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 9/25/2025. Claims 1-16 are pending in the application, claim 12 is withdrawn from consideration being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-5,7-10 and withdrawn claim 12 were amended and new claims 13-16 were added.
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 1, 3,7, 13-14 and dependent claims 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.
Regarding claim 1, the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising” does not clearly point to the method of the invention. The phrase does not preclude other process steps, including heating which would potentially inactivate an added enzyme. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 3,13 and 14 recite “wherein the temperature of adding lipase to the vegetable oil or fat is 20 deg. C or less”. It is unclear what “temperature of adding” means, as “temperature of adding” does not indicate that the temperature is maintained during the entire process and storage. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Toshio et al. (JPH1072A, JP3054367B2) cited in an IDS.
Regarding claim 1 and 7, Toshio (for example, Examples 1,3,5 ) discloses a method of making a meat product by adding lipase to a vegetable oil or fat to obtain a mixture and blending the mixture with an ingredient of the meat or meat-like food product, as claimed, under the conditions claimed.
Regarding the limitation “wherein 10 parts by weight or more of the mixture comprising lipase is blended, when a total content of the meat or meat-like processed food product is defined as 100 parts by weight”, as the method claim has the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”, additional steps such as heating are not precluded. Further, it appears that the ratio of a mixture of oil or fat and lipase to unspecified ingredient is 10 parts to 100 parts by weight. However, nothing is known about the “meat-like processed food product” or unexpected effects of the blending step as claimed. Toshio (abstract,[0004]) discloses adding preferably 2-20 parts by weight.
edible oils and fats and a lipase, to 100 pts. wt. of an egg white solid component (ingredient of a meat-like processed food product).
Based on the disclosure in Toshio, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the method to have an lipase treated oil or fat ingredient to produce a processed meat product with improved flavor and texture based on the disclosure in Toshio, with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving water retention and yield, as the albumen ingredient is reported to have good water retention properties [0003]. 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).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, the mixture of lipase and oil is blended with the ingredient more than 5 minutes after mixing, as claimed (see examples).
Regarding claims 3,13 and 14, Toshio does not disclose heating oil or fat prior to mixing with lipase. It is therefore considered that the mixing occurs at room temperature, which is close to 20 deg. C (20 deg C to 25 deg, C is the most common range).
Regarding claims 4 and 9 the oils are selected from the claimed group of oils including rapeseed oil [0008].
Regarding claim 5 and 10, Toshio discloses oleic acid at the claimed level.
Regarding claims 6 and 11, Toshio discloses meat products such as hamburgers as claimed [0008].
Regarding claims 15 and 16, an amount of added lipase would depend on the properties of the lipase being used including its activity level under usage conditions and the amount of substrate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have suitably selected amounts based on process conditions and enzyme manufacturer recommendations.
Claims 1-11 and 13-16 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of claim amendments have been considered, and are partially persuasive. The previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
However regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The claimed method is indefinite for the reasons provided in the current Office action. Applicant’s argument that the lipase is active in the method of the invention is not supported by the claimed method.
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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.
Correspondence
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