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 .
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 after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.114 has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim status
The examiner acknowledged the amendment made to the claims on 01/22/2026.
Claims 1 and 4-19 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 12 and 17-18 are currently amended. Claims 2-3 remain cancelled. Rest of claims are previously presented. Claims 1 and 4-19 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 4-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 12 and 17-18 recite a first nozzle and a second nozzle each having a plurality of extrusion holes. The examiner does not find the support for such a limitation in the disclosure as originally filed. Rather, the instant specification recites that the extruding apparatus comprises a plurality of first nozzles and a plurality of second nozzles (page 14, para. 4-5). Such a recitation in the specification does not seem to have the same scope as the limitation about a first nozzle and a second nozzle each having a plurality of extrusion holes, since the holes are secondary to the nozzle.
Claims 1, 12 and 17-18 recite a negative limitation that the at least one first extruded fiber and the at least second extruded fiber are assembled in a bundle form without “sequential lamination of layers”. The examiner does not find the support for such a negative limitation in the disclosure of originally filed. Nowhere in the instant specification recites that the assembling the fibers into bundling form without sequential lamination of layers.
Claims 1, 12 and 17-18 recite that the first nozzle and the second nozzle each comprises a receiving space. The examiner does not find the support for such a limitation in the disclosure as originally filed. Rather, the instant specification recites that it is the extruding apparatus that comprises a receiving space. See page 15, 2nd para. and page 18, 2nd para.
Claims 1, 12 and 17-18 recite that an extrusion pressure is applied to the receiving space. The examiner does not find the support for such a limitation in the disclosure as originally filed.
Claims 4-11, 13-16, and 19 depend from claims 1, 12 and 18 respectively thus necessarily incorporate the written description deficiency therein.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Shitrit WO 2020/152689 A1 (cited in the IDS filed 09/18/2024, hereinafter referred to as Ben-Shitrit) in view of McCabe US Patent No. 4,943,441 (hereinafter referred to as McCabe) and Tran US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0332249 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Tran).
Regarding claim 1, Ben-Shitrit teaches a method of making an artificial meat (e.g., a meat analogue, page 3, line 8) comprising:
- forming a first material that is solubilized (page 3, line 9, page 6, line 26-27, page 36, line 8 and example 1, which shows a protein-based component that is solubilized);
-obtaining at least one first extruded fiber in which the first material is extruded by the pressure through a first nozzle having a receiving space (e.g., canister, cartridges or containers, Fig. 2, 112A-112C) for receiving the first material to be extruded, and a plurality of extrusion holes such that the at least one first extruded fibers, each having a length direction corresponding to an extrusion direction are simultaneously obtained (page 34, bottom para.; page 35, first para., third para. and Fig. 2-3 which show that the protein-based component is extruded by the pressure from a motor to form at least one extruded fiber which necessarily has length direction corresponding an extrusion direction; and page 36, 2nd para., which describes that nozzle units 116A, 116B, and 116C may, independently or collectively, alternatively constitute nozzle array rather than single nozzle, as to increase the throughput of the 3 printer 110, thus the feature of nozzle array reads on nozzles having a plurality of extrusion holes, which necessarily produces fibers in a simultaneous manner);
-forming a second material for a taste of fat that is solubilized (page 3, line 9, page 10, line 11-15; page 11, line 9-11 and example 1, which shows a fat-based component comprising vegetable oil that is solubilized, necessarily it has a fat taste);
-obtaining at least one second extruded fiber in which the second material is extruded by the pressure through a second nozzle having a receiving space (e.g., canister, cartridges or containers, Fig. 2, 112A-112C) for receiving the second material to be extruded, and a plurality of extrusion holes such that the at least one second extruded fibers, each having the length direction are simultaneously obtained (page 34, bottom para.; page 35, first para., third para. and Fig. 2-3 which show that the fat-based component is extruded by the pressure from a motor to form at least one extruded fiber which necessarily has length direction corresponding an extrusion direction; and page 36, 2nd para., which describes that nozzle units 116A, 116B, and 116C may, independently or collectively, alternatively constitute nozzle array rather than single nozzle, as to increase the throughput of the 3 printer 110, thus the feature of nozzle array reads on nozzles having a plurality of extrusion holes, which necessarily produces fibers in a simultaneous manner); and
-obtaining the artificial meat in which the at least one first extruded fiber and the at least one second extruded fiber are connected along the length direction (Fig. 3, which shows that protein fibers and fat fibers are aligned in the length direction; see also page 32, line 21-page 33 line 12, which disclosing the binding step); wherein the at least one first extruded fiber and the at least one second extruded fiber are obtained using an extruding apparatus comprising the first nozzle and the second nozzle having a plurality of extrusion holes (Fig. 2; page 36, 2nd para.); and wherein a cross section of the artificial meat intersecting the length direction has a pattern based on the plurality of extrusion holes formed in the first nozzle and the second nozzle, the pattern being formed by the at least one first extruded fiber and the at least one second extruded fiber folded or connected in a bundle form (page 37, para. 1-2; page 41, bottom para.; Fig. 5 and 7; page 29, third para.). Further, Ben-Shitrit teaches that meat analogue comprises pockets/zones of the fat-based components that are being essentially or even entirely surrounded/encased by the protein based component (page 29, third para.). Thus given that both the protein-based component and the fat-based component are extruded from different nozzles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have manipulate the arrangements of the both nozzles to achieve the aforementioned effect.
Ben-Shitrit teaches that the meat analogue is formed by 3D printing (Fig. 2) which is about sequential formation of layers of fiber, thus being silent regarding assembling the fibers into bundle form without sequential lamination of layers.
McCabe in the same field of endeavor teaches that a variety of procedures have been developed for producing meat analogues (e.g., simulated meat products) from plant protein, and such prior procedures involve assembling extruded plant protein fibers or filaments into bundles to which binding agents are added, and shaping the fiber bundles to resemble familiar meat products (column 1, line 28-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified McCabe by replacing the sequential lamination layer of extruded fibers with the step of assembling the extruded fibers followed by shaping to make a meat analogues with pattern, for the reason that prior art has established that the assembling-shaping method is suitable to make meat analogue.
Ben-Shitrit teaches that the protein-based component comprises a plant protein (page 7, line 7 and 22-25), and that the protein-based component imitates a muscle protein of the meat (page 6, line 30-31), but is silent regarding that the protein-based component has a taste of lean meat.
Tran teaches that inclusion of leghemoglobin or myoglobin in a plant-based meat substitutes such that the meat substitute has flavors similar to that of animal meat (0004).
Both Ben-Shitrit and Tran are directed to meat analogues/substitutes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Ben-Shitrit by including leghemoglobin or myoglobin in the protein-based component of Ben-Shitrit so as to introduce an animal meat flavor to the meat analogue of Ben-Shitrit.
It is noted that page 13, 5th para. of the instant specification recites that leghemoglobin or myoglobin delivers a taste of lean meat. Therefore, modification of Ben-Shitrit with Tran will result in a protein-based component that has a taste of lean meat.
Regarding claim 4, Ben-Shitrit teaches that the meat analogue has marbling, and obtaining one piece of the meat analogue through cutting to intersect the length direction (Fig. 1A; Fig. 7B; the para. that bridges pages 15 and 16).
Regarding claims 5-6 and 8-9, Ben-Shitrit teaches immersing (e.g., dipping) the formed protein- and fat- based components in a binding agent including a gum, egg whites, gluten, starch, enzyme crosslinker and gel type crosslinker or by spraying the binding agent to the components (page 28, line 16-21; page 32, first para.). A binding agent reads on the adhesive limitation of claims 8-9, which necessarily results in the connection of the protein-based component and the fat-based component.
Regarding claim 7, Ben-Shitrit teaches curing the meat analogue through heating and cooling post the deposition step (page 32, line 21-page 33, line 4). According to the para. that bridges pages 15 and 16 of the instant specification, subjecting the fibers to heating or cooling is the environment of gelation, which will result in the crosslinking of the fibers.
Regarding claim 11, Ben-Shitrit teaches a third material (e.g., a water-based component) comprising a nutrient (e.g., amino acids, vitamin, sucrose, fructose, glucose, etc.) is extruded to form a third fiber, which necessarily has the same direction as the first and second fibers (page 26, line 8, page 27, line 18-25; page 34, bottom para.; page 35 first para.; Fig. 2).
Regarding claims 12-15, Ben-Shitrit as modified by Tran as recited above teaches a method of preparing an artificial meat in connection with claims 1, 4 and 5-6, which is incorporated by reference.
Regarding claims 17-19, Ben-Shitrit as modified by McCabe and Tran as recited above teaches an artificial meat in connection with claims 1, 4 and 5-6, which is incorporated by reference. Further, per MPEP 2144.04 VI B. duplication of parts is prima facie obvious thus the limitation about using an extra nozzle having a plurality of extrusion holes to produce fiber from the material for a taste of lean meat are obvious.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Shitrit as modified by McCabe and Tran as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Vein US Patent No. 6,835,390 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Vein).
Regarding claims 10 and 16, Ben-Shitrit as modified by McCabe and Tran teaches what has been recited above but is silent regarding that the meat analogues comprising a cell that is cultured.
Vein teaches that cell such as muscle stem cells and Mesenchymal stem cells from a non-human animal can be cultured (e.g., grown) to make an artificial meat (e.g., engineered meat product) (abstract; column 2, line 40-45; example 1).
Both Ben-Shitrit and Vein are directed to artificial meats. It is found that prior art included a method of making a meat analogue by co-extrusion of a protein-based component with a fat-based component, and a method of making a meat analogue by culturing cell in separate references with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of the actual combination of the two methods in a single art. One of the ordinary in the art could have been motivated to combine the co-extrusion method as disclosed by Ben-Shitrit with the cultured cell (e.g., muscle stem cells and Mesenchymal stem cells ) method as disclosed by Vein to make a meat analogue, that in combination, each merely performs the same function as it does separately. See MPEP 2143 A. Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods To Yield Predictable Results.
It is noted that page 12, 2nd para. of the instant specification recites that Mesenchymal stem cells could function as a connecting cell because it has excellent extracellular matrix productivity. Therefore, modification of Ben-Shitrit with Vein would have resulted in a connection of extruded fibers by cultured Mesenchymal stem cells.
It is noted that page 22, 3rd para. of the instant specification recites that muscle stem cells could function as a taste-realized cell. Therefore, modification of Ben-Shitrit with Vein would have resulted in a taste of the lean meat such that characteristics of the artificial meat are similar to characteristics of the meat from the pre-determined animals.
Further, given that Ben-Shitrit teaches that the protein-based component and the fat-based component are in gel form (page 8, line 16; page 12, line 13-16), it thus logically follows that incorporating muscle stem cell in the components of Ben-Shitrit would have resulted in the encapsulation of the muscle stem cell by the gel.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Shitrit WO 2020/152689 A1 (cited in the IDS filed 09/18/2024, hereinafter referred to as Ben-Shitrit) in view of Tran US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0332249 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Tran).
Regarding claims 17-19, Ben-Shitrit as modified by Tran as recited above teaches an artificial meat in connection with claims 1, 4 and 5-6, which is incorporated by reference.
The limitation about the extruded fibers being assembled into a bundle form without sequential lamination of layers is a part of product-by-process limitation, given that the claims are directed to an artificial meat in final form as opposed to a method of making such an artificial meat. "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
In the instant case, it is noted that Ben-Shitrit teaches that the meat analogue is formed by 3D printing (Fig. 2) which does entail a sequential formation of layers of fibers, however, the final product as disclosed by Ben-Shitrit as modified by Tran is a meat analogue that comprises extruded protein fibers of a taste of lean meat and extruded fat fibers of a taste of fat in bundles form and has marbled pattern that resembles real meat, and such meat analogue disclosed by prior art appears to be materially indistinguishable from the artificial meat of the claimed invention. Note that instant claims are very silent regarding what approach is applied to assemble the fibers into bundles Therefore, Ben-Shitrit as modified by Tran reads on claims 17-19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered and the examiner’s response is shown below:
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 4-11 and 17 are withdrawn in view of the amendment made to claims 1 and 17.
The 35 USC 102 rejection of claim 17 over Ben-Shitrit is withdrawn in view of the amendment made to claim 17.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that Ben-Shitrit fails to meet claim 17 since the reference teaches 3D printing which includes sequential lamination of layers.
The argument is considered but found unpersuasive because the limitation about the extruded fibers being assembled into a bundle form without sequential lamination of layers is a part of product-by-process limitation, given that the claims are directed to an artificial meat in final form as opposed to a method of making such an artificial meat. In the instant case, it is noted that Ben-Shitrit teaches that the meat analogue is formed by 3D printing (Fig. 2) which does entail a sequential formation of layers of fibers, however, the final product as disclosed by Ben-Shitrit as modified by Tran is a meat analogue that comprises extruded protein fibers having a taste of lean meat and extruded fat fibers having a taste of fat in bundles form and has marbled pattern that resembles real meat, and such a meat analogue disclosed by prior art appears to be materially indistinguishable from the artificial meat of the claimed invention. Note that instant claims are very silent regarding what approach is applied to assemble the fibers into bundles Therefore, Ben-Shitrit as modified by Tran reads on claim 17.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the 3D printer nozzle array of Ben-Shitrit comprises nozzles with independent control and separate feed components to precisely deposit material at specific coordinates. Ben-Shitrit, therefore, does not teach or suggest a configuration wherein a bulk material in a single receiving space is simultaneously discharged through a plurality of holes by a common pressure applied to the receiving space.
The examiner disagrees. The teaching in Fig. 2 combined with page 36, para. 2 and page 34, bottom para. of Ben-Shitrit suggests that a nozzle having a receiving space (e.g., canisters, cartridges and containers) and a plurality of holes (e.g., nozzle array) is encompassed by Ben-Shitrit. Applicant is invited to shed light on what difference is in the structure of the nozzle of the instant claims (not the specification) and Ben-Shitrit.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection over Ben-Shitrit in view of Tran, applicant argues that cited arts in combination fails to teach a negative limitation about sequential lamination of layers.
The argument is considered but found moot over the new ground of rejection over Ben-Shitrit in view of McCabe and Tran, in which McCabe is cited to teach an assembling method that is not about sequential lamination of layers.
Applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks that there is a fundamental difference in the manufacturing principle of Ben-Shitrit and present application regarding the dimensional construction of the artificial meat. In particular, applicant argues that where the 3D printing method as disclosed by Ben-Shitrit requires a print bed, in the amended claims a multitude of fibers are extruded simultaneously and immediately assemble into a meat-like structures in a bundle form. Applicant further argues that the present invention does not require complex multi-axal movements for layering.
The arguments are considered but found unpersuasive because first, the feature that a multitude of fibers are extruded simultaneously are actually encompassed by Ben-Shitrit (see para. 12 of the OA issued 11/06/2026). Second, instant claims do not include a limitation that the extruded fibers are “immediately” assembled into bundles. Third, the argument is moot over Ben-Shitrit in view of McCabe, which in combination teaches a method of assembling fibers that does not comprise sequential lamination of layers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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, NIKKI H DEES can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights