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 Status
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are pending. Claims 3 and 10 have been cancelled.
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 8 is 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 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
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 Henning et al. (herein referred to as Henning, DE 102016125870 A1) in view of Ray (US 20150320085 A1), Ajami et al (herein referred to as Ajami, US 20170105438 A1) and Ingoglia et al. (herein referred to as Ingoglia, US 20190274340 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Henning teaches a process for the preparation of a meat simulant (abstract). Henning teaches the meat batter comprises animal protein other than egg powder ([0010]). Henning teaches the composition can comprise fibers from a plant origin ([0009]). Henning teaches the composition can comprise egg-derived proteins ([0010]). Next, 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]).
However, Henning is silent to the amount of meat and meat by-products other than egg powder in the composition. The examiner would like to note that Henning teaches an embodiments wherein the composition contains 90.8% meat and animal derivates ([0032]). However, this percentage would include egg powder and therefore is not clear on the specific amount of meat-by-product other than egg powder in the composition.
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 Henning 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]).
As stated above, Henning teaches the composition can comprise fibers from a plant origin ([0009]) and can comprise egg-derived proteins ([0010]) but is silent to the plant fiber being selected from the group consisting of cellulose powder, sugar beet pulp powder, apple pomace, citrus fiber, and mixtures thereof and is silent to the proteins being egg powder.
Ray teaches a process for the production of a meat analogue ([0013]). The steps comprising introducing a meat batter comprising animal protein other than egg powder (Table 1, Ray reads as using chicken), plant fiber wherein the plant fiber is a nutritional and/or aesthetic additive and can be citrus fiber ([0058]), and egg powder (Table 1, Ray reads as using “edible dried egg product”). Ray teaches a meat batter which comprises meat and meat by-products as animal protein ([0092] Example 1),and 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 Henning 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.
With regard to the egg powder, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Henning 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.
However the combination of Henning and Ray is silent to the meat batter containing at least about 7 wt.% plant fiber.
Ajami teaches food products that have structures, textures, and other properties comparable to those of animal meat (abstract). Ajami teaches the meat-like food products provided herein can optionally comprise at least about 0.05% by weight of carbohydrate ([0108]). A variety of ingredients may be used as all or part of the carbohydrate, including but not limited to starch, flour, edible fiber, and combinations thereof. Examples of suitable edible fibers include citrus fiber ([0108]). Ajami teaches in some embodiments, the meat-like food products comprise between about 0.1% and about 10% by weight of fiber. ([0108]). 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). Ajami teaches the cooked meat-like food products provided herein have one or more similar or superior meat-like attributes compared to cooked animal meat. Suitable meat-like attributes of cooked animal meat include but are not limited to color, aroma, taste, chewiness, gumminess, springiness, cohesiveness, resilience, adhesiveness, hardness, MC, protein content, lipid content, carbohydrate content, fiber content, juiciness, head space GCMS, and cooking time ([0230]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Henning and Ray in view of Ajami to include fiber in an amount to achieve suitable meat-like attributes including fiber content.
With regard to Claim 2, 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).
With regard to Claim 4, Henning 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 Henning 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, Henning teaches the composition can comprise fibers from a plant origin ([0009]) but 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 Henning 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, Henning teaches Three parts of a meat emulsion containing 90.8% meat and animal derivatives, 4.7% water and 4.5% of at least one of vitamins, minerals, flavors, colors, etc. (all percentages are weight percentages based on the total weight of the slurry) to achieve a nutritionally complete cat food product were blended with one part of a vegetable protein powder containing at least 75% protein (vital wheat gluten) to form a semi-solid mix containing 30.5% crude protein, 59% moisture and 4.5% fat (all percentages of the semi-solid mix are based on the total weight of the semi-solid mix). ([0034]).
Thus, Henning reads such that the vegetable protein content would be less than 40 wt% of the meat batter.
With regard to Claim 7, Henning teaches three parts of a meat emulsion containing 90.8% meat and animal derivatives, 4.7% water and 4.5% of at least one of vitamins, minerals, flavors, colors, etc. (all percentages are weight percentages based on the total weight of the slurry) to achieve a nutritionally complete cat food product were blended with one part of a vegetable protein powder containing at least 75% protein (vital wheat gluten) to form a semi-solid mix containing 30.5% crude protein, 59% moisture and 4.5% fat (all percentages of the semi-solid mix are based on the total weight of the semi-solid mix). ([0034]).
Thus, Henning reads such that the vegetable protein content would be less than 20 wt% of the meat batter.
With regard to Claim 8, Henning teaches the product contains vegetable proteins and suitable vegetable proteins include proteins obtained from wheat gluten, soy protein isolate, corn, pea, rice, peanut, hemp, cottonseed, lupin, potato, etc. or mixtures thereof ([0010]). Thus, Henning reads such that there are suitable vegetable proteins that can be used so that the final product can be gluten free, grain free, or soy free.
With regard to Claim 9, Henning teaches the first and second heating units both comprises a scraped surface heat exchanger ([0033])
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 1 with regard to Ray not teaching the cooling step has been considered but is moot in view of the new rejection set forth above. In this case, Henning is the primary reference and teaches the claimed cooling step after heating and prior to cutting the product. As a result, applicants arguments in view of Ray and the cooling process are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s argument with respect to the combination of Ogneva and Ray are moot as Ogneva is no longer relied upon in the rejection.
With regard to applicants argument that Ajami does not contemplate the synergistic effect of the fibers used in recited amounts with the other components, this argument is not found to be persuasive because Ajami teaches the limitations of the claim and provides motivation to combine. Applicant is claiming a synergistic effect however provides not data to show and unexpected or unobvious results. Per MPEP 716.02(b) The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). The burden is on the applicant to show the results are unexpected and with no date being presented to show an unexpected result, the applicants argument in regard to the synergistic effect is not found to be persuasive.
Applicants argues that Ignolia does not teach or suggest to add specific amounts of egg powder and plant fibers as firming agents. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Ignolia is not relied upon to teach the egg power and plant fibers but merely relied upon to teach the 75-85 wt.% meat and meat by-products. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Ignolia provides ample motivation to combine.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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