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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/15/26 has been entered.
Claims 1,3, 29-30 are amended. Claims 1-5,11, 14-16,18,28-30 are pending.
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. For claim 1, the limitation of “ for making an edible food wrap useful for wrapping food material” is an intended use which does not determine the patentability of the composition. The limitation is also in the preamble which does not limit the claim because the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness. ( 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 claims 29-30, Preppemau discloses forming the composition as patty which is used with batter. The composition is gluten-free. Preppemau discloses on col. 4 lines 15-27 that the egg patty is encapsulated with two portions of batter. The patty egg filling is coated on all side with the batter. Thus, it’s a food wrap because the batter wraps around the filling. Claim 30 also recites the alternative of composition or food wrap. Preppemau discloses both. ( 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. Bellar discloses dough or batter product comprises a source of egg protein, soy protein, hydrocolloid component and water ( see claim 1)
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. The batter is disclosed in Bellar to contain 4 essential ingredients of whole egg, soy protein, hydrocolloid and water. The ingredients do not contain carbohydrate. Thus, the carbohydrate content would encompass the claimed range.
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) and the recipe by Jubes “ asparagus omelette wraps”.
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).
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 , the use of xanthan gum as in claim 16 and food wrap as in claim 29.
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)
The recipe teaches to make wrap from egg omelette.
For claim 1, the limitation of “ for making an edible food wrap useful for wrapping food material” is an intended use which does not determine the patentability of the composition. The limitation is also in the preamble which does not limit the claim because the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness. Boldt discloses the egg blend is used to make omelets. As shown is the recipe, omelet is used as wrap to contain other food. It would have been obvious to one of make wrap omelet as shown in the recipe as an obvious matter of preference. Claim 30 recites the alternative of composition or wrap. Boldt discloses the composition. In any event, it would have been obvious to make wrap out of the omelet as shown in the recipe. 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 5/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues the new limitation. . For claim 1, the limitation of “ for making an edible food wrap useful for wrapping food material” is an intended use which does not determine the patentability of the composition. The limitation is also in the preamble which does not limit the claim because the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness. A wrap as in claim 29 does not define over Preppemau. Preppemau discloses on col. 4 lines 15-27 that the egg patty is encapsulated with two portions of batter. The patty egg filling is coated on all side with the batter. Thus, it’s a food wrap because the batter wraps around the filling. Claim 30 also recites the alternative of composition or food wrap. Preppemau discloses both. Applicant argues Bellar does not disclose the claimed total carbohydrate. This argument is not persuasive. The portion pointed out by applicant is to specific example 1. Bellar’s claim 1 is directed to a batter comprising whole egg, soy protein, hydrocolloid and water. Thus, the Bellar batter can contain no carbohydrate source. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use such batter when desiring high protein batter. The batter in Bellar is not required to include fibers and polydextrose ingredients.
New reference is added to the rejection over Boldt in view of Rodriguez to address the wrap limitation.
Conclusion
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.
June 26, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights