DETAILED ACTION
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 Status
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are pending in the current application. Claims 6 and 22-27 are cancelled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howsam (US 6635301 B1) in view of Hsieh et al. (herein referred to as Hsieh, US 20120093994 A1) and Hsieh et al. (herein referred to as Hsieh2, WO 2012051428 A1)
With regard to Claim 1, Howsam teaches a method for preparing a plant-based whole cut meat analogue (abstract). The meat analogue products are meant to mimic the texture, color and flavor of animal products such as chicken and other meat products (Col 3 lines 6-21 , Col 9 lines 35-38). Howsam teaches the meat analogue has a muscle-like fibrous structure, a muscle like elasticity and meaty flavors (Col 9, lines 8-14 and Col 3, lines 8-12). Howsam teaches using naturally occurring and available plant protein sources and other plant ingredients (Claim 1 and Table 2).
Howsam teaches formulating a mixture comprising at least one plant proteinaceous material (Col 3, lines 41-44), at least one flavoring and coloring ingredient (Col 4, line 41), and at least one thickening and stabilizing ingredient (Col 2, lines 44-45, Howsam reads such the compound is a binding and cross linking compound).
Howsam teaches a high moisture extruding and cooling process (Col 3, lines 49-50). Howsam teaches the formulated mixture has a water content of 35 to 60% (Col 4, line 45). Howsam teaches the formulated mixture undergoes the steps of precisely designed extrusion and cooling process over multiple temperature segments (Col 6, lines 23-31). Howsam teaches the extruder is preferably a twin conveyor and pressurizing screw extruder with 4 to 8 barrel sections that are individually temperature controlled. Temperature settings at the individual barrel sections during the manufacturing process will vary between 60 and 120° C (col 6 lines 23-31). However, Howsam is silent to the temperature-ramp profile.
Hsieh teaches analog meat compositions produced from vegetable protein and processes for producing the analog meat compositions (abstract). Hsieh teaches using extrusion to make the analog meat composition. Hsieh teaches the extrusion processing is a multi-step and multifunctional operation, which leads to mixing, hydration, shear, homogenization, compression, deaeration, pasteurization or sterilization, stream alignment, shaping, expansion and/or fiber formation. Ultimately, the vegetable protein, typically introduced to the extruder in the form of a dry blend, is processed to form a fibrous material ([0006]). Hsieh teaches the extrusion apparatus generally comprises a plurality of heating zones. In one embodiment, the protein mixture is heated in the respective heating zones to temperatures of about 25℃., about 40℃, about 95℃, about 150℃ and about 170℃. One skilled in the art may adjust the temperatures in one or more zones to achieve the desired properties ([00067]). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Similarly see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howsam to utilize the extrusion conditions taught by Hsieh to form a fibrous material.
Although the combination of Howsam and Hsieh teaches the ramping up of temperature in the extruder, the combination is silent to the ramping down.
Hsieh2 teaches analog meat compositions produced from vegetable protein and processes for producing the analog meat compositions (abstract). Hsieh2 teaches a similar “ramping-up” method has described above in Hsieh, but continues to teach after the “ramping up” phase to “ramp down” the temperature. Hsieh2 specifically teaches an additional zone (adjacent the extruder exit port) which is set to a temperature of about 140 °C to about 80 °C. Hsieh2 The extruder may be set in other temperature zone arrangements, as desired ([0063]). Hsieh2 teaches the extrudates (or structured plant protein products) produced in accordance with the process described herein comprise protein fibers that are substantially aligned ([0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Howsam and Hsieh to include the “ramping down” method taught by Hsieh2 to achieve protein fibers that are substantially aligned. Hsieh clearly teaches one with ordinary skill in the art may adjust the ramping down temperature zones as needed to achieve the desired result. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Continuing, Howsam teaches the cooling process includes cooling the hot melt in a multi-channel and temperature controlled cooling die (Col 5 lines 50-55, col 6 lines 12-13) at a temperature below 70℃ (col 7 lines 64-67). Howsam teaches the mixture is formed into an extrudate with an elongated and solidified protein fibrous structure (Claim 1) of a predetermined toughness and predetermined chewiness to simulate whole cut meant (Col 9, lines 8-14 Howsam reads such that the shredded end product is to have a dense, fibrous, structure that resembles not only in appearance but also in texture, bite and feel of flaked or shredded meat such as, tuna fish or chicken breast meat). Howsam teaches the properties of the viscous mass at the end of the thermo-mechanical conversion process, which the precursors undergo within the extruder barrel, are dependent on the process variables (e.g. temperature in the different sections of the extruder barrel, screw speed/barrel section pressure, moisture content, precursor formulation, etc.) (Col 1 lines 58-64). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the process variables taught by Howsam to achieve the desired properties of the viscous mass, such as an elongated and solidified protein fibrous structure (claim 1), so the protein fibers are elongated and layered along a laminar flow to achieve the desired end product that resembles not only in appearance but also in texture, bite and feel of flaked or shredded meat. Lastly, Howsam teaches mechanical shaping (i.e., shredding) the extrudate to obtains a plurality of extrudate shreds that resemble in consistency and texture flaked or shredded meat (claim 1).
With regard to Claim 2, Howsam teaches forming a meat analogue extrudate with a moisture content of between 40 to about 60% (Col 4 lines 5-12). Howsam teaches the extrudate has a protein content of 25-35% (table 1), a tight layered fibrous structure, and a meat-like elasticity (Col 9 lines 8-15, Col 4 line 63, figure 7). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
With regard to Claim 4, Howsam teaches at least one plant proteinaceous material is soy (Col 3 lines 35-44). Howsam teaches the use of flavoring and coloring ingredients but is silent to the specific ingredient used. Additionally, Howsam teaches the use of thickening and stabilizing ingredients but is silent to the specific ingredient.
Hsieh teaches an analogue meat composition from vegetable protein that simulates the fibrous structure of animal meat and has a desirable meat-like moisture, texture, mouthfeel, flavor and color (abstract). Hsieh teaches the meat analog compositions may include a variety of flavorings, spices, antioxidants, fibers, or other ingredients to nutritionally enhance the final food application ([0088]). Hsieh teaches the flavoring agent can include an animal meat flavor, an animal meat oil, spice extracts, spice oils, natural smoke solutions, natural smoke extracts, yeast extract, and shiitake extract. Additional flavoring agents may include onion flavor, garlic flavor, or herb flavors ([0090]).
Hsieh teaches the meat analogue may further comprise a thickening agent such as alginic acid and its salts, agar, carrageenan and its salts, processed Eucheuma seaweed, gums (carob bean, guar, tragacanth, and xanthan), pectins, sodium carboxymethylcellulose, and modified starches.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howsam in view of Hsieh to include to the flavor/coloring ingredients and thickening/stabilizing ingredients taught by Hsieh to naturally enhance the final food application ([0088]).
With regard to Claim 5, Howsam teaches suitable ingredients that can used to prepare such a product contain high amounts of plant protein, with possible addition of or substitution of a small portion of the plant protein with animal protein such as fish or animal meat, or meat by-products, or other protein sources (Col 9 lines 25-30).
With regard to Claim 8, Howsam teaches the cooling process comprises pushing the hot melt extrudate into a cooling chamber comprising multiple segments to cool to a temperature between 50℃ and 90℃ (Col 3 lines 49-53, Col 6 lines 10-13 Howsam reads such that the cooling die is preferably a multi-channel cooling die). Howsam teaches the cooling die is temperature controlled and by cooling reduces the viscosity of the protein lava to obtain a cohesive, texturized, extrudate slab or ribbon (abstract). Howsam teaches the slab or ribbon extrudate, after exiting the extruder, is generally subjected to further process steps in order to obtain the desired end product. So it is known to have specially designed forming dies at or within the cooling die and cutting devices to impart a specific shape on the extrudate to mimic actual animal or vegetable products (Col 2 lines 42-48).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Howsam teachings cooling the extrudate and through routine optimization one with ordinary skill in the art could optimize the temperature for the desired results. See MPEP 2144.05(II) which states Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally, It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art, through routine optimization, to design or utilize a die shape that would impart a specific shape to achieve the desired end product to mimic actual animal or vegetable products. See MPEP 2144.05(II) stated above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howsam (US 6635301 B1) in view of Hsieh (US 20120093994 A1), Hsieh2 (WO 2012051428 A1) and Giezen et al. (herein referred to as Giezen, WO 2012158023 A1)
With regard to Claim 3, Howsam teaches a post-treatment process comprising forming the extrudate (i.e., fibrous structure) into shapes and size (Col 2 lines 42-49). Howsam teaches the extrudate is slight expanded (or puffed) and have structure and texture features resembling animal muscle tissue (Col 2 lines 10-15). Howsam teaches using flavoring agents (table 4)
However, Howsam is silent to infusing the flavoring into the matrix of the structure.
Giezen teaches an extrusion process is disclosed for turning vegetable protein compositions such as soy protein into a fibrous, meat-like structure (abstract). Giezen teaches flavor can be infused into the product via an aqueous liquid to provide a flavor to the composition (Page 15, lines 3-9). Giezen teaches the absorption of aqueous liquids facilitates adding desired taste components, as well as allows to vary the product in terms of juiciness and bite (page 7 lines 10-13). Giezen teaches combination of features (such as temperature) is responsible for the creation of a relatively open structure in the composition. This open structure has an improved capability of being infused with an aqueous liquid (page 6, lines 5-9). Giezen reads such that the flavor infusion happens after the product has left the extruder (page 6, lines 23-26). Giezen teaches the flavor is preferrable a broth (claim 9). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize a “broth” as a natural flavor.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Howsam in view of Giezen to infuse the extrudate taught by Howsam with flavor to achieve the desired taste as well as allow to vary the product in terms of juiciness and bite.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howsam (US 6635301 B1) in view of Hsieh (US 20120093994 A1), Hsieh2 (WO 2012051428 A1), and Moscicki et al. (herein referred to as Moscicki, “Extrusion-Cooking and related Techniques”).
With regard to Claim 7, Howsam teaches a twin-screw extruder at the highest temperature segment (Figure 2, Col 7 lines 8-23).
However Howsam is silent to the twin-screw extruder being in a counter-rotating mode.
Moscicki teaches counter-rotating in twin screw extruder has been around since the 1930s and are commonly used in the processing or fiber and cellulose rich materials and have been used for pet food products (page 8, page 18, page 19). Moscicki teaches Counter-rotating twin-screw food extruders are special-purpose machinery Their screws rotate much more slowly (up to 150 rpm) but can mix the material effectively and their work resembles a positive-displacement pump generating high pressure in the barrel closed C-shaped chamber on the screws, which is needed for high viscosity material (page 18).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howsam to incorporate a counter-rotating twin screw extruder in the highest temperature segment because Howsam describes the formula as “hot viscous protein lava” (Howsam, Col 5 line 50) and Moscicki teaches counter-rotating twin extruders mix generate high pressure which is needed for a high viscosity material (page 18). In addition, Moscicki teaches the method has been used for pet food products (Moscicki, page 19). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize pet food products are often made of meat or are meat analogues. Thus, from Moscicki’s disclosure, one with ordinary skill in the art could deduce that the counter-rotating twin screw could be suitable for similar uses to pet food such as meat analogues.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howsam (US 6635301 B1) in view of Hsieh (US 20120093994 A1), Hsieh2 (WO 2012051428 A1), and Gonzalez-Cavieres et al. (herein referred to as Gonzalez-Cavieres, “Advances in vacuum microwave drying (VMD) systems for food products”)
With regard to Claim 9, Howsam teaches a method for preparing a plant-based whole cut meat analogue (abstract). The meat analogue products are meant to mimic the texture, color and flavor of animal products such as chicken and other meat products (Col 3 lines 6-21 , Col 9 lines 35-38). Howsam teaches the meat analogue has a muscle-like fibrous structure, a muscle like elasticity and meaty flavors (Col 9, lines 8-14 and Col 3, lines 8-12). Howsam teaches using naturally occurring and available plant protein sources and other plant ingredients (Claim 1 and Table 2).
Howsam teaches formulating a mixture comprising at least one plant proteinaceous material (Col 3, lines 41-44), at least one flavoring and coloring ingredient (Col 4, line 41), and at least one thickening and stabilizing ingredient (Col 2, lines 44-45, Howsam reads such the compound is a binding and cross linking compound).
Howsam teaches a high moisture extruding and cooling process (Col 3, lines 49-50). Howsam teaches the formulated mixture has a water content of 35 to 60% (Col 4, line 45). Howsam teaches the formulated mixture undergoes the steps of precisely designed extrusion and cooling process over multiple temperature segments (Col 6, lines 23-31). Howsam teaches the extruder is preferably a twin conveyor and pressurizing screw extruder with 4 to 8 barrel sections that are individually temperature controlled. Temperature settings at the individual barrel sections during the manufacturing process will vary between 60 and 120° C (col 6 lines 23-31). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Howsam teaches these temperatures are “generally set” and Howsam teaches the properties of the viscous mass at the end of the thermomechanical conversion process, which the precursors undergo within the extruder barrel, are dependent on the process variables such as temperature in the different sections of the extruder barrel (Col 1 lines 58-64).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature in the plurality of temperature segments to achieve the desired properties of the viscous mass after the thermomechanical conversion process in the extruder. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Howsam teaches the cooling process includes cooling the hot melt in a multi-channel and temperature controlled cooling die (Col 5 lines 50-55, col 6 lines 12-13) at a temperature below 70℃ (col 7 lines 64-67). Howsam teaches the mixture is formed into an extrudate with an elongated and solidified protein fibrous structure (Claim 1) of a predetermined toughness and predetermined chewiness to simulate whole cut meant (Col 9, lines 8-14 Howsam reads such that the shredded end product is to have a dense, fibrous, structure that resembles not only in appearance but also in texture, bite and feel of flaked or shredded meat such as, tuna fish or chicken breast meat).
Howsam teaches the process of modifying the texture and flavor of the meat analogue creating versatile shapes, forms, and flavors suitable for the various plant-based whole cut meat applications from different animal origins ( Col 3 lines 6-21 , Col 9 lines 35-38, Claims 14 and 15 Howsam reads such that the meat analogue products are meant to mimic the texture, color and flavor of animal products such as chicken and other meat products and have various forms and shapes).
However, Howsam is silent to the dehydrating and drying process. Per the applicants specification, the extrudate product can be dehydrated by microwave vacuum dying process (applicants specification page 21 lines 9-11)
Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches vacuum microwave drying (VMD) is a fats and efficient process for reducing moisture content and the process prevents oxidation and maintains food quality attributes such as color, texture, and flavor. A VMD system reduces drying time between 70 and 90% compared with hot air drying and freeze-drying systems (1. Introduction). Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches VDM systems have become increasingly popular in being applied to meat (1. Introduction). Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches VMD is controlled by different system parameters, such as power, frequency (Hz), vacuum (kPa), temperature (◦C), moisture loss (mol/m3), food composition, and dielectric properties (1. Introduction). All these parameters are interrelated but must be configured for food being used.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to modify Howsam to utilize vacuum microwave drying to reduce moisture as taught by Gonzalez-Cavieres because it is fast and efficient while simultaneously preventing oxidation and maintaining the food’s quality attributes such as color, texture, and flavor (1. Introduction). It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that the vacuum drying would inherently dehydrate the extrudate product. See MPEP 2112.01 Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches for each food parameters such as power, frequency (Hz), vacuum (kPa), temperature (◦C), moisture loss (mol/m3), food composition, and dielectric properties need to be adjusted for each food being used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the parameters to optimized the desired properties of the final product such as color, texture, and flavor. See MPEP 2144.05(II) "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With regard to Claim 10, Howsam teaches the method further comprises cutting, shredding, and shaping into various whole cut meat analogue form such as beef chunks or slices (Col 2 lines 42-49, Claim 17).
With regard to Claim 11, Howsam is silent to the reducing the moisture content.
Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches vacuum microwave drying (VMD) is a fats and efficient
process for reducing moisture content and the process prevents oxidation and maintains food quality attributes such as color, texture, and flavor. A VMD system reduces drying time between 70 and 90% compared with hot air drying and freeze-drying systems (1. Introduction). Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches VDM systems have become increasingly popular in being applied to meat (1. Introduction). Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches VMD is controlled by different system parameters, such as power, frequency (Hz), vacuum (kPa), temperature (◦C), moisture loss (mol/m3), food composition, and dielectric properties (1. Introduction). All these parameters are interrelated but must be configured for food being used.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to modify Howsam to utilize vacuum microwave drying to reduce moisture as taught by Gonzalez-Cavieres because it is fast and efficient while simultaneously preventing oxidation and maintaining the food’s quality attributes such as color, texture, and flavor (1. Introduction). Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches for each food parameters such as power, frequency (Hz), vacuum (kPa), temperature (◦C), moisture loss (mol/m3), food composition, and dielectric properties need to be adjusted for each food being used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the parameters to optimized the desired properties of the final product such as color, texture, and flavor. See MPEP 2144.05(II) "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With regard to Claim 12, Howsam teaches the method further comprising mechanical tearing and cutting the extrudate product into pieces desirable sizes and natural meat look with a fibrous structure (Col 2 lines 42-49, Claim 17). The applicants specification teaches the irregular shape is a result of the extrudate product being “torn”. Thus, Howsam’s method of shredding would be equivalent to the mechanical tearing described by the applicant to achieve the irregular shapes as claimed (Col 8 lines 32-55).
