DETAILED ACTION
Background
The amendment dated March 25, 2026 (amendment) amending claims 1 and 10 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-10 as filed with the amendment have been examined. Claims 2 and 5 have been canceled. Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from consideration as drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0289824 A1 to Brown et al. (Brown), of record, in view of US2017/0188612 A1 to Varadan et al. (Varadan).
Regarding instant claims 1 and 6-7, Brown in the Example at [0413] discloses four ground beef prototype patty compositions (“meat-like food”) comprising a muscle analog (“raw material” as a “meat substitute raw material”) of (at [0402]) moong bean protein and leghemoglobin, a connective tissue analog of zein protein and a fat tissue analog comprising a gel of a pea globulin or moong bean seed 8S proteins. In addition, Brown at [0259] discloses that its leghemoglobin comes from soybean proteins. Accordingly, the meat-like food of Brown does not contain an animal protein (claim 6) or an animal-derived protein (claim 7).
Further, at [0019] Brown discloses several non-animal proteins, including hemoglobins, myoglobins, various enzymes, albumins, prolamins (see also [0326]), grain proteins, seed proteins and others, all of which (like those in Brown at [0413]) are non-animal proteins and that comprise structural proteins because according to Brown, they all self-aggregate under certain conditions to form a structure such as a fiber or a film, a resin, a gel, a micelle as in the instant specification at [0025]. Accordingly, the Office considers all of the proteins disclosed in Brown at [0019] to be a purified protein and a structural protein. The ordinary skilled artisan in Brown would have found it obvious to include a structural protein in its meat replica because Brown discloses that structural proteins provide sheets and other components that are desirably used in making a meat replica.
Still further, Brown at claim 12 and claim 2 discloses a meat replica (“meat-like food”) comprising sheets of fibers of one or more non-animal proteins oriented parallel to one another (“sheets containing a purified protein” and “the purified protein is a structural protein”).
Regarding instant claim 1, Brown does not give an example of a meat-like food composition comprising a sheet of a purified protein wherein the sheets are formed of spun protein fibers. However, claim 1 recites a product by process of a sheet comprises a carded web of spun fibers of the purified protein. And, Brown at [0310] discloses that its muscle replica of claim 12 comprises spun fibers and at [0326] discloses spun sheets of fibers of purified proteins (at [0019] and [0413]) that are structural proteins.
Varadan at Abstract discloses meat replicas that mimic the fibrousness of real meat, including (at [0039]) replicas of cuts of meat. At [0005], Varadan discloses its meat replica comprising a meat dough wherein (at [0057]) the meat dough comprises a protein isolate and an edible fibrous component that (at [0059]) is also an isolated plant protein (“purified protein”) such as prolamin. At [0062], Varadan discloses modulating the appearance of its meat replicas by shredding the purified protein and then (at [0063]) carding the fibrous component of the purified protein to imitate the fibrous appearance of meat by hand or by using a carding machine.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Varadan for Brown to form its sheet to contain a purified protein formed of spun fibers of the purified protein as a carded web. Both references disclose meat replicas comprising structural plant proteins is fiber form. The ordinary skilled artisan in Brown would have desired to include a carded web sheet of a purified protein as in Varadan in its fibrous ground beef replica to orient the fibers of purified protein in the sheet and make a more meat-like food replica from a sheet of such a purified protein.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2010/0196432 A1 to Feinberg et al. (Feinberg), of record, in view of US2017/0188612 A1 to Varadan et al. (Varadan), as evidenced by WO2021/055903 A1 to Altman et al. (Altman), of record.
Regarding instant claims 1, 4 and 9, Feinberg at [0019] discloses a meat-like food comprising a scaffold of (at [0013] and FIGs 36-41) a biopolymer (“purified protein”) stacked in multiple layers (“alternately arranged” - claim 9) with layers of muscle cells (“raw material” as a “meat raw material”) which are (at the Abstract) stem cells or (at [0084]-[0085]) grown or engineered cells. Feinberg at [0009] discloses biopolymers comprising fibroin (claim 4), collagen, fibronectin and other structural proteins. The ordinary skilled artisan would have desired to use fibroin as its purified protein as disclosed at [0009] of Feinberg to form a scaffold comprising a sheet containing a purified protein that is a structural protein.
Further and regarding instant claim 8, Feinberg does not disclose an example of a meat-like food comprising its sheet containing a purified protein, and does not disclose a meat-like food composition molded into a steak meat shape as in claim 8. However, Feinberg at [0068] discloses printing to making a meat-like food to make any shape or pattern by printing multiple layers on one another using molds (claim 8); further, as disclosed at FIGS 36 to 41 Feinberg discloses providing layers including scaffolds shown at which protein layers are desirable as sheets containing a purified protein and which appear to be a stitched web; thus, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious to form a sheet containing a purified protein of the fibroin in Feinberg. Further, Feinberg discloses at [0007] beef analogs. The ordinary skilled artisan in Altman would have desired to mold its meat-like food into a steak meat shape to mimic beef as a desired pattern formed by printing and molding it to form a beef analog as in claim 8.
Still further, the meat-like food of Feinberg does not disclose a sheet containing a purified protein that is a structural protein wherein the purified protein comprises a carded web of spun protein fibers as in claim 1. However, Feinberg at [0068] discloses printing to make any shape or pattern in making a meat-like food comprising (at [0009]) fibroin as a fiber web (see FIGs. 36 to 41). Further, at [0013] Feinberg discloses making its meat-like food by printing multiple layers on one another including scaffolds as a web sheet containing a purified protein.
The carded web of spun fibers of protein in claim 1 is a product-by process claim element. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.I. Further, once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a prior art rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an nonobvious difference over the art. See MPEP 2113.II.
Varadan at Abstract discloses meat replicas that mimic the fibrousness of real meat, including (at [0039]) replicas of cuts of meat. At [0005], Varadan discloses its meat replica comprising a meat dough wherein (at [0057]) the meat dough comprises a protein isolate and an edible fibrous component that (at [0059]) is also an isolated plant protein (“purified protein”) such as prolamin. At [0062], Varadan discloses modulating the appearance of its meat replicas by shredding the purified protein and then (at [0063]) carding the fibrous component of the purified protein to imitate the fibrous appearance of meat by hand or by using a carding machine.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Varadan for Feinberg to print a sheet containing a purified protein formed of spun fibers of the purified protein having the same arrangement as a carded web and being the same product as a product containing a carded web of the fibers in Feinberg.. Both references disclose meat replicas comprising structural plant proteins in fiber form. The ordinary skilled artisan in Feinberg would have desired to include one or more layers printed to mimic a carded web sheet of a purified protein as in Varadan in its meat replica to orient the fibers of purified protein in the sheet and make a more meat-like food replica from a sheet of such a purified protein.
Regarding instant claim 3, as disclosed at [0455] of Altman the Feinberg fibroin polymer (at [0009]) comprises 43 wt% of glycine and 30 wt% of alanine.
Regarding instant claim 10, the meat-like food of Feinberg does not disclose a meat-like food that contains a sheet having a layer formed on at least one surface of the sheet and containing the at least one raw material selected from the group consisting of the meat raw material and the meat substitute composition raw material, and wherein the sheet of a meat raw material or a meat substitute raw material on which the layer is formed is subjected to at least one treatment selected from the group consisting of stitching and needle punching. However, Feinberg at [0068] discloses printing to make any shape or pattern in making a meat-like food comprising (at [0009]) fibroin as a fiber web (FIGs. 36 to 41) as part of multiple layers in a scaffold. In addition, the stitched or needle punched sheet of a purified protein in the meat-like food of claim 10 are product-by process claim elements. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113.I. Further, once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a prior art rejection is made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an nonobvious difference over the art. See MPEP 2113.II.
The Office considers the printed fiber web of FIGs 36-41 of Feinberg which appears to be woven or knit to be substantially the same thing as a stitched web formed of fibers containing a purified protein as in claim 10. Accordingly, absent a showing an nonobvious difference of the product made by stitching or needle punching versus a product made by 3D knitting or making a woven product of Feinberg, the Office considers the meat-like food of Feinberg at [0013] and FIG. 36-41 to comprise a food made by stitching and/or needle punching as claimed in claim 10. See MPEP 2113.II.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0289824 A1 to Brown et al. (Brown) in view of US2017/0188612 A1 to Varadan et al. (Varadan) as applied to claim 1, above and further as evidenced by Paz-Lugo et al., “High glycine concentration increases collagen synthesis by articular chondrocytes in vitro: acute glycine deficiency could be an important cause of osteoarthritis”, Amino Acids (2018) 50:1357-1365 (Paz-Lugo), of record.
As applied to instant claim 1, Brown at the Example at [0413] and claim 12 as modified by Varadan at [0039], [0057], [0059], [0062] and [0063] discloses a meat-like food comprising as at least one raw material a meat raw material or a meat substitute raw material; and a sheet comprising a carded web of spun fibers of a purified, structural protein.
Brown as modified by Varadan does not specifically disclose the glycine and alanine content of its purified protein, or disclose a purified protein that is a protein having an alanine residue content of 10 to 40% and a glycine residue content of 10 to 55%. However, at [0326] Brown discloses that its prolamin proteins including the zein used in the Example at [0413] have similar amino acid contents as collagen which is high in glycine. In addition, Paz-Lugo at 1363, lower right hand column discloses that collagen has a glycine content of 33 wt%. Accordingly, the Office considers the recited protein having an alanine residue content of 10 to 40% and a glycine residue content of 10 to 55% to include the zein and other prolamines disclosed in Brown. Further, the ordinary skilled artisan in Brown would have found it obvious to form its sheets of spun fibers of zein or other prolamines as its purified proteins that it discloses as desirable for making its meat-like food.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0289824 A1 to Brown et al. (Brown) in view of US2017/0188612 A1 to Varadan et al. (Varadan) as applied to claim 1, above and further in view of WO2021/055903 A1 to Altman et al. (Altman), of record.
As applied to instant claim 1, Brown at the Example at [0413] and claim 12 as modified by Varadan at [0039], [0057], [0059], [0062] and [0063] discloses a meat-like food comprising as at least one raw material a meat raw material or a meat substitute raw material; and a sheet comprising a carded web of spun fibers of a purified, structural protein.
Brown as modified by Varadan does not specifically disclose a sheet containing a purified protein wherein the protein is fibroin.
Altman at Abstract discloses fibroin protein and discloses foods containing it. Further, Altman discloses at [0025] meat analog foods and discloses layering the fibroin with a food component. At [0400], Altman discloses forming layers or sheets of the fibroin. At [0455], Altman discloses that the fibroin protein (at [0009]) comprises 43 wt% of glycine and 30 wt% of alanine.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Altman for Brown to use fibroin as its spun bond protein layer or sheet. Both references disclose meat-like foods comprising purified structural proteins in a meat substitute composition raw material and a sheet containing a purified protein and formed of spun fibers. The ordinary skilled artisan in Brown would have desired to use the fibroin of Altman as a purified protein from a non-animal source that forms fibers and sheets for making its meat-like food as in claim 12 of Brown.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2021/0289824 A1 to Brown et al. (Brown) in view of US2017/0188612 A1 to Varadan et al. (Varadan) as applied to claim 1, above and further in view of GB1596271 to Biotechnical Processes (Biotechnical), of record.
As applied to instant claim 1, Brown at the Example at [0413] and claim 12 as modified by Varadan at [0039], [0057], [0059], [0062] and [0063] discloses a meat-like food comprising as at least one raw material a meat raw material or a meat substitute raw material; and a sheet comprising a carded web of spun fibers of a purified, structural protein.
Regarding instant claims 8-9, Brown as modified by Varadan does not disclose a meat-like food composition that is molded into a steak shape as in claim 8; and, Brown does not disclose a meat-like food composition wherein a layer of the at least one raw material selected from the group consisting of a meat raw material or meat substitute raw material and the sheet are alternately arranged as in claim 9. However, at [0272] Brown discloses meat-like food compositions that are indistinguishable from a cut of beef.
Biotechnical at Example 3 on page 9, line 95 to page 10, line 10 discloses a meat-like food comprising layers of flattened, spun soya and potato protein fibers cut into square segments (“sheets containing a purified protein formed of spun protein fibers”) alternately stacked (“alternately arranged’) with layers of soya isolate and wheat gluten (“meat substitute raw material”) thereon to form a block. As disclosed in Example 3 of Biotechnical, at page 10, lines 1-10, the layered meat-like food was gently compacted. The Office considers claimed molding into a steak meat shape in claim 8 and the meat-like food composition wherein layers of the at least one raw material as a meat raw material or a meat substitute raw material are alternately arranged to include the gently compacted alternating layers of meat raw material and sheet containing a purified protein as in claim 9 to include the layered meat-like food disclosed in Example 3 of Biotechnical.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Biotechnical for Brown to form a meat-like food composition that is molded into a steak shape and wherein a layer of the at least one raw material selected from the group consisting of a meat raw material or meat substitute raw material and the sheet are alternately arranged. Both references disclose meat-like food as analogs for beef comprising sheets or layers of spun fibers and at least one meat or meat substitute raw material. The ordinary skilled artisan in Brown would have desired to shape its meat-like food in the manner of Biotechnical by molding it or by alternately arranging layers of the at least one raw material selected from the group consisting of a meat raw material or meat substitute raw material and the sheet as in Biotechnical to make a product resembling a cut of beef.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of any of claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6-10 over Brown and Feinberg have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Brown or Feinberg for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The Office appreciates the brevity of Applicants remarks. Nevertheless, upon consideration of the positions taken in the remarks accompanying the amendment filed on September 10, 2025 (Reply) the remarks have been fully considered but are not found persuasive for the following reasons:
Regarding the positions taken in the Reply at page 5 suggesting that art cited does not disclose a meat-like food as claimed comprising a sheet as a carded web of spun fibers of a purified, structural protein, respectfully the rejections do not rely on any of the cited art references to establish the obviousness of a meat-like product comprising a sheet comprising a carded web of spun fibers of a purified, structural protein.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
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.
/ANDREW E MERRIAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights