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 .
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, 2, and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dingman et al. (herein referred to as Dingman, DE 60034895 T2) in view of Henning et al. (herein referred to as Henning, DE 102016125870 A1), Ray (US 20150320085 A1) and Ingoglia et al. (herein referred to as Ingoglia, US 20190274340 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Dingman teaches a process for the production of a meat analogue ([0001]-[0002]). Dingman teaches the meat batter contains at least 29% by weight of protein ([0012]). Dingman teaches the product contains meat materials and/or meat by-products wherein quantity of meat used in the recipe depending on a number of considerations, such as the intended use of the product, the desired taste of the product, the palatability, the cost, the availability of ingredients, and the like ([0022]). Dingman teaches introducing the meat batter into a single heating unit ([0034]) and heating the meat batter to a temperature of 140℃ to 154℃ ([0012]). Dingman teaches further cooling the meat batter ([0038]).
Dingman is silent to the composition comprising at least 7 wt% plant fiber.
Ray teaches a process for the production of a meat analogue ([0013]). Ray teaches the meat batter comprises animal protein (Table 1) and further comprise plant fiber wherein the plant fiber is a nutritional and/or aesthetic additive and can be citrus fiber ([0058]). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to include citrus fiber in an amount to achieve the desired nutritional and/or aesthetic properties of the final product. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Dingman in view of Ray to include citrus fiber as a nutritional and/or aesthetic additive to achieve the desired nutritional profile or aesthetic appeal of the final product.
Further, Dingman is silent to the composition comprising at least 8 wt% egg powder.
Additionally, Ray teaches the meat batter, comprises at least about 8 wt.% of egg powder ([0042] Ray read such that embodiments can include between about 14% and about 32% dried egg product). Ray teaches the inclusion of a dried egg product provides advantages such as reduced cost, high protein content, and improved binding characteristics that helps to assure well-formed, aesthetically pleasing meat like chunks ([0045]). Ray teaches that percentages and ratios are calculated by weight ([0029]). See MPEP2144.05(I) which states 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) and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Dingman in view of Ray to include the egg powder as taught by Ray because egg has a high protein content and its inclusion advantageously reduces cost and improves binding characteristics that helps to assure well-formed, aesthetically pleasing meat like chunks.
As stated above, Dingman teaches the meat batter contains at least 29% by weight of protein ([0012]). Dingman teaches the product contains meat materials and/or meat by-products wherein quantity of meat used in the recipe depending on a number of considerations, such as the intended use of the product, the desired taste of the product, the palatability, the cost, the availability of ingredients, and the like ([0022]) but the reference is silent to meat and meat by-products as animal protein other than egg powder being in an amount of 75-85 wt%.
Ingoglia teaches compositions and methods for making thin and firm all-meat chunks ([0006]). Ingoglia teaches an embodiment with 75-85 wt.% meat and meat by-products ([0018] Ingoglia reads such that the composition contains a meat in an amount about 30 wt.% to about 90 wt.%) Ingoglia teaches the product claimed simulates real meat pieces visually and texturally without the drawbacks of cereal-based meat analogue products which can reduce palatability and often have an unattractive bread-like texture with pores and tend to clump together ([0004], [0005])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dingman in view of Ingoglia to incorporate about 30 wt.% to about 90 wt.% meat and meat by-products in the meat batter to advantageously simulate real meat pieces visually and texturally ([0004], [0005]).
Continuing, Dingman is silent to steps (b) and (c); (b) maintaining the heat-treated product in continuous motion and immediately cooling the heat-treated product by moving through a cooling unit so that an aggregate of protein changes from a liquid melt to a solid phase material with fibrous structure and from which the solid phase material with fibrous structure can be continuously discharged, so that the cooled heat-treated product has a temperature below water boiling temperature at ambient pressure when exiting the cooling unit. (c) dividing the cooled heat-treated product into pieces.
Henning teaches a process for the preparation of a meat simulant (abstract).
