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 9, 2026 has been entered. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are new. Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-22 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 10, 11, 19 and 20, the recitation of the term “connective tissue-like texture imparting agent” along with the recitation in claim 1 “a connective tissue-like texture imparting agent which is a dietary fiber-rich food shredded product” render the claims indefinite because it is not clear if the two terms are used interchangeably or represent two distinct materials. If the terms are the same, only one of the terms should be used throughout the claim set.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the recitation “wherein the dietary fiber-rich food shredded product has a total dietary fiber content of 80% by mass or more to the total amount of the dietary fiber-rich food shredded product with moisture excluded” or “wherein the dietary fiber-rich shredded product has an insoluble dietary fiber content of 40% by mass or more to a total amount of the dietary fiber-rich food shredded product with moisture excluded” respectively, renders the claims indefinite. First, given claim 1 recites the dietary fiber content as being “to a total mount of the connective tissue -like texture imparting agent with moisture excluded” it is not clear what the difference is between a connective tissue-like texture imparting agent and a dietary fiber-rich food shredded product. Are the terms used interchangeably? If so, to be definite and consistent, only one of the terms should be used throughout the claims.
Claims 5-9, 13-18, 21 and 22 are rejected because they are dependent from a rejected base claim.
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, 3-11 and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coöperatie Koninklijke Cebeco Groep U.A. (“Cebeco Groep”) (EP 1 205 114 A1) and as evidenced by Manzi et al. (“Beta-glucans in edible mushrooms”, Food Chemistry, 68, (2000), pp. 315-318) and Baune et al. (“Textured vegetable proteins (TVP): Future foods standing on their merits as meat alternatives”, Future Foods, 6, (2022), pp. 1-13).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 6 and 21, Cebeco Groep disclose a meat substitute (i.e., meat-like food) comprising textured vegetable protein, dried or fresh mushrooms and vegetable fibers ([0006], [0009], [0015], [0016]).
Cebeco Groep disclose the method of preparing the meat substitute includes a step of rehydrating the dried mushrooms or washing the fresh mushrooms; and cuttering (i.e., shredding) the rehydrated dried or fresh mushrooms ([0022]). Here, the shredded mushroom is considered a connective tissue-like texture imparting agent (see paragraph [0006] of the present specification - the connective tissue-like texture imparting agent is a dietary fiber-rich food shredded product of at least one selected from the group consisting of algae, mushrooms, vegetables, and fruits).
Cebeco Groep disclose all edible mushrooms are suitable for us in the invention ([0015]). Therefore, 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 edible mushroom, including cloud ear fungus (total dietary fiber in an amount of about 91.5% by weight on a dry basis) or snow fungus (total dietary fiber in an amount of about 80.4% by weight on a dry basis) as disclosed in the specification of the present application ([0013]), to shred and arrive at the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 4, Cebeco Groep disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Cebeco Groep disclose dried or fresh mushrooms wherein the mushrooms are any edible mushroom which could include cloud ear fungus or snow fungus, inherently the mushroom would comprises the claimed insoluble dietary fiber content (see specification of the present application at paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 5, Cebeco Groep disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Cebeco Groep disclose a connective tissue-like texture imparting agent, shredded mushroom (i.e., dried and rehydrated or fresh), inherently the agent would comprise β-glucan. As evidenced by Manzi et al., edible mushrooms contain β-glucan (Abstract, p. 315/Introduction).
Regarding claim 7, Cebeco Groep disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Cebeco Groep disclose rehydrated dried mushroom or fresh mushroom which has been cuttered (i.e., chopped or cut into pieces), inherently the cuttered rehydrated dried mushroom or fresh mushroom (i.e., connective tissue-like texture imparting agent) would be capable of passing through a sieve with an opening of 4.0 mm.
Regarding claim 8, Cebeco Groep disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Cebeco Groep disclose rehydrated dried mushroom or fresh mushroom that has been cuttered (i.e., dietary fiber-rich food shredded product), inherently the cuttered rehydrated dried mushroom (i.e., connective tissue-like texture imparting agent) would display a brittle load of 0.1 to 5.0 N.
