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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions and Status of Claims
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group IV, (Claims 37-44), drawn to a meat analogue comprising texturized non-animal derived protein, a marinade absorbed in the fibers, and a binder, in the reply filed 10/30/2025, is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Claims 1-44 are pending. Claims 1-36 are withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected subject matter. The claims corresponding to the elected subject matter are Claims 37-44, and are herein acted on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/02/2025 and 06/24/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claim 43 is 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.
Claim 43 is indefinite because it is missing a period at the end of the claim. It is therefore unknown if the claim ends after the recitation of “analogue” or if additional features have been left out. As such, the claim is rejected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 37-41 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liepa, A. (GB 1461998, cited in the IDS), hereinafter Liepa.
Liepa discloses a method of treating meat-like protein material to improve its texture, wherein the meat analogs are prepared from vegetable proteins and serve as nutritional, lower-cost, lower-calorie, high-protein substitute for natural meat (p. 1, L. Col., lines 10-20). Liepa relates that duplication of the actual eating quality of meat is achieved with parallel meat-like fibres be bound together to give the appearance and texture of meat, and wherein the fibres being easily separated (p. 1, L. Col., lines 35-47).
Regarding Claim 37, Liepa teaches a process for forming a meat-like material comprising an aggregate of substantially parallel protein fibres and a binder (p. 2, L. Col., lines 6-9). Liepa expressly teaches an of an aggregate slab consisting of parallel protein strands embedded in binder (p. 6, Example II). It is contemplated that the is co-mingled with the substantially parallel protein fibers (p. 2, lines 120 -127). Liepa teaches that its invention results in a fibrous structure of the meat analogue comprising inter-fiber spaces within the analogue structure, which reads on the feature of “partially separated” fibers (p. 4, lines 104-114). The slab is cooked in a cooker-conveyor and has a meatlike, fibrous texture, and flavor resembling cooked beef muscle (p. 6, Example II). Regarding the marinade, Liepa teaches adding flavor to the fiber mixture, and also teaches setting the set aggregates in a flavor solution wherein it will exhibit a greatly increased facility for absorbing the flavor solution (p. 2, lines 40-57; p. 6, Example II).
Regarding Claim 38, Liepa teaches an aggregate slab, approximately 0.75 inch thick and has a width equal to the width of the creped protein sheet, and cut into chunks resembling cooked beef, which would necessarily have 2 major surfaces and side surfaces (p. 6, Example II, lines 79-107).
Regarding Claim 39 and 41, Liepa teaches binding layers of analogues, wherein a layer of fibers is placed in the bottom of the box; then a layer of edible binder is poured over the fibers; a layer of fibers is next placed over the mixture and so on, alternating fibers and binder material (p. 7, lines 62-77). As such, Liepa teaches further analogue, i.e. second fibrous muscle tissue analogue, bound to the fibrous muscle tissue analogue.
Regarding Claim 40 and 44, Liepa describes fats useful in its invention to comprise inter alia vegetable fats and oils including synthetically prepared shortenings, and exemplifies use of soybean oil in its composition (p. 3, lines 77-114; p. 7, lines 49-60).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 42-43, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa, as applied to Claims 39-40 above.
The teachings of Liepa have been set forth supra.
Regarding Claims 42-43, Liepa teaches binding layers of analogues, but does not expressly teach that the second fibrous muscle tissue analogue are substantially parallel or non-parallel to the fibres of the fibrous muscle tissue analogue. However, Liepa teaches layering the fibers and binders in a box of approximately 2½ inches wide, 4 inches long, and 2 inches deep, and filling the box (p. 3, lines 77-114; p. 7, lines 49-60).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to alternate the layers either in parallel or non-parallel conformation or both in a manner that would fill the box to exclude space as much as possible per the exemplified teaching of Liepa. In essence, there is a finite number of possibilities for the conformation, i.e. parallel, perpendicular, or offset. As such, one skilled in the art would try any of the conformation as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue known options within his or her technical grasp. See MPEP 2143 Section E.
Furthermore, according to MPEP § 2144.04, a rejection based on design choice can arise when the Examiner asserts that the claimed feature represents an arbitrary selection between alternatives that perform the same function in substantially the same way. Per MPEP § 2144.04, a design choice rejection hinges on the principle that “[a]n obviousness rejection based on a design choice is appropriate where the applicant has not shown that the particular design provides any unexpected results.” The Examiner may argue that the claimed feature or configuration is an obvious variant of prior art because it does not yield a functional or technical benefit beyond what was already known.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6 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 on (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.
/J.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792