With regard to Claim 13, Howsam is silent to the microwave vacuum heating and drying process.
Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches vacuum microwave drying (VMD) is a fats and efficient process for reducing moisture content and the process prevents oxidation and maintains food quality attributes such as color, texture, and flavor. Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches the drying process is useful to preserve food quality and stability and prevent spoilage and contamination during storage (1.Introduction). A VMD system reduces drying time between 70 and 90% compared with hot air drying and freeze-drying systems (1. Introduction). Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches VDM systems have become increasingly popular in being applied to meat (1. Introduction). Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches VMD is controlled by different system parameters, such as power, frequency (Hz), vacuum (kPa), temperature (◦C), moisture loss (mol/m3), food composition, and dielectric properties (1. Introduction). All these parameters are interrelated but must be configured for food being used.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of he claimed invention to modify Howsam to utilize vacuum microwave drying to reduce moisture as taught by Gonzalez-Cavieres because it is fast and efficient while simultaneously preventing oxidation and maintaining the food’s quality attributes such as color, texture, and flavor (1, Introduction). Gonzalez-Cavieres teaches for each food parameters such as power, frequency (Hz), vacuum (kPa), temperature (◦C), moisture loss (mol/m3), food composition, and dielectric properties need to be adjusted for each food being used. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the parameters to optimized the desired properties of the final product such as storage capability (i.e. shelf life), color, texture, and flavor. See MPEP 2144.05(II) "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howsam (US 6635301 B1) in view of Hsieh (US 20120093994 A1), Hsieh2 (WO 2012051428 A1), Gonzalez-Cavieres et al. (herein referred to as Gonzalez-Cavieres, “Advances in vacuum microwave drying (VMD) systems for food products”), Stewart et al. (herein referred to as Stewart, US 20170135380 A1) and Giezen (WO 2012158023 A1)
With regard to Claim 14, Howsam is silent to the steps of generating a reaction flavor of the animal protein.
Steward teaches a pre-seasoned, ready to cook or packaged frozen food product comprising a base food component such as meat or poultry, coated with a Jamaican jerk spice seasoning comprising herbs, spices and salt (abstract). Steward teaches marinating the product for a predetermined amount of time into ingredients containing high sulfur amino acids such as onion garlic and a secondary ingredient such as soy sauce ([0011]). Stewart teaches The seasoning composition may comprise either a dry mix of spices or a wet marinade ([0005]) and Coating the base food such as meat in wet marinade may result in juicier meat after cooking ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to marinate the extrudate product of the desired shape and size taught by Howsam in view of the marinate taught by Stewart because the wet marinate contains the claimed first and second ingredients and may result in juicier meat after cooking. Additionally, the amount of the ingredients can be adjusted through routine optimization to obtained the desired flavor. See MPEP 2144.05(II) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
However, the combination of Howsam and Steward are silent to the reaction conditions.
Giezen teaches an extrusion process is disclosed for turning vegetable protein compositions such as soy protein into a fibrous, meat-like structure (abstract). Giezen teaches flavor can be infused into the product via an aqueous liquid to a temperature of 100℃ (Page 15, lines 3-9). Giezen teaches combination of features (such as temperature) is responsible for the creation of a relatively open structure in the composition. This open structure has an improved capability of being infused with an aqueous liquid (page 6, lines 5-9). Giezen reads such that the flavor infusion happens after the product has left the extruder and it at 100℃ and atmospheric pressure (page 6, lines 23-26)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Howsam and steward in view of Giezen to incorporate the flavor ingredients at a temperature of 100℃ and atmospheric pressure because the composition will have a more open structure which improves the capability of the product to be infused with aqueous medium carrying the flavor.