Regarding claim 9, Cebeco Groep disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Cebeco Groep disclose textured vegetable protein, inherently the textured vegetable protein is granular and/or fibrous. As evidenced by Baune et al., textured vegetable proteins a distinguished by two product types; one with a spongy texture (i.e., granular) or one with a fibrous structure (p. 1/1. Introduction).
Regarding claim 10, Cebeco Groep disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Cebeco Groep disclose an embodiment wherein the dried mushroom (i.e., connective tissue-like texture imparting agent) to 100 parts meat-like food is about 0.8 parts ([0025]-[0026]/Example 1 – where the composition comprises 0.1 kg of dried mushroom per 12.628 kg of meat substitute composition).
Regarding claims 11, 13 and 22, Cebeco Groep disclose a method of producing a meat substitute including the steps of: (a) hydrating dried mushrooms or washing fresh mushrooms; (b) cuttering (i.e., shredding) the rehydrated or washed mushrooms; (c) adding fibers, protein and binding agent during or after the cuttering step (d) kneading all of the ingredients together to obtain a paste; and (e) forming the paste into desired shapes ([0022]).
Here, the shredded mushroom is considered a connective tissue-like texture imparting agent (see paragraph [0006] of the present specification - the connective tissue-like texture imparting agent is a dietary fiber-rich food shredded product of at least one selected from the group consisting of algae, mushrooms, vegetables, and fruits).
Cebeco Groep disclose all edible mushrooms are suitable for us in the invention ([0015]). Therefore, 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 edible mushroom, including cloud ear fungus (total dietary fiber in an amount of about 91.5% by weight on a dry basis) or snow fungus (total dietary fiber in an amount of about 80.4% by weight on a dry basis) as disclosed in the specification of the present application ([0013]), to shred and arrive at the present invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Cebeco Groep disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Cebeco Groep disclose dried or fresh mushrooms wherein the mushrooms are any edible mushroom which could include cloud ear fungus or snow fungus, inherently the mushroom would comprises the claimed insoluble dietary fiber content (see specification of the present application at paragraph [0013]).
Regarding claim 15, Cebeco Groep disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Cebeco Groep disclose a connective tissue-like texture imparting agent, shredded mushroom (i.e., dried and rehydrated or fresh), inherently the agent would comprise β-glucan. As evidenced by Manzi et al., edible mushrooms contain β-glucan (Abstract, p. 315/Introduction).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Cebeco Groep disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Cebeco Groep disclose rehydrated dried mushroom or fresh mushroom which has been cuttered (i.e., chopped or cut into pieces), inherently the cuttered rehydrated dried mushroom or fresh mushroom (i.e., connective tissue-like texture imparting agent) would be capable of passing through a sieve with an opening of 4.0 mm or 1.4 mm.
Regarding claim 18, Cebeco Groep disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Cebeco Groep disclose dried shiitake mushrooms, inherently the mushrooms would have a moisture content of 20% or less by weight.
Regarding claim 19, Cebeco Groep disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Cebeco Groep disclose rehydrating dried mushroom prior to the kneading step (i.e., mixing step-[0022]).
Regarding claim 20, Cebeco Groep disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Cebeco Groep disclose an embodiment wherein the mushrooms are not rehydrated prior to the kneading step (i.e., washing fresh mushrooms-[0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “[t]here is no motivation to adjust the content of dietary fiber in the total amount of connective tissue-like texture imparting agent to 60% by mass in Cebeco”
Applicant is directed to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 set forth above. Cebeco Groep disclose all edible mushrooms are suitable for us in the invention ([0015]). Therefore, 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 edible mushroom, including cloud ear fungus (total dietary fiber in an amount of about 91.5% by weight on a dry basis) or snow fungus (total dietary fiber in an amount of about 80.4% by weight on a dry basis) as disclosed in the specification of the present application ([0013]), to shred and arrive at the present invention 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