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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7-31 are pending in the application. Claims 3 and 6 have been cancelled. Claims 21-24 are still withdrawn from consideration.
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, 5, 13-20, and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. (herein referred to as Ajami, US 20170105438 A1) in view of Redl, US 20170258109 A1) and Osen et al. (herein referred to as Osen, “High moisture extrusion cooking of pea protein isolates: Raw material characteristics, extruder responses, and texture properties”)
With regard to Claim 1, Ajami teaches food products that have structures, textures, and other properties comparable to those of animal meat, and that may therefore serve as substitutes for animal meat. Also provided are processes for production of such ground meat-like food products (abstract0. Ajami teaches a wet textured protein material, wherein the wet textured product material comprises at least 10wt% of proteins possessing a fibrous structure ([0064], [0106]) and between about 30% and about 80% by weight of water. ([0117]). See MPEP 2144.05(I) Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Ajami teaches the wet textured product material can be textured by means of extrusion ([0276]-[0277]), but is silent to the extrusion being high moisture extrusion cooking.
Osen teaches the production of palatable meat analogues using high moisture extrusion cooking is a complex process that depends on both the properties of the protein ingredients and the extrusion conditions. Osen compares three commercial pea protein isolates in order to investigate which protein properties affect extruder responses and product texture properties (abstract). One promising technology for obtaining fibrous meat-like structures from plant proteins is the high moisture extrusion cooking process. The proteins are plasticized and texturized in a long cooling die by varying the moisture, temperature, pressure and shear respectively. The combination of these process parameters results in molecular transformation and chemical reaction of the protein molecules which contribute to stabilization of the three-dimensional network formed after the extrusion step (1. Introduction, paragraph 3).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami in view of Osen to utilize high moisture extrusion cooking to advantageously obtain fibrous meat-like structures from plant proteins and stabilization of the three-dimensional network formed after the extrusion step (1. Introduction, paragraph 3).
In addition, Ajami is silent to step (b) wherein the wet textured product material is elastic-plastically deformed by rolling at least once.
Redl teaches a method of producing a slaughter-free fibrous protein product (abstract, [0008]). Redl teaches a wet textured product material wherein the wet textured product material comprises at least 10wt% of proteins possessing a fibrous structure, at least 35wt% water (Claim 14, Redl reads such that the water content is 60 to 70%); and (b) elastic-plastically deforming the wet textured product material, thereby changing the fibrous structure ([0030], Claim 17), to obtain a slaughter-free fibrous protein product, wherein the slaughter-free fibrous protein product, is a deformed product Claim 17, [0008], [0030]). Redl teaches sheeting steps which involve compressing dough pieces between cylindrical rolls (i.e., rolling) to deform the dough to obtain a product having a fibrillar structure which can be close to the myofril structure of skeletal muscles. ([0027], [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Ajami to include a rolling step as taught by Redl to obtain a product having a fibrillar structure which can be close to the myofril structure of skeletal muscles.
With regard to Claim 2, Ajami is silent to at least one further step of processing the deformed product.
Redl teaches the method comprises at least one further step of processing the deformed product ([0084] Example 1, Redl reads such that the after being continuously mixed in a twin extruder, the mixture is shaped. [0022] The shaping step according to the invention comprises at least one or a combination of cutting, molding, sheeting and agglomerating steps. Preferably, the shaping step comprises at least a cutting step and a molding or a sheeting step, more preferably a cutting step, a sheeting step and a molding step) to a product selected from the group consisting of: an initial pulled product, a block product, and a final pulled product ([0084]-[0085] Redl reads such that agglomerates of these particles are prepared by spraying 3 parts of water over the particles, and manually pressing the hydrated particles together into a mold having the shape of a pork chop. [0028] The molding step may be implemented by compressing dough pieces into molds of any desired shape. [0052] In one embodiment cube shape samples are made after hydrating the samples and before mixing).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention that the dough pieces being molded into “any desired shape” includes a pulled product, block product, and a final pulled product ([0028], [0084]-[0085]). More specifically, it was known from the art that precursor samples to the final product could be shaped into a block ([0052]), therefore it would have been obvious that the final product could also be molded in a block shape. In addition, the final product can be molded into a pork chop which one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize is similar to a traditional block shape. Therefore, the prior art shows it was known to mold the dough pieces into a block shape.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to include at least one more processing step as taught by Redl in order to obtain a product having a fibrillar structure which can be close to the myofibrillar structure of skeletal muscles and additional achieve a final product that mimics meat products such as the pork chop ([0028]).
With regard to Claim 4, Ajami teaches the wet textured product material is an extrudate ([0276]-[0277]),
With regard to Claim 5, Ajami is silent to the wet textured product material being rolled twice.
Redl teaches wherein the elastic-plastically deforming comprises rolling at least once, preferably at least twice ([0022]) Redl teaches the shaping step according to the invention comprises at least one or a combination of cutting, molding, sheeting and agglomerating steps. ([0027]) Redl teaches the sheeting step may be implemented by compressing dough pieces between cylindrical rolls and the shaping steps such as the cutting, agglomerating, sheeting and molding steps can be repeated in order to obtain a product having a fibrillar structure ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Ajami to include the rolling step at least twice as taught by Redl to obtain a product having a fibrillar structure
With regard to Claim 9, Ajami is silent to wherein rolling at least once comprises rolling by means of at least two rolls.
Redl teaches rolling at least once comprises rolling by means of at least two rolls ([0027] Redl reads such that the sheeting step may be implemented by compressing dough pieces between cylindrical rolls). Redl teaches the sheeting step may be implemented by compressing dough pieces between cylindrical rolls and the shaping steps such as the cutting, agglomerating, sheeting and molding steps can be repeated in order to obtain a product having a fibrillar structure ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to include the rolling step as taught by Redl to obtain a product having a fibrillar structure
With regard to Claims 13-15, Ajami is silent to further processing the deformed product.
Redl teaches the further step of processing the deformed product comprises pulling or cutting apart the deformed product to obtain the initial pulled product ([0022] The shaping step according to the invention comprises at least one or a combination of cutting, molding, sheeting and agglomerating steps. [0030] The shaping steps such as the cutting, agglomerating, sheeting and molding steps can be repeated in order to obtain a product having a fibrillar structure which can be close to the myofibrillar structure of skeletal muscles. Typically, a very nice fibrillar structure can be obtained when the dough pieces are of longitudinal shape.) Redl teaches the further step of processing the deformed product comprises forming a mixture of the initial pulled product and an adhesive matrix material to obtain the block product ([0099]-[0100] Redl reads such that the product is deformed in an extrusion process, agglomerates of these particles are prepared by spraying parts of water over the particles, and subsequently manually pressing the hydrated particles together into a mold. [0028] The molding step may be implemented by compressing dough pieces into molds of any desired shape.) Redl teaches the further step of processing the deformed product comprises additionally a step of pulling the block product to obtain a finished pulled product ([0099]-[0100] Redl reads such that the product is deformed in an extrusion process, agglomerates of these particles are prepared by spraying parts of water over the particles, and subsequently manually pressing the hydrated particles together into a mold. [0103] Example 4, Redl teaches the molded product can then be cut into pieces). In addition, Redl teaches the shaping step according to the invention comprises at least one or a combination of cutting, molding, sheeting and agglomerating steps ([0022]) Redl teaches the shaping steps such as the cutting, agglomerating, sheeting and molding steps can be repeated in order to obtain a product having a fibrillar structure which can be close to the myofibrillar structure of skeletal muscles. Typically, a very nice fibrillar structure can be obtained when the dough pieces are of longitudinal shape ([0030]) Redl discloses utilizing, and repeating if desired, the steps of cutting, molding, sheeting and agglomerating ([0022]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to include the further steps of processes as taught by Redl in order to obtain a product having a fibrillar structure which can be close to the myofibrillar structure of skeletal muscles. One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize to perform any of these shaping steps in any order to achieve the desired result.
With regard to Claim 16, Ajami teaches a protein component of the wet textured product material is pea ([0106]).
With regard to Claim 17, Ajami teaches a component of the wet textured product material is oil ([0107]).
With regard to Claim 18, Ajami teaches the wet textured product material comprises between about 10% and about 90% by weight of protein ([0106]).
With regard to Claim 19, The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines anisotropic as exhibiting properties with different values when measured in different directions. Ajami teaches the wet textured product has a fibrous structure ([0045]). But is silent to the structure being anisotropic.
Redl teaches the textured product material has a fibrillar structure which can be close to the myofibrillar structure of skeletal muscles. Typically, a very nice fibrillar structure can be obtained when the dough pieces are of longitudinal shape ([0030]). The longitudinal shape with a fibrillar structure ([0030]) taught by Redl would be considered anisotropic because it would exhibit directional properties due to the orientation of the myofibrillar structure.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to include the anisotropic structure taught by Redl because the longitudinal shape taught by Redl has a fibrillar structure which can be close to the myofibrillar structure of skeletal muscles.
With regard to Claim 20, Ajami is silent to the temperature of the wet textured product material.
Osen teaches the high moisture extrusion cooking utilizes a barrel broke into temperature controlled zones with a temperature profile of 40, 60, 80 and 100℃ from the first (feeding zone) to the fourth zone. The last zone (fifth) was set at the desired cooking temperature of 100, 120, 140 or 160℃ (2.3. High moisture extrusion cooking). See MPEP 2144.05(I) Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions. Osen teaches the fiber formation is dependent on the cooking temperature (4. Summary and conclusion)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami to utilize the HMEC temperature profile as taught by Osen to achieve the desired fiber formation.
With regard to Claim 30, Ajami teaches the wet texture product material comprises between about 10% and about 90% by weight of protein ([0106]). See MPEP 2144.05(I) Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
With regard to Claim 31, Ajami is silent to the temperature of temperature of step (a).
Osen teaches the production of palatable meat analogues using high moisture extrusion cooking is a complex process that depends on both the properties of the protein ingredients and the extrusion conditions (abstract). Osen teaches the high moisture extrusion cooking process results in the proteins are plasticized and texturized in a long cooling die by varying the moisture, temperature, pressure and shear respectively. The combination of these process parameters results in molecular transformation and chemical reaction of the protein molecules which contribute to stabilization of the three-dimensional network formed after the extrusion step (1. Introduction). Osen teaches the high moisture extrusion cooking barrel temperatures were stepwise increased from 40 °C with a temperature profile of 40, 60,80 and 100 °C from the first (feeding zone) to the fourth zone. The last zone (fifth) was set at the desired cooking temperature of 100, 120, 140 or 160 °C respectively. 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.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami in view of Osen to utilize the extrusion cooking temperatures taught by Osen to produce the desire palatable meat analogue with a stabilized three-dimensional network.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami (US 20170105438 A1) in view of Redl, (US 20170258109 A1), Osen ( “High moisture extrusion cooking of pea protein isolates: Raw material characteristics, extruder responses, and texture properties”) and Hibbert et al. (herein referred to as Hibbert, US 3988485 A)
With regard to Claim 7, Modified Ajami is silent to the rolling comprising rolling in a direction parallel to the fiber orientation of the anisotropic fibrous structure.
Hibbert teaches meat-like foods having a perceptible fiber bundle structure resembling that of natural muscle meat and the method of preparation (abstract). Hibbert teaches the bulk of the fibers are substantially oriented in a generally parallel manner and passing groups of those fibers between parallel rollers with reciprocating movement in the direction of their axes (Claim 5).
Therefore, Hibbert imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching showed that the claimed parallel orientation of the fibers relative to the rollers was known for treating fibrous protein product and had 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 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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami (US 20170105438 A1) in view of Redl, (US 20170258109 A1), Osen ( “High moisture extrusion cooking of pea protein isolates: Raw material characteristics, extruder responses, and texture properties”), and Komatsu et al. (herein referred to as Komatsu, EP 0456461 A1).
With regard to Claim 8, Modified Ajami is silent to the rolling comprising rolling in a direction normal to the fiber orientation of the anisotropic fibrous structure.
Komatsu teaches a process for preparing a food material, the process comprising the steps of: concurrently dehydrating and shaping a hydrated fibrous material by compression which material is prepared from soybean protein; and heating the obtained shaped product in a compressed state (abstract). Komatsu teaches hydrated fibrous material when simply compressed with the rolled screen, is compressed in the centripetal direction and the fiber tissues are oriented in a direction perpendicular to the compressing direction. Such shaped products have fibrous materials not completely but correlatively oriented in one direction so that a cooked product gives a feel due to the orientation of fiber tissues when cut or chewed, and is not incongruous at all and are very similar to cooked meat products in texture, appearance, etc. (page 6, lines 15-20).
Therefore, Komatsu imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching showed that the claimed perpendicular (normal) orientation of the fibers relative to the rollers was known for treating fibrous protein product and had 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 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.
Claims 10-12 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami (US 20170105438 A1), Redl, (US 20170258109 A1), Osen ( “High moisture extrusion cooking of pea protein isolates: Raw material characteristics, extruder responses, and texture properties”) and Kimura (GB 1395311 A).
With regard to Claim 10, Modified Ajami is silent to the roller gap size.
Kimura teaches a process and apparatus for the preparation of a bagasse-containing animal feedstuff (page 1, lines 8-11). Kimura reads such that the product material is elastic-plastically deformed by means of at least one pair of rollers (Page 6 lines 62-67, Kimura reads such that the non-dried mixture is fabricated into a sheet having a definite weight and thickness by rolling means. Page 6 lines 69-70 Kimura reads that the embodiment of rolling means includes two compression roller. Page 6 lines 80-88. Kimura reads on another set of rollers after the compression rollers. These caterpillar rollers are in parallel with each other) Kimura teaches the caterpillar rollers has a thickness of 5mm and the thickness therefor can be adjusted (page 6, lines 93-95, Fig 13 H). Kimura teaches the interval of both the rollers is smaller than the thickness of the layer of the mixture (page 6, lines 111-114). In addition, Kimura teaches that the mixture can be rolled to a desired shape (Page 1 lines 48-50)
In this case, the gap height taught by Kimura and the claimed invention may not be so great as to render the claim nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art. The "mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention's nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976), cited in MPEP Appendix II: List of Decisions Cited.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Ajami in view of Kimura to include the adjustable gap size between the rollers. It would have been routine optimization to adjust the roller height to the desired gap to achieve a final product with the desirable shape. See MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, "[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).
With regard to Claim 11, Modified Ajami is silent to the relationship between he product thickness and the roller gap size.
Kimura teaches the elastic-plastically deforming the wet textured product material results in the deformed product with a thickness smaller than the height of the wet textured product material (page 6 lines 62-67 Kimura reads such that the non-dried mixture is fabricated into a sheet having a definite width and definite thickness by rolling means. Page 6 lines 90-95 Kimura reads that the inlet of the rolling means, which is a hopper, is 7mm and the interval between the caterpillar roller is 5mm and can be adjusted. Thus, the deformed product is smaller than the wet textured material) and a thickness larger than the roller gap size or than the thickness at maximum compression (Page 6 lines 110-114 Kimura reads such that The interval of both rollers is smaller than the vertical width of the outlet, that is, the thickness of the layer of the mixture).
Therefore, Kimura imparts a reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows the wet textured product material results in the deformed product with a thickness smaller than the height of the wet textured product material was known to have been successfully achieved before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Which means it was within the general skill of a worker 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.
With regard to Claim 12, Kimura teaches elastic-plastically deforming the wet textured product material by means of at least one pair of rolls (Page 6 lines 62-67, Kimura reads such that the non-dried mixture is fabricated into a sheet having a definite weight and thickness by rolling means. Page 6 lines 69-70 Kimura reads that the embodiment of rolling means includes two compression roller. Page 6 lines 80-88. Kimura reads on another set of rollers after the compression rollers. These caterpillar rollers are in parallel with each other) Kimura teaches the results in a thickness of the deformed fibrous protein product of below the height h of the wet textured product material (Page 6, lines 90-95, Kimura reads that the inlet is 7mm and the roller gap is 5mm) but above the roller gap size rg1 (page 6, lines 111-114, Kimura reads that the interval of both the rollers is smaller than the thickness of the layer of the mixture). Kimura teaches the rollers have a thickness of 5mm and the thickness therefor can be adjusted (page 6, lines 93-95, Fig 13 H). See MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, "[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).
Kimura imparts a reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows the thickness of the deformed fibrous protein product of below the height of the wet textured product material but above the roller gap size was known to have been successfully achieved using at least one pair of rollers before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Which means it was within the general skill of a worker 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. In addition, Kimura teaches the roller gap was 5mm and can be adjusted to achieve the desirable shape (page 6, lines 93-95, Fig 13 H, Page 1 lines 48-50) Therefore, through routine optimization, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to adjust the roller height to achieve the desired thickness (i.e., shape).
With regard to Claims 25 and 26, Modified Ajami is silent to the roller gap size.
Kimura teaches a process and apparatus for the preparation of a bagasse-containing animal feedstuff (page 1, lines 8-11) .Kimura reads such that the product material is elastic-plastically deformed by means of at least one pair of rollers (Page 6 lines 62-67, Kimura reads such that the non-dried mixture is fabricated into a sheet having a definite weight and thickness by rolling means. Page 6 lines 69-70 Kimura reads that the embodiment of rolling means includes two compression roller. Page 6 lines 80-88. Kimura reads on another set of rollers after the compression rollers. These caterpillar rollers are in parallel with each other) Kimura teaches the caterpillar rollers has a thickness of 5mm and the thickness therefor can be adjusted (page 6, lines 93-95, Fig 13 H). Kimura teaches the interval of both the rollers is smaller than the thickness of the layer of the mixture (page 6, lines 111-114). In addition, Kimura teaches that the mixture can be rolled to a desired shape (Page 1 lines 48-50)
In this case, the gap height taught by Kimura and the claimed invention may not be so great as to render the claim nonobvious to one reasonably skilled in the art. The "mere existence of differences between the prior art and an invention does not establish the invention's nonobviousness." Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230, 189 USPQ 257, 261 (1976), cited in MPEP Appendix II: List of Decisions Cited.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ajami in view of Kimura to include the adjustable gap size between the rollers. It would have been routine optimization to adjust the roller height to the desired gap to achieve a final product with the desirable shape. See MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, "[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).
With regard to Claims 27 and 28, Modified Ajami is silent to the relationship of the thickness to the roller gap height.
Kimura teaches the elastic-plastically deforming the wet textured product material results in the deformed product with a thickness smaller than the height of the wet textured product material (page 6 lines 62-67 Kimura reads such that the non-dried mixture is fabricated into a sheet having a definite width and definite thickness by rolling means. Page 6 lines 90-95 Kimura reads that the inlet of the rolling means, which is a hopper, is 7mm and the interval between the caterpillar roller is 5mm and can be adjusted. Thus, the deformed product is smaller than the wet textured material) and a thickness larger than the roller gap size or than the thickness at maximum compression (Page 6 lines 110-114 Kimura reads such that The interval of both rollers is smaller than the vertical width of the outlet, that is, the thickness of the layer of the mixture).
Therefore, Kimura imparts a reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows the wet textured product material results in the deformed product with a thickness smaller than the height of the wet textured product material was known to have been successfully achieved before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Which means it was within the general skill of a worker 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.
With regard to Claim 29, Modified Ajami is silent to the thickness resulting from the at least one pair of rollers.
Redl teaches an embodiment wherein after being passed through rollers once the fibrous protein product has a thickness of 4 to 7mm ([0109]).
Therefore, Redl imparts a reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows the at least one pair of rolls results in the deformed product with a thickness of 4 to 7mm was known to have been successfully achieved before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Which means it was within the general skill of a worker 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, see pages 7-10, filed 27 January 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 5, 13-20, and 30-31 under U.S.C. 203 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ajami (US 20170105438 A1), Redl (US 20170258109 A1) and Osen et al. (herein referred to as Osen, “High moisture extrusion cooking of pea protein isolates: Raw material characteristics, extruder responses, and texture properties”).
Continuing, In response to applicant's argument that Redl is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Redl teaches a proteinaceous meat analogue with a fibrillar structure. One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize a fibrillar structure is synonymous with a fibrous structure and therefore Redl is clearly in the field of in inventor’s endeavor. Thus, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
With regard to Claim 7, applicant argues that Hibbert teaches a fundamentally different process for a different purpose, and thus one with ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to look into Hibbert’s method and applicant argues Hibbert’s teaching is improper hindsight. 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). In response to applicant's argument that one with ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to look into Hibbert’s method, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Hibbert teaches a fibrous meat-like protein food which one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Hibbert is in the field of the inventors endeavor and therefore applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
With regard to claim 8, applicant argues that the invention uses rolling not to compress and dehydrate but to elastic-plastically deform the fibrous structure and as a result applicant argues that there would be no motivation to apply the technique taught by Komatsu with the expectation of achieving the claimed loosening effect. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Komatsu teaches a food product resembling natural meat which is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor and in addition provides motivation to combine by imparting reasoning for obviousness and Komatsu provides additional motivation that such shaped products have fibrous materials not completely but correlatively oriented in one direction so that a cooked product gives a feel due to the orientation of fiber tissues when cut or chewed, and is not incongruous at all and are very similar to cooked meat products in texture, appearance, etc. Therefore, applicants arguments are not found to be persuasive.
With regard to Claims 10-12 and 25-29 applicant argues that Kimura is directed to non-analogous art. In response to applicant's argument that Kimura is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kimura teaches the product material is elastic-plastically deformed by means of at least one pair of rollers (Page 6 lines 62-67), this disclosure would be reasonably pertinent to the problem which the inventor is concerned with because the claims are directed to the deformation of a product using rollers. Therefore, applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
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