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 .
The amendment filed April 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, and 35-47 are pending in the application. Claims 1-18, 20-23, 26, and 29-34 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 28 and 38 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 28 includes amendments to the text. However, claim 28 has the status identifier as “Previously Presented”. Applicant is reminded that amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn— currently amended.” See MPEP 714.
In claim 38 at the beginning of line 2, it is suggested to amend “are” to “is” before “selected”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 47 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.
Claim 47 recites “wherein the native patatin, the lipid, and the denatured protein have a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:3 to 1:2 to 1:6 (native patatin : lipid : denatured protein).” It is unclear what is intended by this recitation. More specifically, it is uncertain which of the claimed ratios applies to the native patatin, lipid, or denatured protein. Therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained.
For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “wherein the native patatin, the lipid, and the denatured protein have a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:3 to 1:2 to 1:6 (native patatin : lipid : denatured protein)” in claim 47 (emphasis added) is interpreted as “wherein the native patatin, the lipid, and the denatured protein have a weight ratio of 1 : 1 to 1:3 : 2 to 6 (native patatin : lipid : denatured protein)”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19, 24, 25, 27, 28, 35, and 37-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giuseppin et al. EP 1920662 (hereinafter “Giuseppin”) as evidenced by Feedtables, “Sunflower Oil” (hereinafter “Feedtables”).
With respect to claim 19, Giuseppin teaches a meat analogue (paragraph [0054]).
Regarding the claim language of a meat substitute comprising water, native patatin, a denatured protein and a lipid, which lipid is defined as a substance comprising fatty acid tri-esters of glycerol, and wherein the denatured protein is a denatured plant protein derived from a tuber, cereal, or nut, or a denatured plant protein selected from the group consisting of soy protein, faba bean protein, mungbean protein, mushroom protein, chickpea protein, and lentil protein in claim 19, Giuseppin teaches the meat analogue comprises fatty ingredients, such as sunflower oil, water, native patatin protein, and denatured potato protein (paragraphs [0001], [0039], [0041], [0042], [0045], [0051], [0054], and [0056]; and P13, L4).
Regarding the claim language of wherein the fatty acids in said lipid comprise less than 2% by mass of fatty acids having a chain length of C12 or less, and wherein, the fatty acids comprise less than 2% by mass of fatty acids having a chain length of C14 or less in claim 19, Giuseppin teaches sunflower oil is used (P13, L4). Evidence is provided by Feedtables. Feedtables is merely used to show the fatty acid composition of sunflower oil. As disclosed in Feedtables, the fatty acid composition of sunflower oil contains 0.2% of C14 fatty acids, 0.2% of C12 fatty acids, and 0% of fatty acids less than C12 (P1, bottom). Thus, Giuseppin as evidenced by Feedtables teaches the claim limitation. Applicant is reminded a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to: (A) Prove the primary reference contains an "enabled disclosure;" (B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or (C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent. See MPEP 2131.01.
With respect to claim 24, Giuseppin teaches the meat substitute as addressed above in claim 19.
Regarding the claim language of wherein at least 98% by mass of the fatty acids are fatty acids having a chain length of C12 or higher in claim 24, Giuseppin teaches sunflower oil is used (P13, L4). Evidence is provided by Feedtables. Feedtables is merely used to show the fatty acid composition of sunflower oil. As disclosed in Feedtables, the fatty acid composition of sunflower oil contains 0% of fatty acids less than C12 (P1, bottom-P2, top). Thus, Giuseppin as evidenced by Feedtables teaches the claim limitation. Applicant is reminded a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to: (A) Prove the primary reference contains an "enabled disclosure;" (B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or (C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent. See MPEP 2131.01
With respect to claim 25, Giuseppin teaches the meat substitute as addressed above in claim 24.
Regarding the claim language of wherein the lipid comprises one or more of the lipids in the group of listed lipids in claim 25, Giuseppin teaches this limitation since Giuseppin teaches sunflower oil is used (P13, L4).
With respect to claim 27, Giuseppin teaches the meat substitute as addressed above in claim 25.
Regarding the claim language of wherein the lipid comprises less than 18 mmol per kg lipid of free fatty acids, and/or wherein the total of diacylglycerols and monoacylglycerols, relative to the total lipid, is less than 10 wt.% in claim 27, it is noted that this recitation relates to characteristics of the lipid. Applicant is reminded that language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect: (A) statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble, (B) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses, (C) "wherein" or "whereby" clauses, (D) contingent limitations, (E) printed matter, or (F) terms with associated functional language. See MPEP 2103 and 2111.04.
Absent any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, the lipid would naturally display these claimed features since the lipid of Giuseppin is identical to the lipid used in the present invention as addressed above in claims 19, 24, and 25. Additionally, these features are not considered to confer patentability to the claim.
With respect to claims 28 and 38-43, Giuseppin teaches the meat substitute as addressed above in claim 27.
Regarding the claim language of further comprising one or more salts, and/or one or more pigments, and/or one or more fibers, and/or one or more texturisers and/or one or more flavor development aids selected from the group consisting of dextrose, ribose and maltodextrin, and/or one or more flavorings in claim 28, wherein the one or more salts are selected from the group of listed components in claim 38, wherein the one or more pigments is selected from the group of listed components in claim 39, wherein the one or more fibers is selected from the group of listed components in claim 40, wherein the one or more texturisers is selected from the group of listed components in claim 41, wherein the one or more flavor development aids is selected from the group of listed components in claim 42, and wherein the one or more flavorings is selected from the group consisting of sucrose, glucose, fructose, syrup, and artificial sweeteners in claim 43, Giuseppin meets the claimed limitations since Giuseppin teaches the food may also include sugar (sucrose-flavoring) (paragraphs [0051] and [0056]).
With respect to claim 35, Giuseppin teaches the meat substitute as addressed above in claim 19.
Regarding the claim language of wherein the denatured plant protein is potato protein, sweet potato protein, wheat protein, wheat gluten, oat protein, spelt protein, sesame seed protein, hemp seed protein or soy protein in claim 35, Giuseppin teaches this limitation since Giuseppin teaches using denatured potato protein (paragraphs [0054] and [0056]).
With respect to claim 37, Giuseppin teaches the meat substitute as addressed above in claim 24.
Regarding the claim language of wherein at least 98% by mass of the fatty acids are fatty acids having a chain length of C14 or higher in claim 37, Giuseppin teaches sunflower oil is used (P13, L4). Evidence is provided by Feedtables. Feedtables is merely used to show the fatty acid composition of sunflower oil. As disclosed in Feedtables, the fatty acid composition of sunflower oil contains 0.2% of fatty acids less than C14 (P1, bottom-P2, top). Thus, Giuseppin as evidenced by Feedtables teaches the claim limitation. Applicant is reminded a 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to: (A) Prove the primary reference contains an "enabled disclosure;" (B) Explain the meaning of a term used in the primary reference; or (C) Show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent. See MPEP 2131.01
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giuseppin et al. EP 1920662 (hereinafter “Giuseppin”) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Ben-Gera et al. GB 1495194 (hereinafter “Ben-Gera”).
With respect to claim 36, Giuseppin teaches the meat substitute as addressed above in claim 19.
Regarding the claim language of wherein the denatured plant protein is a texturized plant protein in claim 36, Giuseppin does not expressly disclose the denatured potato protein is a texturized protein.
Ben-Gera teaches texturized vegetable protein products. The texturized vegetable protein material is from potato protein, and the texturized vegetable protein may be used in various food products (P1, L13-15, 30-34, and 38-42; and P2, L38-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Ben-Gera, to select texturized potato protein in Giuseppin based in its suitability for its intended purpose with the expectation of successfully obtaining an organoleptically desirable food product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Ben-Gera and Giuseppin similarly teach denatured potato proteins in foodstuff, Ben-Gera teaches the texturized protein provides pleasant mouthfeel to the food (P1, L20-22), and said combination would amount to the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected result. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)) (MPEP 2144.07).
Claims 44-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Giuseppin et al. EP 1920662 (hereinafter “Giuseppin”) as applied to claim 19 above.
With respect to claims 44-47, Giuseppin teaches the meat substitute as addressed above in claim 19.
Regarding the claim language of wherein the native patatin and the lipid have a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:5 (native patatin : lipid) in claim 44, wherein the lipid and the denatured protein have a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:5 (lipid : denatured protein) in claim 45, wherein the native patatin and the denatured protein have a weight ratio of 1:1 to 1:10 (native patatin : denatured protein) in claim 46, and wherein the native patatin, the lipid, and the denatured protein have a weight ratio of 1 : 1 to 3 : 2 to 6 (native patatin : lipid : denatured protein) in claim 47, Giuseppin does not expressly disclosed the claimed ratios. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the quantities of native patatin, lipid, and denatured protein in Giuseppin through routine experimentation with the expectation of successfully preparing an organoleptically desirable product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Giuseppin teaches the native patatin protein has enhanced gelling and emulsifying properties and the protein isolates give good emulsion and emulsion stability (paragraphs [0042], [0049], [0054], [0058], and [0083]), adjusting the ratios of the native patatin, lipid, and denatured protein to obtain a meat analogue product of desirable texture and mouthfeel is a matter of choice and does not provide a patentable feature over the prior art, and it is understood that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. “[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) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed April 9, 2026 are acknowledged.
Due to the amendments to the claims, the claim objections as well as the 35 USC 112 rejection in the previous Office Action have been withdrawn. However, the claim objections as well as the 35 USC 112 rejection above are necessitated by the amendments made to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are unpersuasive.
Applicant argues patatin (as a sole ingredient) is NOT mentioned for use in the meat substitutes. The meat substitutes are not described as comprising fatty ingredients. The use of sunflower oil is not mentioned in the context of any food product. To infer from this that Giuseppin teaches meat substitutes comprising sunflower oil, is not warranted. Nothing can be derived from Giuseppin regarding presence or absence of a fatty component in a meat substitute, let alone that Giuseppin teaches that the problem of off-flavor formation in meat substitutes can be avoided by using particular oils.
Examiner disagrees. Giuseppin teaches the presently claimed invention. As previously addressed, Giuseppin teaches the meat analogue comprises fatty ingredients, such as sunflower oil, water, native patatin protein, and denatured potato protein. Giuseppin also teaches the native potato protein isolates include potato protein isolate and native patatin isolate, and the native potato protein isolates may be used in food products (paragraphs [0001], [0039], [0041], [0042], [0045], [0051], [0054], and [0056]; and P13, L4). Although Giuseppin teaches sunflower oil is used to test emulsion stability with the native potato protein isolates, one of ordinary skill in the art, looking at the teachings of Giuseppin in its entirety, would arrive at a meat substitute comprising sunflower oil since Giuseppin teaches the meat analogue comprises fatty ingredients (paragraph [0054] and P13, L4). Applicant is reminded that "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). Additionally, "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
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 TYNESHA L. MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 PM ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/T.L.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights