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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s submission dated April 17, 2026. Any objections and/or rejections made in the previous action, and not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 April 17, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed April 21, 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “of from 25% to 75% that of the hemp protein source” should read “of from 25% to 75% of the hemp protein source”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2018185318 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Zhang et al. teaches a meat analog comprising a non-animal protein and a carbohydrate and a method for producing said meat analog. [Page 2, Lines 6-11] Zhang et al. defines the “non-animal protein” as protein preparation made from raw material, including but not limited to quinoa and hemp seed. [Page 4, Lines 27-33] Zhang et al. teaches that the non-animal protein may be present in a range from about 3 to 90%. [Page 18, Lines 10-11] Zhang et al. proceeds to teach that the carbohydrate component of the meat analog may comprise quinoa flour, [Page 19, Line 5] and may comprise about 5% of the composition. [Page 19, Line 14]
The use of non-animal protein prepared from the raw materials of hemp seed is considered to read on the limitation recited of a “vegetable protein source is constituted from a mixture of a hemp protein source made up of hemp seeds and/or hemp nuts”. The use of quinoa flour reads on “powdered quinoa”. The teaching by Zhang et al. of the meat analog comprising non-animal protein at an amount between 3 and 90% and the quinoa flour at about 5% provides a ratio of quinoa flour to hemp protein that overlaps with the amount recited in claim 1. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”.
Zhang et al. does not teach a single embodiment of the invention that reads on the limitations recited in claim 1, but does disclose the use of hemp seed protein and quinoa flour individually in order to produce an imitation meat. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have produced the imitation-meat with the limitations recited in claim 1 by producing the imitation meat taught by Zhang et al., wherein the non-animal protein is in the form of hemp and the carbohydrate is in the form of quinoa flour.
With respect to Claim 3, Zhang et al. teaches preparing a hemp protein source derived from hemp seeds, [Page 4, Lines 27-33] and weighing a quinoa flour [Page 19, Line 5] with an amount that is proportional to the amount of hemp protein and overlaps with a ratio of 25-75% with respect to the hemp protein. [Page 18, Lines 10-11] Zhang et al. proceeds to describe a process of mixing the non-animal protein and the carbohydrate and other ingredients in a mixing tank in order to combine the ingredients to form a dry blended pre-mix. [Page 22, Lines 26-29] The pre-mix is then fed into an extruder that wherein the dry mix is injected with water and heated under mechanical pressure in order to form a molten mass. [Page 22, Lines 30-32].
The teaching of Zhang et al. wherein the non-animal protein and the carbohydrate are mixed together to form a dry mix reads on the limitation recited of “mixing the weighed-out quinoa with, and kneading it into, the hemp protein source”. Additionally, the teaching of Zhang et al. that discloses the process of extrusion through heat and water to form a molten mass reads on the limitation, “heat-coagulating the mixed together hemp protein source and powdered quinoa”. Finally, MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”.
Zhang teaches the method of extrusion recited in claim 3, but does not teach an embodiment of the method wherein the non-animal protein is hemp seed protein and the carbohydrate is quinoa flour, but does include both in the disclosure as options that can be selected for those component respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have performed the method of extrusion taught by Zhang et al. wherein the non-animal protein is hemp seeds and the carbohydrate is quinoa flour.
With respect to Claim 4, Zhang et al. teaches a meat analog comprising a non-animal protein and a carbohydrate and a method for producing said meat analog. [Page 2, Lines 6-11] Zhang et al. defines the “non-animal protein” as protein preparation made from raw material, including but not limited to quinoa and hemp seed. [Page 4, Lines 27-33] Zhang et al. teaches that the non-animal protein may be present in a range from about 3 to 90%. [Page 18, Lines 10-11] Zhang et al. proceeds to teach that the carbohydrate component of the meat analog may comprise quinoa flour, [Page 19, Line 5] and may comprise about 5% of the composition. [Page 19, Line 14] Zhang et al. teaches the use of binders in the wet ingredients of the composition [Pg. 20, Ln. 13] and starch in the dry ingredients, along with the carbohydrate. [Pg. 19, Ln. 1-5]
This composition reads on the ingredient mixture wherein the mixture is an imitation meat food and the hemp protein source and powdered quinoa is predetermined at a ratio wherein the quinoa is not greater than the hemp protein. Additionally, the ratio of quinoa flour to hemp protein overlaps with the ratio recited in claim 4, and MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. The composition also comprises starch and a binder. Though there is no explicit teaching of the binder in the form of an emulsion, it would have been obvious to use an emulsion in order to incorporate the binder into the wet ingredients uniformly.
Zhang et al. proceeds to teach a process for creating the meat analog composition comprising step of texturization involving heat and/or shear and the addition of water. [Page 16, Lines 25-26] where in the non-animal protein is extruded through a multi-step process that comprises mixing, hydrating, homogenization, and expansion and/or fiber formation, that ultimately produces a fibrous material. [Page 17, Lines 4-8] The instant specification teaches that the hydration and defibrated hemp protein is produced through the hydration of the hemp protein, that is thereafter loosened into a fibrous matter. [0022]
Considering the instant specification’s definition of hydrated and defibrated, the non-animal protein, processed according to the method disclosed, taught by Zhang et al. reads on the limitation of a hemp protein source being a hydrated and defibrated, powdered hemp seed, and the mixture being coagulated as a food product, and the teaching of a homogenized mixture reads on the recitation of a coagulation.
Additionally, Zhang et al. also teaches a tasting panel consisting of 8 panelists who were asked to record the sensory characteristics of different embodiments of the invention as it compared to a control sample. [Page 24, Line 33-Page 25, Lines 1-2] this reads on the limitation wherein the ingredients are determined through data related to taste, smell, and mouthfeel characteristics.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Zhang et al. to produce an ingredient mixture comprising a hemp protein source of hydrated and defibrated powdered hemp seeds, powdered quinoa mixed in at apportion not greater than the hemp protein source, determined by sensory characteristics of the final product, wherein the ingredient mixture is coagulated as a food product, thereby rendering claim 4 obvious.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (WO 2018185318 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 4 respectively, in view of Ajami et al. (US 20180310599 A1).
With respect to Claim 2, Zhang et al. teaches an imitation meat food comprising hemp protein and powdered quinoa as set forth with regard to claim 1. Zhang et al. also teaches a tasting panel consisting of 8 panelists who were asked to record the sensory characteristics of different embodiments of the invention as it compared to a control sample. [Page 24, Line 33-Page 25, Lines 1-2]
Zhang et al. is silent to the numerical values of the results of the taste test.
Ajami et al. teaches a meat-like food product designed to imitate the organoleptic properties of meat. [0005] The meat-like food products comprise a binding agent [0121], for example hemp protein [0122], and a carbohydrate, such as quinoa flour. [0107] Ajami et al. teaches forming the meat-like food products through coagulating meat structure protein products. [0233] Ajami et al. teaches a human sensory analysis test designed to evaluate the aroma, flavor, and texture of the meat-like food product [0307] by converting subjective experiences into numerical values. [Table 11]
Zhang et al. and Ajami et al. exists within the same field of endeavor in that they are both concerned with imitation meat products. Zhang et al. provides a motivation to determine the sensory characteristic of a composition in order to determine the best proportions, and Ajami et al. provides an example of a test that can be used to represent taste, smell, and mouthfeel as numerical values.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to have determined the best proportion of powdered quinoa to hemp protein source by using a collection of foodstuff data wherein the subjective values of taste, smell, and mouthfeel are represented with numerical values.
With respect to Claim 5, Zhang et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 4, as described above. Additionally, Zhang et al. is silent to the use of protein-binding enzymes, but does teach the use of binding components. [Pg. 20, Ln. 13]
Ajami et al. teaches a meat-like food product designed to imitate the organoleptic properties of meat. [0005] The meat-like food products comprise a binding agent [0121], for example hemp protein [0122], and a carbohydrate, such as quinoa flour. [0107] Ajami et al. teaches forming the meat-like food products through coagulating meat structure protein products, [0233] and the use of transglutaminase. [0250] The instant specification teaches the use of transglutaminase as a protein-binding enzyme. [0034]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Zhang et al. in view of Ajami et al. in order to develop the product according to claim 4, wherein a protein-binding enzyme is used, thereby rendering claim 5 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts on Page 5, with respect to Claims 1 through 3, that “Zhang et al., even in combination with knowledge of a skilled person in the art, neither teaches nor suggests this proportional range for a hemp-protein and powdered-quinoa mixture”. As per the rejection above, examiner respectfully disagrees. Zhang et al. teaches that the non-animal protein may be present in a range from about 3 to 90%. [Page 18, Lines 10-11] Zhang et al. proceeds to teach that the carbohydrate component of the meat analog may comprise quinoa flour, [Page 19, Line 5] and may comprise about 5% of the composition. [Page 19, Line 14]
The teaching by Zhang et al. of the meat analog comprising non-animal protein at an amount between 3 and 90% and the quinoa flour at about 5% provides a ratio of quinoa flour to hemp protein that overlaps with the amount recited in claim 1. MPEP 2144.05 I states, “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. For this reason, applicant’s assertion is found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant asserts on Page 6, with respect to Claim 4, that “This allegation is respectfully traversed on grounds of lacking a prima facie basis in Zhang et al.” Applicant continues, concerning examiner’s interpretation of claim 4, stating, “this allegation likewise lacks a prima facie basis, particularly because it does not properly quote claim 4.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with regard to the assertion that the claim was misinterpreted. Zhang et al. teaches the application of a taste test in order to determine the optimal composition. [Page 24, Line 33-Page 25, Lines 1-2] It is well-known in the field of study to use the data resulting from said taste tests to reproduce the composition with the best results. Additionally, MPEP 2145 I states, “Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record”. Applicant’s assertion that the prima facie rejection of claim 4 lacks basis is not supported by evidence on the record.
For these reasons, applicant’s assertions are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicant concludes remarks on Page 6 with respect to the rejection of claim 2, stating, “Claim 2 depends from a parent claim 1 that for at least the foregoing reasons is believed to be patentable in its own right”. Examiner disagrees with the assertion that claim 1 is patentable.
For this reason, and those enumerated above, applicant’s assertions are found to be unpersuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-5 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH CULLEN MERCHLINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 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.
/J.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights