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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/30/25 has been entered.
Claim 1 is amended and claims 2-5,9,18 are cancelled. Claims 1,6-8,10-16,19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,6-8,10-16,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geistlinger ( WO 2016/044423).
For claims 1,3-4, 13, 14 Geistlinger discloses protein products comprising about 2-70% microbial biomass. The biomass includes yeast biomass. The yeast biomass comprises 1-70% protein. The protein products are extruded; thus, they are extrudate. ( see paragraphs 0007,0019,0062,0063,0084,0087,0110). For claim 13, how the yeast is derived is a processing limitation that doesn’t determine the patentability of the product.
For claim 1, Geistlinger discloses the protein product can be further processed to yield post-processed protein product. The protein product can be dehydrated to give less than about 5% by weight of water. ( see paragraphs 0126,0128)
For claim 6, Geistlinger discloses the protein product comprising about .5-20% non-microbial carbohydrate such as starch. ( see paragraph 0096, 0068)
For claim 7, Geistlinger discloses the protein product comprisings about 5-68% non-microbial protein such as pea protein which is a vegetable protein. ( see paragraphs 0068, 0069)
For claim 8, Geistlinger discloses the protein product has a fibrous texture by disclosing that the protein is a protein fibrous product. ( see paragraph 0126)
For claim 9, Geistlinger discloses the protein product having a moisture content of about 30-70%. ( see paragraph 0073)
For claims 10,11, Geistlinger discloses the protein product comprising non-microbial ingredients in amount of between about .01-5% including calcium carbonate as pH adjusting agent. Since the ingredient is the same as claimed, it is inherent that the ingredient is capable of functioning as expansion regulating agent. ( see paragraphs 0120,0125)
For claim 12, Geistlinger discloses the protein product comprising non-microbial ingredients such as thickening agent, emulsifier, coloring, flavoring etc… ( see paragraphs 0120,0121-0124)
For claims 15-16, 19 Geistlinger discloses food product comprising the protein extrudate such as extended meat products. The food product can be in the form of steak, ground etc.. ( see paragraphs 0133-0134)
Geistlinger does not specifically disclose the range of 75-100% of yeast material in the extrudate as in claim 1.
Geistlinger discloses in paragraph 0058, “ the term about as used herein refers to greater or lesser than the value or range stated by 1/10 of the stated values. In paragraph 0062, Geistlinger discloses the protein product comprises about 2% to about 70% microbial biomass. Thus, the amount of microbial biomass in the protein product includes amount over 70% including 77% because 1/10 of 70 is 7. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use greater amount than 70% because it’s specifically allowed for in the Geistlinger disclosure. All the ranges in Geistlinger overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues that the office action interpretation of Geistlinger’s definition of about to extend the disclosed range of 2-70% microbial biomass to 77% is improper and unsupported by the reference itself. Applicant states the definition of “ about” as referring to greater or lesser than the stated value of 1/10 in intended to account for minor variation around stated values, not to fundamentally expand the disclosed range to encompass values significantly beyond the upper limit. This argument is not persuasive because it lacks reasonable basis. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant that the interpretation of “ about” is improper and unsupported by the reference. How can an interpretation be unsupported when it’s explicitly disclosed? Geistlinger discloses without any ambiguity that “ about” is intended to cover values stated by 1/10 of the stated values. Geistlinger even discloses example that “ a value of about 30 means a value of between 27% and 33%”. The language of “ accounting for minor variation around stated values” is applicant own language. Geistlinger does not disclose that “ about “ is to account for minor variation. Geistlinger clearly explain what the term “ about” covers. Thus, the range of 2-70% covers the amount of 77%. Applicant further argues that the range extending only to 77 does not overlap with the claimed range of 75-100%. If the amount meets a point in the claimed range, it overlaps. If applicant intends for the range to not overlap, then the range needs to include value that is not disclosed in Geistlinger. An amount of 100% is fundamentally different but that is an irrelevant point because the claim does not recite only 100%. Applicant further argues that the claimed composition is distinct from Geistlinger because Geistlinger’s protein products are designed as blends containing significant amounts of non-microbial proteins and other components. This argument is not persuasive because the claims do not exclude additional components. Geistlinger discloses all the components claimed.
With respect the water content, applicant argues that Geistlinger mentions dehydration to less than 5% water in post-processing. This is for post-processed products, not the extrudate itself. This argument is not persuasive. The post processing takes place afterward on the extruded protein product. Thus, the water content is on the extrudate. Contrary to applicant’s urging, the Geistlinger extrudate comprises all the ingredients and in the amounts as in claim 1.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
Saturday, January 10, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793