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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims: 2-6, 8-61, 67-68, 72, 73 and 77-79 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 7, 62-66, 69-71, 74-76, 80-82, 86, 87, 94-97 are pending in the current application.
Claims 1, 7, 62-66, 69-71 and 94-97 are withdrawn from consideration (see discussion, below).
Claims 74-76, 80-82, 86 and 87 are examined in the current application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 74-76, 80-82, 86 and 87 in the reply filed on March 2nd, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 7, 62-66, 69-71 and 94-97 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 2nd, 2026.
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 74, 76 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Franklin et al. (USPatPub. 2016/0024538 A1).
Regarding claims 74 and 76: Franklin discloses a food product, such as meat substitute, comprising edible microbial oil produced by oleaginous yeast (see Franklin abstract; paragraphs [0025], [026], [0028], [0047], [0048] and [0153]-[0155]). Franklin discloses the microbial oil comprises at least about 35% saturated fatty acids, at least about 60% unsaturated fatty acids (i.e., C18:1) and less than about 7% polyunsaturated fatty acids (e.g., 18:2) (see Franklin paragraph [0030]), which reads on claims 74 and 76.
Regarding claim 82: Franklin discloses the microbial oil can be combined with ingredients, such as eggs (see Franklin [0038]), which are gelling agents.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 75, 80, and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin et al. (USPatPub. 2016/0024538 A1) as applied to claims 74, 76 and 82 above, and further in view of Vrljic et al. (USPatPub. 2015/0305390 A1).
Regarding claims 75 and 80: Franklin discloses a food product, such as meat substitute, comprising edible microbial oil produced by oleaginous yeast (see Franklin abstract; paragraphs [0025], [026], [0047], [0048] and [0153]-[0155]), but fails to disclose the amount of oil to be used in ground beef substitute; However, Vrlkic discloses that ground beef substitute product comprising 1% to 9% microbial-derived oil (e.g., yeast) (see Vrljic [0015]-[0018] and [0146]) is known and conventional in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have modified Franklin and to have prepared a ground beef substitute comprising more than 1% oleaginous yeast oil as it is known in the art.
Regarding claim 87: Franklin discloses a food product, such as meat substitute, comprising edible microbial oil produced by oleaginous yeast (see Franklin abstract; paragraphs [0025], [026], [0047], [0048] and [0153]-[0155]), but fails to disclose not using animal fat; However, Vrljic discloses using no animals in the production, in order to make the product healthier (see Vrljic paragraph [0070]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified Franklin and to have used not used animal fat in the food product, in order to make the food product healthier, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
Claim 86 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Franklin et al. (USPatPub. 2016/0024538 A1) as applied to claims 74, 76 and 82 above, and further in view of NPL “Cruel Oil – How Palm Oil Farms health, Rainforest & Wildlfe” (‘Sierra’) (from https://mauisierraclub.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/PalmOilReport-1.pdf).
Regarding claim 86: Franklin discloses a food product, such as meat substitute, comprising edible microbial oil produced by oleaginous yeast (see Franklin abstract; paragraphs [0025], [026], [0047], [0048] and [0153]-[0155]), but fails to disclose not using palm oil or palm kernel oil; However, Sierra discloses that consuming palm oil and/or palm kernel oil is not healthy, and that growing/producing palm oil and/or palm kernel oil is detrimental to the rainforest and/or the environment (see Sierra whole document). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have modified Franklin and to have not include palm oil, or palm kernel oil in the food product, in order to reduce the health risk and environmental damage associated with palm oil or palm kernel oil consumption, producing and growing, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on (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.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights