture after exposure to the high pressure treatment) (Gonzalez-Martin: claim 40), which encompasses the claimed range of 3.8-4.2. Where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goorhuis (UG PG Pub. 2004/0037922; cited on PTO-892 dated July 5, 2023) in view of Gonzalez-Martin et al. (NZ 538671; cited on PTO-892 dated July 5, 2023), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bertagnolli et al. (“Sargassum filipendula alginate from Brazil: Seasonal influence and characteristics,” Carbohydrate Polymers, vol. 111, pp. 619-623, October 2014; cited on PTO-892 dated July 5, 2023), herein after referred to as Bertagnolli.
Modified Goorhuis teaches the method to prepare an aqueous coating composition as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Goorhuis does not specifically teach alginates with a ratio between mannuronic acid and guluronic acid lower than or equal to 1.3.
Bertagnolli, in the same field of invention, teaches alginates with M/G ratios below 1.0 (Table 2; Conclusions). Bertagnolli offers the motivation that alginates with greater viscosity and higher guluronic acid content (i.e., a lower M/G ratio) are better for obtaining resistant gels, as opposed to their higher M/G ratio counterparts, and are more applicable in food and cosmetic industries (paragraph above Table 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the alginate with an M/G ratio below 1.0 of Bertagnolli in the composition mixture of modified Goorhuis, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to implement this limitation for the benefit of obtaining resistant gels.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goorhuis (UG PG Pub. 2004/0037922; cited on PTO-892 dated July 5, 2023) in view of Gonzalez-Martin et al. (NZ 538671; cited on PTO-892 dated July 5, 2023), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tanguy et al. (FR 2973988; cited on PTO-892 dated July 5, 2023), herein after referred to as Tanguy.
Modified Goorhuis teaches the method to prepare an aqueous coating composition as set forth above with regard to claim 5.
Goorhuis teaches that the polysaccharide is guar gum [0063].
Modified Goorhuis is silent as to that the mixture comprises 4-5 w/w% of sodium alginate and 1.4-1.8 w/w% guar gum.
Tanguy teaches a composition having 4-5 w/w% of alginate and 1.2-1.8 w/w% of starch (claim 2), the alginate of which may be sodium alginate (paragraph 10 under Description). The starch of Tanguy reads on the claim limitation of the present claim of guar gum, because instant claim 5 states that the polysaccharide can be starch or guar gum. Tanguy offers the motivation that when used in these optimal ranges, the finished coating has similar color, appearance, texture, elasticity, and mechanical resistance to that of animal gut casing (i.e., a typical casing used) (paragraph 9 under Description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the composition of modified Goorhuis to be within the ranges of Tanguy, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to make this modification for the benefit of creating an alginate casing that is substantially similar to that of an animal casing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the 112(b) rejections of claims 1-8, 11, 12, and 15 from the previous office action and therefore these rejections have been withdrawn.
The prior art rejection has been amended in light of applicant’s amendments to the claims, however, the essential prior art rejection has been maintained by the examiner for the following reasons.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 11, and 15 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.
Applicant argues that the prior art of Li teaches a pressure holding time outside of the amended claimed range. Under the new grounds of rejection, Li is no longer relied upon to teach the pressures and holding time, and as such, these arguments are moot.
Applicant’s further arguments with respect to claims 7, 8, and 12 are directed to the failure of the additional prior art to cure the deficiencies of Goorhuis in view of Li. Since Li is no longer relied upon, as well as that there are no deficiencies of Goorhuis in view of the new prior art, these arguments are moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Meloni, D. (“High-Hydrostatic-Pressure (HHP) Processing Technology as a Novel Control Method for Listeria monocytogenes Occurrence in Mediterranean-Style Dry-Fermented Sausages,” Foods. 2019 Dec 12;8(12):672. doi: 10.3390/foods8120672) teaches high-pressure processing of various sausages at the instantly claimed pressures and holding times.
Rubio et al. (“Model for Listeria monocytogenes inactivation by high hydrostatic pressure processing in Spanish chorizo sausage,” Food Microbiology. Volume 69; 2018; pages 18-24) teaches high-pressure processing, at the instantly claimed pressures and holding times, on sausage for prevention of bacteria growth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURA E SWEENEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/M.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791