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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment and response filed 5/18/2026. Claims 11-26 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/18/2026 was filed before close of prosecution in the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive for the following reasons:
The arguments pertain to the lower amounts of fermented plant material used in the primary reference as compared to the claimed invention. However, the claims do not specify a quantity range for the fermented material. It is also claimed that the fermented material can be adjusted to 75% moisture content in dough formation and optionally combining the material with another protein source. There is therefore no specific claim to a higher content of fermented material in the product.
Regarding the combination of references, it has been previously held that “[T]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 11-17, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Legarth (US20190216094A1) in view of Geistlinger et al. (US 2016/0073671 Al) cited in an IDS.
Regarding claims 11,12,14, 15 18,25 and 26, Legarth discloses providing a fermented plant material wherein the plant material is either from Brassicaceae or Fabaceae family (such as soy) ([0045]-[0050]) as an ingredient in a feed or food product with antifungal properties, that may be a meat analog product. In particular, Legarth discloses fermenting the material with a lactic acid bacterial strain which is expected to produce lactic acid in the fermented material as claimed . Regarding the ratio of lactic acid to acetic acid and lactic acid to ethanol in the claimed fermented material, one of ordinary skill in the art would have suitably selected a fermented material that has been subjected to a predominantly homofermentative process. To ensure a glucosinolate content in the claimed range one would appropriately select a plant material with a low content of glucosinolate.
Legarth does not specifically disclose a method to make a meat analog with the fermented material. However, use in food products and feed products that are meat analogs is implied in the use of the fermented plant material in a food product or feed product that is a meat produce as both a meat product and a meat analog contain protein fibers that can be texturized.
Geistlinger discloses ([0087]-[0090], claim 17) a process for producing a meat analog comprising protein fibers from algae that are substantially aligned, wherein the process comprises steps as claimed and preparation by extrusion, for example. Regarding the composition of the fermented material or the meat analog, one of ordinary skill in the art would have suitably selected a substrate, fermenting culture and additives to obtain a desired composition in a fermented plant material or a meat analog produced with the fermented plant material.
No unexpected results are provided to distinguish the method claimed from the art.
Regarding claim 13 and 26, applicant has not shown the criticality of the claimed particle size distribution and provided details of a first treatment step. No difference from the method in the art is discerned.
Regarding claim 16, Geistlinger does not specifically disclose a temperature limitation as claimed. However, at [0091] Geistlinger discloses that:
“Any physiochemical parameter or extruder configuration parameter may influence the appearance, texture, and
properties of the protein fibrous product. The physiochemical parameters include but are not limited to the formulation of
the dough (e.g., protein type and content, carbohydrate type and content, lipid type and content, water content, other
ingredients) and the cooking temperature. Configuration parameters include but are not limited to the extruder screw
and barrel configuration (and resulting screw-induced shear pressure), heating profile across the heating zones, and
dimensions of the cooling die. The physiochemical and configuration parameters are not mutually exclusive. Optimal
physiological and configuration parameters for the thermoplastic extrusion of the meat structured protein products provided
herein can be determined experimentally by titrating a particular parameter against the structure, sensory, and physical
chemical characteristics ( e.g., microscopic protein structure, sensory panel scores, MC, TPA profile) of the end products,
and identifying the setting of the parameter at which the meat structured protein products provided herein are obtained.”
It would have been obvious to have optimized a temperature to obtain desired characteristics in a fermented raw material or analog product prepared with the raw material, such as maintaining certain properties with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 17, one of ordinary skill in the art would select a homofermentative culture to obtain lactic acid, based on the targeted properties of the analog product comprising fermented plant material, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Legarth in view of Geistlinger discloses steps comprising combining a fermented material, adjusting moisture content, producing a dough material that is a meat analog. One of ordinary skill in the art would have followed the steps in Geistlinger to produce a meat analog product as claimed with a reasonable expectation of success, based on the successfully produced analogs disclosed in therein.
Claims 18-24 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over “Smoked Meat Alternative with Pepper” (Mintel Nov. 2015) in view of Legarth and further in view of Geistlinger.
Regarding claims 18-23 Mintel discloses a product that is a meat substitute. The product comprises water, soy beans, green pepper (5%), soy sauce (water, soybeans, wheat, sea salt, koji ferment, lactobacillus bulgaricus ferment, rock salt, beechwood smoke), corresponding to a meat analog with a fermented material as claimed.
Regarding the claimed particle sizes in claim 22 applicant has not shown the criticality of the claimed particle size distribution (at least two of the listed) for a fermented material in a product comprising the material.
Regarding claims 19-21, Mintel does not specifically disclose the content of lactic acid bacteria in the microbiotica of the meat analog. Legarth in view of Geistlinger however discloses a meat analog that contains lactic acid, wherein the fermented plant material used in its preparation is treated with lactic acid bacteria to produce lactic acid. . As both Mintel and modified Legarth are directed to meat analog products comprising fermented plant material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include lactic acid bacteria at an optimized level to obtain a desired level of lactic acid in the meat analog product, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 24, a minced product is considered an obvious modification of Mintel with a view to address consumer preferences.
Claims 11-26 are prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights