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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 12/8/25. Claims 1,2-3,5,30 are amended. Claims 1-5,11,14-16,18,28-30 are pending.
The previous 112 second paragraph and 103 rejections are withdrawn due to the amendment. New ground of rejection follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5,11,14-16,18,28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preppemau ( 8343563) in view of Bellar ( 7595081).
For claims 1,4, Preppemau discloses a composition comprising at least 90% egg white, one or more plant protein, vegetable oil and a stabilizer. ( see col. 8 line 57-67, col. 9 lines 1-2,col. 10 lines 49-53)
For claims 2,11, the protein includes pea protein. ( see col. 10 lines 49-53)
For claim 14, Preppemau discloses soybean oil. ( see col. 9 line 2)
For claim 15, Preppemau discloses in the example on col. 12 .5-2% soybean oil. ( see table on top of col. 12)
For claims 16,18, Preppemau discloses thickening agent such as xanthan gum and natural starch. ( see col. 10 lines 25-32)
For claim 28, Preppemau discloses the composition comprising one or more flavoring ingredients. ( see col. 8 lines 65-67, col.9 lines 64-67)
For claim 29-30, Preppemau discloses forming the composition as patty which is used with batter; thus, it’s an edible food carrier. The composition is gluten-free. ( see col. 12 example II)
Preppemau does not disclose the amount of protein and the total carbohydrate as in claim1, the percent of protein in claim 5 and the concentration of protein as in claim 3.
Bellar discloses a non-flour containing batter comprising egg protein and soy protein. The batter is gluten-free. The batter is used to make products such as pancakes, waffle. The product has a carbohydrate content of .5g or less /100g of batter. Thus, the carbohydrate content is .5% or less. ( see col. 2 , col. 4 lines 66-67)
In the example on column 12 for simulated egg patty filling, Preppemau disclose .5-2% protein but does not restrict the amount of protein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more protein when desiring to increase the protein content of the product. This would have been an obvious matter of choice. Generally difference in concentration does not support patentability in absence of showing of criticality or unexpected result. Preppemau discloses using pea protein. It would have been obvious to use pea protein concentrate or isolate depending on the concentration of protein and purity of protein desired. The percent claimed is typical of protein content found in protein concentrate or protein isolate. Preppenau discloses combining egg patty filling combining with a batter containing flour. However, Bellar discloses batter without flour containing egg protein and other protein to provide products free of gluten for people with celiac disease. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the batter in Preppemau with the batter disclosed in Bellar when desiring to provide product high in protein , low in carbohydrate and gluten free. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to make the substitution when desiring high protein product that is suitable for diet low in carbohydrate.
Claim(s) 1-5,11,14-16,18,28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boldt ( 4296134) in view of Rodriguez ( 2015/0313269).
For claims 1,4-5, 28,30 Boldt discloses a composition comprising 60-96 parts liquid egg white, 2-10.5 parts of protein replacement including soy protein, .2-.95 stabilizer and .1-2.5 flavoring. The composition has no more than 1.25% fat. The composition is gluten free because there is no gluten source added. ( see abstract, col. 9 lines 40-45. For claim 18, Boldt disclose the stabilizer includes starch ( see col. 8 lines 40-41). For claim 29, Boldt discloses omelets prepared from the composition ( see col. 9 lines 15-18). Omelets are carrier because other ingredients such as cheese can be placed on the omelets. There is no parameter defining carrier.
Boldt does not disclose vegetable oil , the total carbohydrate content and amount of protein as in claim 1, the pea protein as in claims 2-3,11, the amount of protein as in claim 5, the oil and amount as in claims 14-15 and the use of xanthan gum as in claim 16.
Rodriguez discloses an egg substitute product comprising protein such as pea protein, soy protein. Rodrigues discloses typical egg comprises about 10% fat. The fat is found in the yolk and less than .5% fat in the albumen. The substitute product comprises vegetable oil such as olive oil in amount of about .1-10%. The substitute product comprises gums such as xanthan gum, guar gum, gellan gum, locust bean gum etc.. ( see paragraphs 0054,0057-0059,0078-0079)
Boldt discloses the composition comprises no more than 1.25% fat. As shown in Rodriguez, the fat in egg is in the yolk. Since the Boldt composition comprises egg white, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add vegetable oil when desiring to add a little fat to the composition. It would have been to use well-known oil as shown in Rodriguez. The Boldt composition does not contain a carbohydrate source. If the stabilizer is starch, the amount is from .2-.95, the amount of carbohydrate is less than 2%. As shown in Rodriguez, soy protein and pea protein can be used interchangeably in egg-related product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pea protein as an obvious matter of using an alternative ingredient to provide the same function of providing a protein source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the protein in the range of protein replacement disclosed in Boldt. The percent of protein in the pea protein depends on the type such as pea protein concentrate or pea protein isolate. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to select the type depending on the protein quality desired. As shown in Rodrigues, xanthan gum and other gums can be used interchangeably, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use xanthan gum as an obvious matter of using an alternative ingredient to provide the same function of providing a gum source.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/08/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues that the Preppernau product is a patty including a batter coating which is in contrast to the instant application which is directed to flexible food wraps. This argument is not persuasive because it does not commensurate in scope with the claims. There is no limitation in the claims directed to flexible wraps. Claim 29 recites a food carrier. The patty in Preppernau is a carrier. New reference is added to address the new limitation on the carbohydrate content. Applicant further argues Preppernau does not teach or suggest high levels of egg whites and plant protein. This argument is not persuasive. Preppernau discloses at least 90% egg white and the protein used includes pea protein. In the example on column 12 for simulated egg patty filling, Preppemau disclose .5-2% protein but does not restrict the amount of protein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use more protein when desiring to increase the protein content of the product. This would have been an obvious matter of choice. Generally difference in concentration does not support patentability in absence of showing of criticality or unexpected result. Preppemau discloses using pea protein. Applicant has not established any criticality to the 3%. Increasing the amount of protein to increase the protein content in the product is a matter of choice since high protein product is known in the art. Applicant argues the claimed invention is not merely a concentration change but fundamentally different product with different structure and function. This argument is not persuasive. There is no structure or function recited in the claims. The claims are directed to a composition with no defining structure or function. The argument does not reflect the scope of the claims.
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 LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
February 11, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793