Response to Arguments
DETAILED ACTION
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 February 11, 2026 has been entered. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
Any previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) not recited in this office action have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation “(as defined herein) should be removed from line 2 of claims 19 and 20. 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.
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 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (WO 2017/046659) in view of Mane et al. (WO 2103/079518 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 12, Lee et al. disclose a meat substitute product comprising one or more sources of plant protein, one or more sources of lipid, one or more sources of carbohydrate and water ([0011]).
Lee et al. disclose the one or more sources of plant protein may comprise of legume, alfalfa, clover, pea, chickpea, cow pea, earth pea, pigeon pea, bean broad bean, kidney bean, soybean, lentil, lupin, mesquite, cocoa, carob, nut, peanut, almond, potato, gluten, cereal, maize, rice, wheat, wheat gluten, barley, sorghum millet, oat, rye, triticale, buckwheat, fonlo, quinoa, hemp, fungal, algal, or seaweed or any combination thereof ([0019]). Lee et al. disclose the meat substitute composition comprises plant protein (i.e., vegetable protein) in an amount ranging from about 20 to about 90 % by weight ([0024]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have used any amount, in the disclosed range of from about 20 to about 90% by weight including 20 to 40% by weight, of any type of vegetable protein, including legume, and arrive at the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success. It is noted, in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP §2144.05 I).
Lee et al. also disclose the meat substitute comprise one or more colorants ([0077], [0095]-[0098], [0137]-[0139], [0145] ). Lee is silent with respect to an anthocyanin colorant derived from red sweet potato in an amount of 0.1 to 10% by weight of the meat substitute.
Mane et al. teach an anthocyanin-based colorant for food comprising 50 to 90 mol% based on the total amount of anthocyanin of pelargonidin-based anthocyanins (i.e., natural red-orange colorant especially suitable for food coloring-Abstract, p. 2/L16-27, p. 3/1-3, 19-22). Mane et al. teach where the anthocyanin-based colorant is obtained from red sweet potato (p. 12/L5-11. Figures 1-2., p. 13/L15-p.15/L22/Example 1). Mane et al. disclose that the anthocyanin-based colorant does not have unpleasant taste and/or odor (p. 3/L29-31).
Lee et al. and Mane et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, foodstuff comprising natural red-orange colorants. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to have used the anthocyanin-based colorant taught by Mane et al. to color the meat substitute of Lee et al. to obtain a product with a desired red-orange color and no unpleasant taste or odor resulting from the colorant.
While Lee et al. doesn’t disclose adding colorant in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 10% by weight of the meat substitute, Lee et al. disclose adding the colorants in varying amounts to obtain a meat substitute with desired color characteristics ([0145]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have adjusted, in routine processing, the amount of the added colorant taught by Mane et al. in the meat substitute of Lee et al. to obtain a meat substitute with desired color characteristics.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, modified Lee et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mane et al. teach the anthocyanin colorants can be obtained by extracting one single plant or a variety of plants (p. 11/L28- p.12/L3). Mane et al. teach suitable sources are aronia, bilberry, black carrot, blackcurrant, blueberry, cherry, elderberry, hibiscus, lingonberry, purple corn, red grape, red cabbage, purple sweet potato and red sweet potato (p. 12/L5-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have sourced the anthocyanin based colorants from any combination of plant sources, including for example, red sweet potato and black carrot, and arrive at the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, modified Lee et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mane et al. teach the anthocyanin colorant comprises pelargonidin-based anthocyanins wherein the pelargonidin-based anthocyanin is a monoglycoside or polyglycoside of pelargonidin (p. 4/L24-p. 5/L25). Mane et al. teach where one or more alcohol (-OH) groups are glycosylated with a sugar residue selected from glucose, galactose, arabinose, rhamnose and xylose (p. 5/L18-20).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lee et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mane et al. teach wherein said anthocyanin colorant comprises pelargonidin-based anthocyanins, and wherein at least one sugar residue of the pelargonidin-based anthocyanin is acylated with at least one carboxylic acid residue (p. 5/L26-p. 6/L26).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lee et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mane et al. teach wherein said anthocyanin colorant comprises pelargonidin-based anthocyanins and wherein at least 80 mol% of all pelargonidin-based anthocyanins are acylated (p. 10/L5-19).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 17 and 18, modified Lee et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee et al. and Mane et al. are silent with respect to the amount of anthocyanin colorant derived from red sweet potato and a second colorant derived from another plant source.
Since both anthocyanin colorants are known to be used to color food and orange-red hue, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have created a colorant composition comprising two different anthocyanin colorants in any proportion, including wherein the anthocyanin colorant from red sweet potato is in an amount of 20 to 50% by weight and the second anthocyanin colorant from another plant source, e.g., black carrot, is in an amount of 0.02-0.8% by weight, and arrive at the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 10, modified Lee et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee et al. disclose the meat substitute is intended to be cooked ([0088], [0119], [0142]-[0143]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lee et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Lee et al. disclose the meat substitute may comprise fibrous structure, such as compact fibrous meat resembling cooked animal muscle ([0016]). Lee et al. disclose the meat substitute is cut into requires size as determined by the potential end use, for example, cubes, slices, strips or chunks ([0117]). Here, a meat substitute resembling cooked animal muscle in cubes, slices, strips or chunks could be part of any plant-based meat alternative product, including for example plant based ham alternative or plant based lamb meat alternative.
Regarding claims 13, 14, 15, 19 and 20, modified Lee et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Mane et al. disclose the colorant has a hue value in the range of 10-30 (p.3/L11-14). However, Lee et al. and Mane et al. are silent with respect to the a* and hue of the meat substitute comprising the colorant.
Given the combination of Lee et al. and Mane et al. teach a meat substitute (i.e. plant-based meat alternative) substantially similarly to that presently claimed, inherently the meat substitute would exhibit an a* and hue in the claimed ranges before and after cooking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submit “among dozen upon dozens of potential sources of protein, Lee never mentions sweet potatoes and never red, indeed never any “shades” of the protein, nor anthocyanin of any kind or source.”
In this case, the presently presented claims do not require red sweet potato protein. The claims require an anthocyanin colorant derived from red sweet potato (see, for example, claim 1).
Applicant submit “all application examples in Mane deal with soft drinks or fruit preparations.”
Applicant submits the statement in the Office Action regarding analogous art is an “improper extrapolation of the prior art” because the word “colorant” does not appear in the Lee et al. document and the word “meat” does not appear in the Mane et al. document. Applicant argues one of ordinary skill in the art of plant based meat alternative would not look at Mane et al which does not include the word “meat” for any purpose.
Here, Mane et al. teach colorants intended for food products (p. 2/L1-19). Mane et al. teach “the present invention provides the use of the above composition as a food colorant, specifically as a food colorant for beverages, food preparations, dairy, ice cream and confectionary” (p. 3/L19-20). A meat substitute product would be considered a type of food preparation.
Moreover, at paragraph [0077], Lee et al. disclose the meat substitute composition may comprise of one or more colorings. Int this case, the term “coloring” is considered to have the same meaning as the term “colorant.” Lee et al. disclose adding pumpkin powder and/or tomato powder (i.e., natural colorants) to color the meat substitute (i.e., red-orange colors-[0095]-[0098], [0137]-[0139], [0145] ).
It is clear Lee et al. and Mane et al. are in the same field of endeavor. One of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to the teaching of Mane et al. to find a natural red-orange colorant, suitable for foodstuff, to use as a colorant in the meat substitute product of Lee et al. with a reasonable expectation of success.
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 ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights