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
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.
Claims 1 and 7-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanderlost NPL in view of Cooking Maid NPL and Laycee NPL. Diez-Simon et al. is relied on as evidence for claims 1 and 11. Jones et al. (US 2018/0035699 A1) is relied on as evidence for claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Wanderlost teaches a method for preparing meat floss (page 1), comprising cooking the meat in an aqueous salt solution including soy sauce (page 4 “Ingredients” and “Steps 1-4”), shredding the meat into a shredded meat (page 4 “Step 6”), transferring the shredded meat into a pan over low heat and continuously stirring, scooping, and flipping meat strands (page 4 “Step 7”), further shredding by pulling apart strands to obtain a twice shredded meat (page 4 “Step 8), and drying the twice shredded meat (pages 4-5 “Step 10”).
Regarding the product being a meat “jerky”, Applicant’s specification discloses jerky to comprise meat dried to a moisture content below about 40 wt% (paragraph 4). While Wanderlost does not specify the moisture content to which the twice shredded meat is dried, the reference discloses ensuring moisture loss to obtain a “dehydrated and fluffy” product as stated above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the moisture content of the dehydrated meat floss to be well below 40 wt%. Therefore, the meat floss of Wanderlost is construed to be a type of “jerky”.
Wanderlost does not teach marinating the shredded meat with an aqueous solution of acid and salt.
Cooking Maid teaches a method of making pork floss comprising shredding cooked meat (timestamp 1:25-2:02), marinating the shredded meat in an aqueous solution of acid and salt (timestamp 2:11-3:29), and shredding the shredded meat a second time to form a twice shredded meat (timestamp 3:55-5:00). It is noted that the soy sauce used in the marinating process is construed to read on “aqueous solution of acid and salt” since said sauces comprise water, acid, and salt as evidenced by Diez-Simon et al. (page 11617 table 2 “free amino acids” and “organic acids”; page 11620 table 3 “acids”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Wanderlost to marinate the shredded meat in an aqueous solution of acid and salt since the prior art recognizes that marination can be performed between first and second shredding steps, since there is no evidence of record indicating criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and therefore to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of adding and/or manipulating flavor, nutritional content, and texture/mouthfeel as desired, see also MPEP 2143 I.(A).
Wanderlost teaches stir-frying the twice shredded meat in order to obtain a product that is “dehydrated and fluffy” (“Step 10”), but does not teach the meat jerky is crunchy, characterized by a force-time curve having greater than or equal to 50 peaks as measured using the claimed features.
Laysee teaches a method of making meat floss (page 1), comprising drying the meat loss in a wok, followed by spreading the floss on a baking tray, and baking in an oven at 160oC for 25-30 minutes while flipping every 10-15 minutes until “evenly golden crispy” (pages 7-8). The oven baking can be performed to obtain a desired texture based on the user’s “own judgement” (page 8).
Regarding the jerky having a force-time curve greater than or equal to 50 peaks as measured by the claimed features, the prior art recognizes texture analyzers equipped with puncture rigs used to determine “crunchiness” of foods, where a greater number of peaks is associated with a “crunchier” product as evidenced by Jones et al. (paragraph 25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Wanderlost to oven bake the meat floss to obtain a “crunchy” texture and to obtain a meat jerky having a force-time curve as claimed since the process is recognized by the prior art, since the reference teaches a “meat jerky” which has been subjected to a similar process of shredding twice and drying, the prior art recognizing texture can be adjusted based on drying conditions and duration, since there is no evidence of record indicating criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, therefore to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results of texture modification, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as desired texture and moisture content. Furthermore, the claimed method of analysis would have been obvious as a matter of using established systems for quantifying a desired characteristic.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant discloses the “seasoning can be done at any point in the method…some embodiments, the seasoning is added in the marinating step” (paragraph 24).
Cooking Maid as applied to claim 1 teaches marinating includes adding seasonings such as soy sauce, oyster sauce, brown sugar, and salt (timestamp 2:12-3:05).
It would have been obvious to season the meat jerky for the same reasons stated for claim 1, particularly to adjust flavor, nutritional content, aroma, and mouthfeel/texture as desired.
Regarding claim 8, Wanderlost teaches packaging the twice shredded meat (page 5 “Step 12).
Regarding claim 9, in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the “meat” is construed to refer to the dried twice shredded meat of step (e).
Wanderlost does not teach the meat comprises a combination of short fibers of less than 5 cm in length and long fibers of 5 cm to about 10 cm in length.
However, the product is shown to comprise fibers of varying lengths (pages 1-3 figures). Further, the length can be controlled during the second shredding step (page 4 “Step 10”).
Laysee teaches fine shredding fibers until a desired texture is obtained, where increasing blending time provides a product that is “finer” and “flossy” (page 9 “direction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Wanderlost such that the fibers have the claimed dimensions since the prior art recognizes adjusting fiber characteristics by various methods such as by hand or shredding duration, since there is no evidence of record indicating criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as desired texture/mouthfeel and appearance i.e., “flossy”.
Regarding claim 10, Wanderlost teaches the meat can be beef, and lean cuts such as tenderloin are preferred for making meat floss due to lower content of natural oil that can burn the meat (pages 2-3 “what type of meat to use”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Wanderlost to use beef tenderloin since the prior art recognizes the particular cut as suitable for making meat floss, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and in order to obtain a product having a desired flavor, texture/mouthfeel, aroma, and nutritional profile.
Regarding claim 11, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches marinating the shredded meat with an aqueous solution of acid and salt such as soy sauce. Diez-Simon et al. shows that soy sauce includes acetic, lactic, succinic, and tartaric acids (page 11617 table 2 “organic acids”).
Regarding claim 12, Wanderlost teaches cooking the meat in an aqueous solution comprises boiling the solution, then reducing the heat and cooking (page 4 “Steps 3-4”). Drying is performed by placing strands into a non-stick pan over low heat and continuous stirring (page 4 “Step 7”), and the finished product is packaged (page 5 “Step 12”). While specific temperatures are not recited, one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected the cooking temperature to be about 100oC since the liquid is brought to a boil and evaporated off throughout cooking i.e., “cook until liquids are almost dried”. Likewise, the drying temperature would have been expected to be about 100oC to ensure sufficient dehydration of the stands to form the “floss”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Wanderlost to cook and dry at the claimed temperature ranges since cooking meats in boiling water is well known in the art, to ensure moisture evaporation, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as the type of meat and desired texture/mouthfeel.
Wandelost does not teach the amount of acid per kg meat in the aqueous solution of acid and salt. However, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches marinating using soy sauce as stated for said claim, where soy sauce is known to include different types of acids. Cooking Maid further teaches other flavoring ingredients such as oyster sauce, suggesting the composition of the aqueous solution of acid and salt can be adjusted based on flavor preference.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Wanderlost to include the claimed amount of acid since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results, since acid as a flavor modifier is well known in the art, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization due to factors such as desired flavor, texture/mouthfeel, aroma, and nutritional profile.
The combination applied to claim 1 teaches marinating the shredded meat, where Cooking Maid shows marinating occurs at room temperature, construed to be about 20oC.
The claimed temperature values would have been obvious for the same reasons stated above, particularly since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with said feature.
Regarding claim 13, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches a meat jerky made by the method stated for said claim.
Regarding claim 20, the combination applied to claim 1 teaches drying the twice shredded jerky to obtain a desired texture as taught by Laysee NPL, where the method of measuring the “crunchiness” of a product is known in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Wanderlost to obtain a meat jerky having a force-time curve as claimed for the same reasons stated for claim 1.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanderlost NPL in view of Cooking Maid NPL and Laysee NPL as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bisson et al. (US 5,232,723).
Regarding claim 4, Wanderlost does not teach the jerky has a protein content of 50-90 wt% based on the total weight of the jerky, as measured by the claimed method.
Bisson et al. teaches a method for preparing various meats, including cuts low in fat (column 1 lines 13-14; column 2 lines 8-11), comprising trimming the meat to remove “most of the visible fat, connective tissue and nerve tissue” (column 2 lines 18-21).
While Wanderlost is silent with respect to the protein content, the reference teaches using a lean cut of meat such as tenderloin (pages 2-3 “what type of meat to use”). The meat is then processed in the same manner as the claimed meat jerky i.e., shredded, marinated, shredded again, then dried, as taught by the combination applied to claim 1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the overall protein content by weight can be increased by limiting the amount of non-protein ingredients, removing moisture content by drying, and removing non-protein meat components such as visible fat and nerve tissue.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Wanderlost such that the meat jerky has a protein content of 50-90 wt% since the prior art already recognizes wanting a “lean” product with minimal fat, since undesired portions of the meat can be trimmed, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as added non-protein ingredients, type/cut of meat, removal of non-protein meat components, degree of drying performed, and desired flavor, texture/mouthfeel, and nutritional profile. Furthermore, the claimed method of analysis would have been obvious as a matter of using established systems for quantifying a desired characteristic.
Regarding claim 5, Wanderlost teaches using a lean cut of meat to facilitate shredding, where the meat can be beef (page 2), but does not teach the beef having less than 10 wt% fat using the claimed measurement method.
The combination applied to claim 4 above teaches removing “most of the visible fat” as taught by Bisson et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Wanderlost to remove visible fat such that the beef has less than 10 wt% fat using the claimed measurement method for the same reasons stated for claim 4, since the reference already contemplates using a “lean” cut of meat to facilitate shredding, and since the claimed value would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as flavor, mouthfeel/texture, and nutritional profile. Furthermore, the claimed method of measurement would have been obvious as a matter of using established systems for quantifying a desired characteristic.
Regarding claim 6, Wanderlost does not teach separating at least a portion of fat and nerves from the shredded meat prior to marinating.
The combination applied to claim 4 teaches removing visible fat and nerve tissue as stated for said claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Wanderlost to remove fat and nerves after shredding and prior to marinating since the prior art recognizes wanting to minimize undesired portions of the meat in the final product, to isolate said undesired components by first shredding the meat to facilitate access to said components, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature, and since “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results” In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), see MPEP 2144.04 IV.A.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wanderlost NPL in view of Cooking Maid NPL and Laysee NPL as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Timberlake (US 2017/0027202 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Wanderlost NPL teaches “add all ingredients and cook over high heat until liquids boils” (page 4 step 3), where the ingredients include soy sauce, known to comprise salt. Therefore, the meat is cooked in an aqueous salt solution at a temperature of about 100oC.
Regarding drying conducted at 90-150oC, Wanderlost NPL teaches transferring the shredded meat into a pan over low heat and continuously stirring, scooping, and flipping meat strands to obtain a desired texture as stated for claim 1.
While the temperature range is not explicitly disclosed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Wanderlost NPL to use the claimed temperature range, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature and ranges, since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as flavor, mouthfeel/texture, and rate/degree of drying.
The combination applied to claim 1 teaches the aqueous solution of acid and salt, but does not teach the claimed amounts of each.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the aqueous solution to comprise the claimed amounts as a matter of preference, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature and ranges, since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as flavor, mouthfeel/texture, and nutritional profile, and since applicant has not shown sufficient evidence that the claimed ingredients and amounts produces new, unexpected, and useful function, see In re Levin, 84 U.S.P.Q. 232, 234 (C.C.P.A. 1950). Id. at 7. The following passage is quoted from Levin.
“This court has taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them in ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention merely because it is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In all such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. In re White, 39 F.2d 974, 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 956; In re Mason et al., 156 F.2d 189, 33 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1144.”
Wanderlost NPL does not teach marinating at a temperature of about 0-5oC and packaging.
Timberlake teaches a method for preparing meat jerky (abstract), where the meat slices are marinated for 6-10 hours at about 40-55oF and packaging (paragraph 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Wanderlost NPL to marinate at the claimed temperature and to package the jerky since marinating is well-known in facilitate tenderization of meats and incorporation of flavors, since packaging foods for preservation is well-known in the art, to minimize risk of contamination and spoilage, in order to prevent risk of spoilage, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed feature and ranges, and since the claimed values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures due to factors such as flavor, mouthfeel/texture, and nutritional profile.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Examiner relies on conclusory assertions for optimization, and the rejection has not provided any rational underpinning or evidence-based motivation for why a person of ordinary skill would have made the particular modifications necessary to arrive at the specific degree of crunchiness required by the claim.
This is not persuasive since Wanderlost NPL already teaches drying in order to obtain a desired “crispy” texture. While the specific claimed values are not explicitly disclosed, one of ordinary skill would have understood that the jerky can be modified by various means in order to obtain a desired texture e.g., moisture content after drying, thickness of the meat, type of meat, etc. The evidence presented in Applicant’s specification does not clearly disclose whether or not the claimed crunchiness values are critical or yield unexpected results, particularly since it is unclear if the results are commensurate in scope with the claim e.g., paragraph 53 recites various parameters used to make the jerky, but claim 1 does not require the disclosed values. It is unclear if the same results are obtained due to the specific values used in the examples. It is also unclear if the results are obtained at least in part due to the other features not recited in clam 1 e.g., UV irradiation, inert gas packaging, etc. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to adjust the above-mentioned characteristics in order to adjust the texture of the jerky according to their preference.
Applicant’s argument against the dependent claims is not persuasive for the same reasons stated above.
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 BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792