Henning teaches heating the meat batter to a temperature of about 140 °C to about 170 °C to produce a heat treated product ([0015]). Henning teaches the product is heat treated and then immediately moved through a cooling unit so the product has a temperature below a water boiling point at ambient pressure when it leaves the cooling unit ([0006]). Henning teaches as the product cools it forms a coated fibrous structure as the melt solidifies ([0025]). Henning teaching once melted the protein is kept in motion and cooled in a cooling unit from which solidified material can be continuously released ([0024]). Thus Henning reads such that the heat-treated product is in continuous motion as instantly claimed. The method taught by Henning can be more precisely controlled during operation, and that surprisingly provide meat replicas with improved uniformity and/or palatability compared to existing meat replicas ([0005]). After heating, Henning teaches cooling the heat treated product through a cooling unit to a temperature below the boiling point of water at ambient pressure ([0025], [0027]) and then dividing the cooled heat-treated product into pieces ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the process taught by Dingman to include the steps above taught by Henning to precisely control the operation and that s provide meat replicas with improved uniformity and/or palatability compared to existing meat replicas.
With regard to Claim 2, Dingman is silent to the meat batter being introduced into a first heating unit wherein the meat batter is heated to a temperature of about 90 0C to about 120 °C to produce a first heat-treated product. Then the first heat-treated product is then transferred to a second heating unit and the first heat-treated product is heated to a temperature of about 1400C to about 170 °C to produce a second heat-treated product.
Henning teaches the meat batter is introduced into a first heating unit and the meat batter is heated to a temperature of about 90°C to about 120 °C and then the first heat- treated product is transferred to a second heating unit and the first heat-treated product is heated to a temperature of about 140 °C to about 170 °C to produce a second heat-treated product ([0015]See MPEP 2144.05(I) 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). The method taught by Henning make it possible to produce meat replicas from meat dough, whereby the exposure of the meat dough to very high temperatures is considerably reduced. Furthermore, the provided meat replicas exhibit unexpectedly improved palatability compared to meat replicas produced by conventional methods ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Dingman to introduce the meat batter into a first heating unit wherein the meat batter is heated to a temperature of about 90 0C to about 120 °C to produce a first heat-treated product. Then the first heat-treated product is then transferred to a second heating unit and the first heat-treated product is heated to a temperature of about 1400C to about 170 °C to produce a second heat-treated product as taught by Henning to reduce exposure of the meat dough to very high temperatures and improve palatability compared to meat replicas produced by conventional methods.
With regard to Claim 4, Dingman is silent to the egg powder being selected from full egg powder, egg white powder, egg yolk powder or mixtures thereof.
Ray teaches the egg powder is selected from full egg powder, egg white powder, egg yolk powder or mixtures thereof ([0043]). Ray teaches the inclusion of a dried egg product provides advantages such as reduced cost, high protein content, and improved binding characteristics that helps to assure well-formed, aesthetically pleasing meat like chunks ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Dingman in view of Ray to include the egg powder as taught by Ray because egg has a high protein content and its inclusion advantageously reduces cost and improves binding characteristics that helps to assure well-formed, aesthetically pleasing meat like chunks.
With regard to Claim 5, Dingman is silent to the plant fiber being selected from the group consisting of cellulose powder, sugar beet pulp powder, pectin containing materials or mixtures thereof.
Ray teaches the plant fiber is selected from cellulose powder, sugar beet pulp powder, pectin containing materials or mixtures thereof ([0058] Ray reads such that the meat chunks can include various vitamins, minerals, amino acids, fats and other nutritional and/or aesthetic additives. Examples include celluloses, beet pulp, dried beet fiber, pectins, citrus pectins, and more).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Dingman in view of Ray to include celluloses, beet pulp, dried beet fiber, pectins, citrus pectins, and/or more as a nutritional and/or aesthetic additive to achieve the desired nutritional profile or aesthetic appeal of the final product.
With regard to Claim 6, Dingman teaches the meat batter contains at least 29% by weight of protein ([0012]) but is silent to the meat batter comprising plant protein in a maximum content of 40 wt%.
Ray teaches the meat like chunks can have addition ingredients such as vegetable proteins. Ray teaches the meat like chunks can comprise between about 1% and about 10% pea protein ([0042]). Ray teaches the pea protein provides functionality for forming the meat like chunk, and also provides a desirable high protein content at low cost ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Dingman to include vegetable proteins, such as pea protein, in an amount between about 1% and about 10% (i.e., maximum of 40 wt%) as taught by Ray to provide functionality for forming the meat like chunk and provide a desirable high protein content at low cost.
