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 response to applicant submission dated March 9, 2026. Any objections and/or rejections made in previous actions and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10, 12, 14, 15, and 18-23 are pending. Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 19 remain withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites “in which the water in the slurry changes a phase from a liquid to a solid” does not need the article “a” preceding the term “phase” and should read “in which the water in the slurry changes phase from a liquid to a solid”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 2, 4, 5, 10, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavallini et al. (US 2006/0204644 A1) in view of Deo et al. (US 9826768 B2) and Lotzbeyer et al. (WO 2016/150960 A1).
Translation for WO 2016/150960 A1 provided by Espace.net and provided with the current office action.
With respect to Claim 2, Cavallini et al. teaches a method of producing a vegetable analog base [0003] comprising a methyl cellulose slurry. [0023] Cavallini et al. teaches that the methyl cellulose slurry comprises 1-3% methyl cellulose and 45-65% water/ice mix. [0032] Methyl cellulose and ice would result in a frozen methyl cellulose slurry, reading on the limitation recited in claim 2 of freezing the methyl cellulose slurry.
Cavallini et al. is silent to a thawing of the frozen slurry wherein the slurry is retained in a temperature zone of from 0-5°C.
Deo et al. teaches a method for preparing a methyl cellulose slurry comprising an aqueous solution and methyl cellulose wherein powdered methylcellulose is added to water and mixed until homogenous at low temperatures. [Example 1] Deo et al. teaches a specific embodiment of the composition wherein the methylcellulose is present at 2.0% and the mixture is cooled to 0.5°C while mixing. [Example 3] Additionally, the resulting mixture is then stored for 24 hours at 4°C. [Table 3] This reads on retaining a methyl cellulose slurry in a temperature range between 0-5°C for 10 hours or longer.
Both references are silent to the water in the slurry changing from a liquid to a solid.
Lotzbeyer et al. teaches a method for preparing a food composition comprising texturizing agents, [0002] preferably methylcellulose, [0045] wherein the method comprises a step of processing the food composition with a heating step, followed by a cooling step to solidify the food composition below 5°C. [0054] Additionally, the method taught by Lotzbeyer et al. comprises a step of freezing and thawing in order to increase the shape stability. [0110] This reads on freezing the composition in order to solidify the mixture.
Cavallini et al., Deo et al., and Lotzbeyer et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they teach methyl cellulose slurries. Where Cavallini et al. teaches a methyl cellulose slurry comprising up to 3% methyl cellulose that is mixed in ice water, Deo et al. teaches a methyl cellulose slurry that is prepared at low temperature and thaws over 24 hours, and Lotzbeyer et al. teaches a step of freezing and thawing the methylcellulose mixture in order to increase the shape stability of the product. Additionally, Deo et al. teaches that the methyl cellulose slurry prepared by this method provides greater satiety while reducing caloric intake. [Col. 9, Ln. 40-42]
The methyl cellulose slurry produced by Cavallini et al. in view of Deo et al. and Lotzbeyer et al. teaches methyl cellulose slurry comprising water and methyl cellulose, wherein the method comprises freezing the slurry solid and thawing the slurry, wherein the slurry is retained in a 0-5°C temperature range while thawing for 24 hours. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teachings of Cavallini et al. in view of Deo et al. and Lotzbeyer et al. to produce a methyl cellulose slurry by the process of mixing methyl cellulose with water, freezing the slurry, thawing the slurry, wherein during freezing and thawing the slurry is retained in a temperature zone of from 0-5°C, thereby rendering claim 2 obvious.
With respect to Claim 4, Cavallini et al. in view of Deo et al. and Lotzbeyer et al. teaches the method recited in claim 2, as described above. Additionally, Deo et al. teaches a final product with a temperature of 0.5°C. [Example 3] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have used the teachings of Cavallini et al. in view of Deo et al. and Lotzbeyer et al. to produce a methyl cellulose slurry through the process recited in claim 4, wherein the methyl cellulose slurry product is 10°C or lower.
With respect to Claim 5, Cavallini et al. in view of Deo et al. and Lotzbeyer et al. teaches the method recited in claim 2, as described above. Additionally, Cavallini et al. teaches that the methyl cellulose slurry comprises 1-3% methyl cellulose. [0032] Therefore, Cavallini et al. renders claim 5 obvious.
With respect to Claim 10, Cavallini et al. in view of Deo et al. and Lotzbeyer et al. teaches the method recited in claim 4, as described above. Additionally, Cavallini et al. teaches that the methyl cellulose slurry comprises 1-3% methyl cellulose. [0032] Therefore, Cavallini et al. in view of Deo et al. and Lotzbeyer et al. renders claim 10 obvious.
With respect to Claims 20 and 21, Cavallini et al. in view of Deo et al. and Lotzbeyer et al. teaches the invention recited in claims 5 and 10, as described above. Additionally, Cavallini et al. teaches that the methyl cellulose slurry comprises 1-3% methyl cellulose [0032], an amount that overlaps with the range recited in claims 20 and 21. According to MPEP 2144.05 I, “In the case where claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teachings of Cavallini et al. in view of Deo et al. and Lotzbeyer et al. to produce a methyl cellulose slurry by the processes recited in claims 5 and 10 respectively, wherein the methyl cellulose slurry comprises 3-3.5% methyl cellulose, thereby rendering claims 20 and 21 obvious.
With respect to Claims 22 and 23, Cavallini et al. in view of Deo et al. and Lotzbeyer et al. teaches the method recited in claim 2, as described above. Additionally, Lotzbeyer et al. teaches cooling the composition in order to solidify the composition below 5°C [0054] and then freezing the composition below 0°C, [0110] for about 4 hours. [0157] Then the thawing step taught in Deo et al. occurs for 24 hours at 4°C. [Table 3] This combination reads on the freezing step being shorter than the thawing step with regards to passing through a zone of 0-5°C.
Additionally, applicant provides a definition for the limitation “rapid freezing” on Page 5, Par. 3 of the remarks as “rapidly cooling materials to preserve quality by minimizing ice crystal formation” and “to freeze (food) for preservation so rapidly that ice crystals formed are too small to rupture the cells and the natural juices and flavor are preserved”. Lotzbeyer et al. teaches that the food composition after thawing exhibits no significant syneresis. [0110] This reads on the limitation recited because a lack of syneresis would be due to a lack of cells rupturing during the freezing process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teachings of Cavallini et al. in view of Deo et al. and Lotzbeyer et al. to produce a methylcellulose slurry composition wherein the freezing and thawing pass through a step of 0-5°C and the thawing step is longer than the freezing step and at least 10 hours, and the freezing is rapid, thereby rendering claim 22 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 8, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the new reference Lotzbeyer et al. with regard to any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH CULLEN MERCHLINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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.
/J.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791