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 and 4-6 are pending in the current application. Claims 2-3 and 7-16 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 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao (CN 109123602 A) in view of Herz et al. (herein referred to as Herz, WO 2021009075 A1)
With regard to Claim 1, Hao teaches a step of causing a polysaccharide ([0012], sugar beet pectin) and multicopper oxidase ([0045], laccase) to act on a plant protein ([0011], soy protein isolate, Example 1 to obtain a food product ([0002]). The crosslinked plant protein would inherently be contained in the food product because it is utilized to obtain the food product.
Hao teaches There is an increasing number of applications of polysaccharide hydrogels in tissue engineering, cell fixation, drug encapsulation and transportation, food texture improvement, and flavor release ([0005]).
Hao is silent to the food specifically being a meat-like processed food and to the plant protein being contained in the textured plant protein material. However, the examiner would like to note that applicants specification paragraph [0015] states “The form of the plant protein used in the present invention is not particularly limited. For example, the plant protein may be in a powder form or in a textured form” and paragraph [0014] states “textured plant protein material, proteins of pulses and proteins of cereals are preferable, soybean protein, pea protein, and wheat protein are more preferable, and soybean protein and pea protein are further preferable.” Thus, one with ordinary skill in the art would deduce the soy protein isolate taught by Hao reads on the limitations of the claim.
Regardless, Herz teaches meat-like processed food that has been made by crosslinking plant protein in the presence of a polysaccharide (abstract, Claims 14-17). Herz teaches the plant protein is contained in the textured plant protein (page 6, “plant protein extrudate”).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the method taught by Hao to produce a meat-like processed food because Hao teaches the method can be utilized to produce a food product and Herz imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows crosslinked plant proteins in the presence of a polysaccharide have been successfully used in meat-liked process food at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the polysaccharide hydrogels taught by Hao for a meat-like process food, because it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
In addition, Herz imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows the plant protein was contained in the textured plant material and thus such as thing was successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize plant protein which is contained within the texture plant material because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
With regard to Claims 2 and 3, Hao teaches the polysaccharide is a thermally irreversible gelling agent ([0012], Hao reads such that the polysaccharide is sugar beet pectin, see applicants specification paragraph [0009])
With regard to Claim 6, Hao teaches the multicopper oxidase is laccase ([0045]).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao (CN 109123602 A) in view of Bonner-Heine et al. (herein referred to as Bonner-Heine, US 20200315209 A1).
With regard to Claims 4-5, Hao teaches the color of the crosslinked plant protein is related to the soy protein isolate concentration ([0088]). Hao is silent to a compound selected from the group consisting of betalain, anthocyan, curcuminoid, polyhydroxychalcone, and polyhydroxyanthraquinone.
Bonner-Heine teaches a plant-based protein product (abstract). Bonner-Heine teaches plant-based meat alternative products without the addition of colorants often appear pale beige or yellow toned due to the protein source and matrix composition and do not provide an appealing or animal meat like appearance to consumers ([0007]). Bonner-Heine teaches utilizing a naturally derived colorant from beet extract, wherein the beet extract contains betalains ([0035]-[0037]). Bonner-Heine teaches beet extracts have been utilized for food, nutraceutical, cosmetic, and medicinal purposes as well as being used for colorant, antimicrobial, and antioxidant properties ([0016])
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Hao to include beet extract containing betalains as taught by Bonner-Heine to provide an appealing appearance to consumers in addition to its antimicrobial and antioxidant properties.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In this case, applicant is arguing that the presently claimed methods improve the digestion rate of crosslinker protein contained in a meat-like process product compared to that of a non-crosslinked protein contained in a meat-like processed product. Applicant points to Example 36 of Test example 7 compared to comparative example 54 and specifically highlights figure 14. The graph presented in figure 14 is not sufficient to show unexpected results because the graph merely shows digestion time compared to free amino nitrogen of two data points. This is an insufficient amount of data to clearly show an unexpected result. The examiner would like to highlight MPEP 716.02(d)(II) which states to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). The examiner would also like to highlight In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.). In this case, there is not a sufficient amount of date to show an unexpected result and the data presented by applicant is comparing two different polysaccharides, pectin and methylcellulose, wherein the scope of the claims is specific to only pectin. Therefore applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
The examiner would also like to make note of the argument presented by applicant at the bottom of page 3 and top of page 4. It is unclear what applicant is trying to argue, however the examiner does note that primary reference does teach all the components of the claimed invention, and specifically pectin and laccase, which form a gel. The reference defines gel as a three-dimensional network structure formed by polymer chains in a solution connecting with each other under certain conditions (Hao. [0004]) which one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize as an equivalent definition to crosslinking. As such there does not seem to be any unexpected results at this time
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nurmi et al. (WO 2018115595 A)
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