With regard to Claim 7, Dingman teaches the meat batter contains at least 29% by weight of protein ([0012]) but is silent to the meat batter comprising plant protein in an amount less than about 20 wt%
Ray teaches the meat like chunks can have addition ingredients such as vegetable proteins. Ray teaches the meat like chunks can comprise between about 1% and about 10% pea protein ([0042]). Ray teaches the pea protein provides functionality for forming the meat like chunk, and also provides a desirable high protein content at low cost ([0065]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Dingman to include vegetable proteins, such as pea protein, in an amount between about 1% and about 10% (i.e., less than 20 wt%) as taught by Ray to provide functionality for forming the meat like chunk and provide a desirable high protein content at low cost.
With regard to Claims 8 and 13, Dingman teaches the recipe for the meat emulsion can vary considerably ([0026]). Dingman teaches the meat emulsion may also contain one or more dry, protein-rich substances such as wheat gluten, soy flour, concentrate, soy protein isolate, egg white, and low-fat dried milk ([0025]). It is important to note that although Dingman teaches embodiments wherein the product contains gluten, grain, and/or soy, there are additionally embodiments wherein the product does not (emphasis added) contain gluten, grain, or soy. Therefore Dingman reads such that the product may be gluten free or wherein the product may be grain and/or soy free.
With regard to Claims 9 and 14, Dingman is silent to wherein the first and second heating units both comprise a scraped surface heat exchanger.
Henning teaches the meat batter is introduced into a first heating unit and the meat batter is heated to a temperature of about 90°C to about 120 °C and then the first heat- treated product is transferred to a second heating unit and the first heat-treated product is heated to a temperature of about 140 °C to about 170 °C to produce a second heat-treated product ([0015]) Henning teaches the first and second heating units both comprises a scraped surface heat exchanger ([0033]) See MPEP 2144.05(I) 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). The method taught by Henning make it possible to produce meat replicas from meat dough, whereby the exposure of the meat dough to very high temperatures is considerably reduced. Furthermore, the provided meat replicas exhibit unexpectedly improved palatability compared to meat replicas produced by conventional methods ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Dingman to introduce the meat batter into a first heating unit wherein the meat batter is heated to a temperature of about 90 0C to about 120 °C to produce a first heat-treated product. Then the first heat-treated product is then transferred to a second heating unit and the first heat-treated product is heated to a temperature of about 1400C to about 170 °C to produce a second heat-treated product wherein the first and second heating units both comprise a scraped surface heat exchanger as taught by Henning to reduce exposure of the meat dough to very high temperatures and improve palatability compared to meat replicas produced by conventional methods. Henning imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that the claimed first and second scraped surface heat exchanger was known for such a thing to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select a scraped surface heat exchanger for both the first and second heating units because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the examiner’s reliance on Henning is misplaced because Henning requires heating the meat batter in a first heating unit prior to heating it in a second heating unit. Applicant’s argument is moot as a result of the new grounds of rejection. In this case, the single heating unit limited in claim 1 is taught by Dingman which teaches using a single emulsion mill as a heating unit.
Next applicant argues that Ingoglia enables the inclusion of egg powder as a partial replacement for plasma in the meat batter while the applicant states claim 1 specifically is drawn to at least 8 wt% egg powder and at least 7 wt% plant fiber in the batter which allows for at least 75-85% of meat ingredients to be incorporated into the meat batter, allowing for inclusion of more meat material, leading to meatier chunks. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Ingoglia is not relied upon to teach the use of egg powder or plant fiber, Ray is relied upon to teach the egg powder and plant fiber. Ray provides ample motivation to include the egg powder because egg has a high protein content and its inclusion advantageously reduces cost and improves binding characteristics that helps to assure well-formed, aesthetically pleasing meat like chunks. Further Ray provides ample motivation to for the at least 7 wt% plant fiber, and specifically citrus fiber as a nutritional and/or aesthetic additive to achieve the desired nutritional profile or aesthetic appeal of the final product. The examiner would like to state that the claims are merely interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Continuing, applicant argues that the examiner’s reliance on Ajami is misplaced because Ajami specifically teaches non-animal-derived food products throughout the description. Applicants argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Ajami is no longer relied upon in the rejection.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA I DIVIESTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (MST).
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/K.I.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights