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
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claims on 11/14/2025.
Claims 50-59 and 61-71 are pending in the application. Claims 50 and 59 are currently amended. Claims 51-58 are previously presented. Claim 60 is newly cancelled. Claims 61-71 are withdrawn without traverse in response to the restriction requirement. Claims 50-59 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 50 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ a nominal direction” in line 20 read “said nominal direction”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 50-51 and 53-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0310599 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Ajami).
Regarding claims 50, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58 and 59, Ajami teaches an edible meat analogue (e.g., a meat-like food product; 0005) comprising 10-25% (0108) a bundle of protein fibers that are essentially aligned (e.g., at least about 95% of the protein fibers are substantially aligned; 0114), and 0.01-15% one or more binders (e.g., binding agents) (0005; 0121) that bind together the protein fibers (0005).
Regarding the limitation that a plurality of the protein strands that comprise a bundle of aligned protein fibers, a group or a bundle of aligned protein fibers in the meat analogue would read on the limitation about protein strands. Note that claim 50 does not include a limitation that there is no sheath material between the individual protein fibers within the bundle of aligned protein fibers, rather, at least Fig. 2A, lower panel of the instant specification shows that the sheath material is actually present between the individual protein fibers.
Additionally, Ajami teaches that the binding agents are introduced into the meat analogue evenly (0236). The binding agents as disclosed by Ajami read on the inter-strand sheaths material that at least partially surrounds the protein strands and forms a network interconnecting between the neighboring protein strands, given that the binding agents bind the protein, account for as much as 15% of the weight of the meat analogues, and are distributed evenly in the meat analogues. Further, where the binding agents serve to bind the protein fibers, the limitation that the sheaths material occupy spaces between the neighboring strands are met.
Further, Ajami teaches that the binding agents are selected from the group consisting of plant protein (e.g., wheat gluten, soy protein and zein protein), and a polysaccharide including CMC, maltodextrin, gums, carrageenan, etc. (0122). Each of the aforementioned binding agents are known to have a melting point above 30 °C, for example, carrageenan is known to have a melting point that is between 50-70 °C, and the proteins above are known to be a solid at a temperature between 50-70 °C. Further, where prior art establishes that both a plant protein (e.g., gluten) and a polysaccharide (e.g., carrageenan) are suitable binding agents for a meat analogue, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the two for the same purpose. MPEP 2144.06, "it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Ajami does not teach the hardness, the tensile strength value or the compression moduli measured at different directions of the meat analogue as recited in claims 50 and 59, however, Ajami teaches that the meat analogue demonstrates similar attributes to an animal meat with the attributes including hardness and cohesiveness (0212; 0005). Further, Ajami teaches that the cohesiveness as a structural integrity property of the meat analogue could be modulated through optimizing the types and amounts of the binding agents (0034), and the hardness of the meat analogue can be modulated by choosing binding agents with different viscoelastic properties (0054). Based on the teaching from Ajami above, and that the cohesiveness of a food is essentially about how well the food resists breaking apart or separating into pieces when compressed or stretched, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose binding agents and/or to vary the amounts of the binding agent so as to obtain a meat analogue the hardness and the cohesiveness attributes of which are similar to those of an animal meat. As such, the hardness value, the compression moduli and the tensile strength as recited in claims 50 and 59 are merely obvious variants of the prior art.
Further regarding claim 56, Ajami teaches that the binder is carrageenan (0122). Therefore, it would have been obvious to have selected any type of carrageenan such as kappa, iota and lambda carrageenan as the binder to include in the meat analogue where Ajami teaches carrageenan, as one of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that any three types of carrageenan (e.g. kappa, iota and lambda) would function effectively in the meat analogue. This is merely selecting from a group of suitable options, absent a clear showing of the criticality associated with kappa carrageenan.
Claim 52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami as applied to claim 50 above, and further in view of Liepa GB1461998 (cited in the IDS submitted on 06/12/2023, hereinafter referred to as Liepa).
Regarding claim 52, Ajami as recited above teaches spaces between the strands but is silent regarding the space being between 50 micron to 5 mm. However, Ajami teaches that the open spaces in the protein networks and/or protein fiber alignments may tenderize the meat structured protein products and provide pockets for capturing other materials that are slowly released during chewing to impart sensory characteristics (0063).
Further, Liepa in the same field of endeavor teaches that inter-fiber spaces within a meat analogue that comprises protein and a binder could be modulated through exerting a shearing force on the fibrous structure of the meat analogue, so as to improve texture and mouthfeel characteristics (column 2, line 6-15; column 4, line 107-114).
Where Liepa teaches that inter-fiber spaces within a meat analogue could be modulated through exerting a shearing force on the fibrous structure of the meat analogue, a skilled artisan would have expected such a shearing would also be able to modulate the space between the strands, given that the latter is a collection of the former.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Ajami by modulating the space between the fibers or the strands through exerting shearing force so as to improve the texture and sensory characteristics of the meat analogue. As such, the space dimension as recited in claim 52 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-10 of the Remarks that Ajami fails to teach the aligned strand architecture that comprises bundles of protein fibers combined with inter-strand sheath.
The examiner disagrees. Ajami as cited teaches that protein fibers are substantially aligned; 0114), and 0.01-15% one or more binders (e.g., binding agents) (0005; 0121) that bind together the protein fibers (0005). Further, a group or a bundle of aligned protein fibers in the meat analogue of Ajami would read on the limitation about protein strands. Note that claim 50 does not include a limitation that there is no sheath material between the individual protein fibers within the bundle of aligned protein fibers, rather, at least Fig. 2A, lower panel of the instant specification shows that the sheath material is actually present between the individual protein fibers.
For the reason set forth above, applicant’s arguments on page 8 of the Remarks that Ajami does not teach using a separate sheath materials that at least partially surrounds protein strands and forms a net work interconnecting neighboring strands, and the arguments on page 9 of the Remarks that Ajami’s binder is not directed to forming a distinct sheath material surrounding the protein strands are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that “The PTO points to paragraph [0007] of Ajami as allegedly disclosing aligned "protein strands." However, this passage merely describes extruded or printed protein-based filaments having some internal fiber orientation. These elements are not aligned protein strands within the meaning of currently amended independent claim 50, which requires that a plurality of strands themselves be essentially aligned along a P axis of the product.”
Applicant is noted that the examiner does not cite para. [0007] of Ajami for the feature of protein strands (nowhere in the office action issued 07/16/2025 made a mention of para. [0007] of Ajami). Rather, as recited in the instant office action, a group or a bundle of aligned protein fibers would read on the limitation about protein strands, given that claim 50 does not include a limitation that there is no sheath material between the individual protein fibers within the bundle of aligned protein fibers.
Applicant argues on the para. that bridges pages 8 and 9 of the Remarks that the meat analogue of Ajami especially the one in Fig. 1 does not preserve the strand alignments.
The argument is considered but found unpersuasive since one would not able to tell if the meat analogue of Fig. 1 preserve the strand alignment. Further, para.[ 0114] of Ajami clearly teaches that the meat analogue (e.g., meta-like food) comprises meat structured protein the fibers of which are aligned. Applicant has presents some arguments that lack evidentiary support.
For the reason set for the above, applicant’s argument on page 9 of the Remarks that the anisotropy property of the meat analogue of Ajami is not necessarily retained in the final product is not persuasive. Again, Applicant’s argument lacks ground.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the Remarks that nothing in Ajami suggests that binders are applied in manner that is akin to perimysium, as recited in claim 50.
The applicant is remined that nowhere in claim 50 suggest the inter-strand sheath material is such that it has a full feature of a perimysium. To examiner’s best knowledge, a perimysium is a connecting tissue that sheaths a bundle of muscle fibers but there appears no such connecting tissue between individual muscle fibers within bundle. However, in the instant case, claim 50 does not include a limitation that there is no sheath material between the individual protein fibers within the bundle of aligned protein fibers, rather, at least Fig. 2A, lower panel of the instant specification shows that the sheath material is actually present between the individual fibers. Applicant is arguing a feature that is not claimed.
For the reasons set forth above, applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims 51, 53-57 and 58-59 are not persuasive, either.
Regarding the rejection of claim 52 over Ajami in view of Liepa (e.g., GB1464998 as applicant has mentioned in the Remarks), applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks that Liepa does not teach a plurality of aligned strands extending across the product.
The examiner disagrees. Liepa teaches an aggregate of substantially parallel protein fibers (claim 1) thus necessarily teaches a plurality of aligned strands. The argument is further piecemeal given that Ajami is interpreted to read on the limitation about the plurality of strands.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks that Liepa is silent regarding any quantitative dimensions as recite in claim 52.
The argument is considered. However, given that Ajami teaches that the open spaces in the protein networks and/or protein fiber alignments may tenderize the meat structured protein products and provide pockets for capturing other materials that are slowly released during chewing to impart sensory characteristics (0063), and Liepa teaches that inter-fiber spaces within a meat analogue that comprises protein and a binder could be modulated through exerting a shearing force on the fibrous structure of the meat analogue, so as to improve texture and mouthfeel characteristics (column 2, line 6-15; column 4, line 107-114), a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modulate the space between the fiber or the strand through exerting shearing force so as to improve the texture and sensory characteristics of the meat analogue. As such, the space dimension as recited in claim 52 is merely an obvious variant of the prior art.
Unfortunately, applicant has not shown any new result associated with the space dimension of 50 micron to 5 mm. Note that the range is broad the upper bound of which is 100 times of the lower bound.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks that Liepa addresses individual fibers dispersed in a binder matrix, not strands.
The arguments are considered but found unpersuasive because where Liepa teaches that inter-fiber spaces within a meat analogue that comprises protein and a binder could be modulated through exerting a shearing force on the fibrous structure of the meat analogue, so as to improve texture and mouthfeel characteristics, the skilled artisan would have expected that such a shearing would also be able to modulate the space between the strands, since the latter is a collection of the former.
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 CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NIKKI H DEES can be reached at 571-270-3435. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791