With regard to Claim 15, Howsam teaching flavoring the product to mimic specific types of meat (col 3, lines 4-10).
However, Howsam is silent to the process of marinating the product to achieve the flavor.
Steward teaches marinating the product for a predetermined amount of time into ingredients containing high sulfur amino acids such as onion garlic and a secondary ingredient such as soy sauce ([0011]). Stewart teaches The seasoning composition may comprise either a dry mix of spices or a wet marinade ([0005]) and Coating the base food such as meat in wet marinade may result in juicier meat after cooking ([0010]).
Giezen teaches an extrusion process is disclosed for turning vegetable protein compositions such as soy protein into a fibrous, meat-like structure (abstract). Giezen teaches flavor can be infused into the product via an aqueous liquid to a temperature of 100℃ (Page 15, lines 3-9). Giezen teaches combination of features (such as temperature and pressure) is responsible for the creation of a relatively open structure in the composition. This open structure has an improved capability of being infused with an aqueous liquid (page 6, lines 5-9). Giezen reads such that the flavor infusion happens after the product has left the extruder and it at 100℃ and atmospheric pressure (page 6, lines 23-26)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howsam in view of Steward and Giezen to infuse the flavor ingredients at a desired amount to achieve the desired flavor profile and at a temperature of 100℃ at atmospheric pressure because the composition will have a more open structure which improves the capability of the product to be infused with aqueous medium carrying the flavor. See MPEP 2144.05(II) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to Claim 16, Howsam teaches the presence of nutritional additives, flavoring and conservation agents, initial moisture contents and the like, affect the inner structure and texture of the extrudate and therefore its susceptibility to mimic specific types of meat. In other words, not all formulations will be useful where the end product to be mimicked is chicken meat or tuna flakes, and mixtures and formulations can only be exchanged to a certain extent for the same end product to be mimicked (Col 3 lines 6-16).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that by determining the useful formulations for the desired meat product, one with ordinary skill in the art would have to analyze the chemical compositions that correlated to the flavor performance of the respective animal protein.
However, Howsam is silent to the temperature and pressure conditions.
Giezen teaches an extrusion process is disclosed for turning vegetable protein compositions such as soy protein into a fibrous, meat-like structure (abstract). Giezen teaches flavor can be infused into the product via an aqueous liquid to a temperature of 100℃ (Page 15, lines 3-9). Giezen teaches combination of features (such as temperature and pressure) is responsible for the creation of a relatively open structure in the composition. This open structure has an improved capability of being infused with an aqueous liquid (page 6, lines 5-9). Giezen reads such that the flavor infusion happens after the product has left the extruder and it at 100℃ and atmospheric pressure (page 6, lines 23-26)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howsam in view of Giezen to infuse the flavor ingredients at a desired amount to achieve the desired flavor profile and at a temperature and pressure wherein the composition will have a more open structure which improves the capability of the product to be infused with aqueous medium carrying the flavor. See MPEP 2144.05(II) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howsam (US 6635301 B1) in view of Hsieh (US 20120093994 A1), Hsieh2 (WO 2012051428 A1), Gonzalez-Cavieres et al. (herein referred to as Gonzalez-Cavieres, “Advances in vacuum microwave drying (VMD) systems for food products”), Stewart (US 20170135380 A1), Giezen (WO 2012158023 A1), and Blortz et al. (herein referred to as Blortz, US 5985337 A)
With regard to Claim 17, the combination of Howsam, Gonzalez-Cavieres Stewart, and Giezen are silent to adding a proteolytic enzyme.
Blortz teaches a process for preparing a protein hydrolysate from protein containing animal products, in which the animal products are hydrolysed using endopeptidases and exopeptidases (abstract). Blortz teaches an embodiment in which endopeptidase and exopeptidase hydrolyze rind which results in a high content of free amino acids such as glycine which tastes sweet. Blortz noted there was no bitterness from this reaction (Col 3 line 62 – Col 4 line 2).
It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Howsam in view of Blortz to utilize endopeptidases and exopeptidases which produce free amino acids such as glycine that give the product a sweet taste. Because the combination of Howsam, Stewart, Giezen, and Blortz teach the claimed hydrolysis it would have been obvious the desired properties stated in the claim would be inherently present. See MPEP 2112.02 (II) which states when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the "use" is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978)
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howsam (US 6635301 B1) in view of Hsieh (US 20120093994 A1), Hsieh2 (WO 2012051428 A1), Gonzalez-Cavieres et al. (herein referred to as Gonzalez-Cavieres, “Advances in vacuum microwave drying (VMD) systems for food products”), Dixon et al. (herein referred to as Dixon, WO 2011014256 A2) and Kyriakopoulou et al. (herein referred to as Kyriakopoulou, “Functionality of Ingredients and Additives in Plant-Based Meat Analogues”)
With regard to Claim 18, Howsam teaches the protein fiber structure is expanded (Col 2 line 12) and teaches tearing the meat into a plurality of pieces of predetermined size (Col 9, lines 1-8).
However, Howsam is silent to mixing the pieces with an emulsion.
Dixon teaches a wet pet food comprising meat emulsion chunks and binders (abstract). Dixon teaches mixing meat emulsion pieces of a predetermined size with one or more binders ([0014]). Wherein said binders can be starches, maltodextrins, water soluble plant proteins or hydrocolloid gums ([0034]). Dixon teaches the amount of moisture and the types and amount of binders can be varied within the given ranges to alter the texture, viscosity, and palatability of the composition ([0040]). Dixon teaches embodiments where the meat emulsion and binder are heated and thus causing the viscosity of the binder to increase ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Howsam in view of Dixon to mix the plurality of pieces of a predetermined size with a binder containing starches, maltodextrins, water soluble plant proteins or hydrocolloid gums and heating the mixture to increase the viscosity of the binder in order to create a product with the desired texture, viscosity, and palatability that has the desired physical characteristics of a dry food compositions such as the final product being stable at ambient conditions without preservatives ([0031]).
However, the combination of Howsam and Dixon are silent to the emulsion (“binder” as taught by Dixon) containing a vegetable fat and oil.
Kyriakopoulou discusses key ingredients for the production of meat analogue products, with special focus on protein sources, and underline the importance of ingredient functionality (abstract). Kyriakopoulou teaches fat is an essential component as it improves juiciness, tenderness, and overall palatability of the emulsion-type products (Page 3, Fats). Kyriakopoulou teaches fats with higher melting points are used when manufacturing cooked coarse cutting sausages or emulsion-type products with fat inclusions and oil in its native oleosome structure can also form fat containing gels when heated, which can be suitable for this type of products (Page 3, Fats). In some embodiments Kyriakopoulou teaches using liquid oils such as sunflower and canola oil and solid fats such as coconut or palm oils to achieve the right balance to give the product a pleasant mouthfeel, similar to corresponding meat products (2.2. Burgers, Patties, and Nuggets)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Howsam and Dixon to use plant fats and oil, such as sunflower oil, canola oil, coconut oil, or palm oil in the emulsion (“binder”) as taught by Kyriakopoulou to improves juiciness, tenderness, and overall palatability of the emulsion-type products.
With regard to Claim 19, Howsam teaches adding flavoring ingredients (table 4) to further mimic specific types of meat (Col 3 lines 6-13).’
With regard to Claim 20, Howsam is silent to employing transglutaminase.
Kyriakopoulou teaches enzymes like transglutaminase that induce crosslinks between the protein molecules can be used, improving the binding properties and the sliceability of finely-textured plant-protein products (3.2 Binding and texturizing agents).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Howsam in view of Kyriakopoulou to incorporate transglutaminase to enable crosslinking among separate extrudate protein pieces because transglutaminase induces cross linking and improves the binding properties and the sliceability of finely-textured plant-protein products.
Because the combination of Howsam, Dixon, and Kyriakopoulou teach the claimed method and product composition, the product would inherently simulate a thick whole cut meat analogue with greater thickness and desired fat content and structure. See MPEP 2112.01(II) "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1. However, Claim 1 is rejected under U.S.C. 103 and therefore applicants argument is moot.
Applicant argues that Howsam does not teach, nor suggest, a series of temperature ranges that exceed 140℃. The examiner agrees that Howsam teaches the temperature range at generally set between 60-140° C. However the use of the term “generally” implies that there temperatures can be used outside the temperature range. In addition, Howsam provide ample motivation to adjust the temperature range outside of the stated range. Howsam teaches the properties of the viscous mass at the end of the thermomechanical conversion process, which the precursors undergo within the extruder barrel, are dependent on the process variables such as temperature in the different sections of the extruder barrel (Col 1 lines 58-64). Howsam teaches the higher temperatures being present at the middle barrel sections where plastification and "melting" of the dry precursor materials is mostly effected (Example 1, Col 10 lines 30-31). Therefore, Howsam provides ample motivation to change the temperature of the extruder barrel outside the temperature range to achieve the desired properties of the viscous mass. More specifically, Howsam provides motivation to modify the higher temperature because Howsam states the middle barrel sections, where the temperatures are the highest, is where the “melting” of the dry precursor material is most effected. Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to increase the temperature in this “melting” area, where the temperature is the hottest, to achieve the desired plastification of the dry precursor materials. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Applicant argues that Howsam does not explicitly not inherently express a laminar flow alignment which is critical to the present invention. First the examiner would like to address the “laminar flow”, Howsam teaches the properties of the viscous mass at the end of the thermo-mechanical conversion process, which the precursors undergo within the extruder barrel, are dependent on the process variables (e.g. temperature in the different sections of the extruder barrel, screw speed/barrel section pressure, moisture content, precursor formulation, etc.) (Col 1 lines 58-64). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize the variables above all can affect the flow. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to adjust the process variables described above to achieve the desired laminar flow and as a result achieve the desired properties of the viscous mass. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Next, Applicant argues that Howsam does not disclose the cooling process as claimed. Specifically wherein the extrudate temperature is lowered to around 70℃. This is not found to be persuasive because Howsam teaches the cooling process includes cooling the hot melt in a multi-channel and temperature controlled cooling die (Col 5 lines 50-55, col 6 lines 12-13) wherein the temperature is of the cooling fluid is between 2℃ and 20℃ (col 7 lines 64-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to cool the extrudate to the desired temperature so the extrudate product is sufficiently cool that it does not expand significantly and therefore has a relatively dense, fibrous texture (example 1). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that cooling fluid having a temperature between 2℃ and 20℃ would be more than sufficient to cool the extrudate to a temperature less than 70℃. . See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to applicants argument in view of Claim 3, applicants arguments are not found to be persuasive. The Examiner acknowledges Howsam states that after the cooling die the extrudate product is sufficiently cool that it does not expand significantly. However, the term “significantly” still implies that there is some expansion. In addition applicant cites Howsam stating the primary function of the cooling die is to prevent the extrudate being subject to vapour flashing and uncontrolled expansion”. With regard to this statement, the word “uncontrolled” is key because Howsam is not teaching there is no expansion but rather teaching the expansion is meant to be under control of the process.
With regard to claim 3, applicant argues that Howsam's extrudate is “dense” and thus does not read on the instant claims “elongated layer protein fibers”. This argument is not found to be persuasive because these properties are not mutually exclusive.
With regard to claim 4, applicant argues that Howsam does not teach that soy may be used. This is not found to be persuasive because Howsam teaches “edible proteinaceous materials selected from the group consisting of predetermined mixtures of defatted soy flour, soy meal, soy concentrate, cereal gluten in vital or starch containing form and egg white (col 3 lines 39-44). And Continuing, Hsieh teaches the meat analog compositions may include a variety of flavorings, spices, antioxidants, fibers, or other ingredients to nutritionally enhance the final food application ([0088]). Hsieh teaches the flavoring agent can include an animal meat flavor, an animal meat oil, spice extracts, spice oils, natural smoke solutions, natural smoke extracts, yeast extract, and shiitake extract. Additional flavoring agents may include onion flavor, garlic flavor, or herb flavors ([0090]). Hsieh teaches the meat analogue may further comprise a thickening agent such as alginic acid and its salts, agar, carrageenan and its salts, processed Eucheuma seaweed, gums (carob bean, guar, tragacanth, and xanthan), pectins, sodium carboxymethylcellulose, and modified starches. AS a result of the above teachings, the requirements of the claim are met.
Applicant argues soy and wheat are insufficient to provide the levels of methionine and lysine required to formulate the protein quality taught within the present invention. These features are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, applicants arguments are not found to be persuasive.
With regard to arguments in view of claim 9, see the above discussion for claim 1.
In conclusion, applicants arguments are not found to be persuasive.
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 KARLA I DIVIESTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (MST).
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.
/K.I.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792