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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of the application
3. Claims 1,2,5-7, 9, 10, 14-16, 19-21, 24-27, 34, 35 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 9, 24 have been amended.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 14-16, 19-21, 24-27, 34, 35 have been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 10, 14-16, 19-21, 24-27, 34, 35 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.
6. Amended independent claim 1 recites claim limitation “with solid component (i)” at step ( e) and “drying solid component (i)” at step (f). Claim 1 also recites “into a solid component (i)” at step (b). Therefore, the claim limitation “with solid component (i)” at step ( e) will be “with the solid component (i)” and also “drying solid component (i)” will be “drying the solid component (i)” at step (f). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “wherein step (c ) is performed in a dryer”. Claim 7 depends on amended independent claim 1. There is no drying step in step (c ) of amended independent claim 1. Amended independent claim 1 has amended step (c ) to step (f). Therefore, applicants should amend claim 7 accordingly in order to make it clear.
Claims 1, 9 and 24 recite “ decanting at least a portion of the water to separate [[a]] the portion of the water from the fats;” as claimed in amended claims 1 (c ), 9 (c ) and 24 (c). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims 1,9,24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahboob et al. WO 95/05092 in view of Bastetti et al. (IT 1229671 B) and further in view of Dake et al. US 2015/0305368.
11. It is to be noted that Claim 1 claims
(a) separating heated material into solid component (i) and a liquid component (ii) and
(b) liquid component (ii) is further processed to separate fat from water comprising soluble proteins.
(c ) decantation step to decant the liquid component (ii) to separate at least a portion of the water comprising soluble protein from the fat
(d) evaporating the separated portion of water comprising soluble protein which is further concentrated by evaporation with 15% by weight or less of water (w/w) to make concentrate
(e ) combining the concentrate with solid component (i).
(f) drying the solid component (i).
(g) grinding the dried solid mixture to obtain a protein material; wherein
the liquid component (ii) is not reintroduced into the method.
12. Regarding claims 1, 5, 6, Mahboob et al. discloses that raw meat is heated to about 95-97 degree C (at least claim 1 (a) of Mahboob et al.). Therefore, Mahboob et al. discloses that raw meat is heated to make meat juice containing fat and nutrients to meet claim 1(a). It is understood that the extraction temperature makes fat in molten state because the disclosed phrase “ liquid could be centrifuged , the fat layer siphoned” implicitly disclose that fat is in liquid form as disclosed by Mahboob et al. ( at least on page 3 under Summary of the invention, second and third paragraph). It is to be noted that Mahboob discloses that the aqueous phase is separated from ‘liquid fat’ a (at least in page 3 under summary of the invention , paragraph 3, line 6 ). Therefore, “liquid fat” is considered molten fat which is separated. to meet claim 5.
Regarding claim 1 (b), Mahboob et al. also discloses the step of separating liquid layer from solid component after heat treatment and also discloses the separation of liquid containing aqueous layer from fat layer in meat juice from fat (Abstract, page 3 under Summary of the invention, second paragraph and at least in page 4 first paragraph and claim 2 of Mahboob et al.) as claimed in claim 1 (b).
It is to be noted that Mahboob et al. discloses that raw meat is heated to about 95-97 degree C to form a meat juice (at least in claim 2 of Mahboob et al.). It would have been obvious that under this extraction condition, meat juice will contain soluble nutrients including water soluble meat protein in the meat juice fraction. This is disclosed by Bastetti et al. that heating condition at 95-97 degree C ad disclosed by Mahboob et al. (at least on page 4, first paragraph and claim 1 (a) of Mahboob et al.). The amount of soluble protein depends on the amount of water used to be extracted. Therefore, concentrated form is made to enrich the amount of soluble protein as disclosed further by Bastetti et al. and discussed under claim 1 (d) to address claim limitation of “evaporated to concentrate” below.
Regarding claim 1 ( c), Mahboob et al. also discloses that the aqueous phase is separated from liquid fat (i.e. melted fat) by centrifugation method or fat layer is siphoned and returned to the meat to restore the useful nutrients to the meat (page 3 under Summary of the invention, second paragraph). Therefore, it meets the claim limitation of “decanting” step as claimed in claim 1(c ).
(Additionally), Dake et al. discloses the decanter is used in such a process ([0042]) in order to separate liquid fraction from solid fraction. It is to be noted that it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to consider commonly used centrifuge which serves decanting as decanter centrifuge and known in this art. This also meets the claim limitation of “decantation” method to separate a portion of the water from fats as claimed in claim 1(c ) and claim 6.
However, Mahboob et al. is silent about (i) water comprising soluble proteins and (ii) claim limitation of “concentrating meat juice having water content less than 15% by weight and addition to meat” as claimed in claim 1 (d) and also onward claims 1(e )-(g ).
It is to be noted that Bastetti et al. discloses similar method (at least on page 6 paragraphs 4- 8) to obtain protein material as disclosed by Mahboob et al. and as claimed in claim 1 (a) –( c). Therefore, Mahboob and Bastetti et al. are analogous art.
Bastetti et al. also discloses that meat juice obtained after treating fresh raw meat at 95-97 degree C contain water comprising water soluble protein in the meat juice (at least on page 6 paragraphs 4- 8) which is made ‘concentrated’ form in order to have much higher amount of essential amino acids, lysine, tryptophan and threonine in a small volume (page 5, paragraph above Table 1 and Table 1) in order to supplement more nutrients in a convenient manner.
Therefore, both Mahboob et al. and Bastetti et al. meets claims 1(a)-1(c ), and therefore, are analogous art.
Regarding claim 1 (d), Bastetti et al. also discloses that the meat juice is then subjected to concentration, by evaporating using evaporators, until a meat juice having a concentration of between 50 and 70 ° brix, preferably 60 ° brix, is obtained from original diluted 1-8 degree brix value (Page 6, paragraphs 7-9). Therefore, it meets claim limitation of “evaporating the separated portion of water to form a “concentrate” as claimed in claim 1 (d ).
Regarding claim 1 (e ), Bastetti et al. also discloses that this concentrated meat juice is combined to meat in order to make dough to have desired food product (at least claim 1 of Bastetti et al.). Modified Mahboob as modified by Bastetti’s concentrated meat juice water comprising soluble proteins containing can be absorbed (i.e. soaking) by solid meat (page 3 under Summary of the invention).
It is to be noted that even if Bastetti et al. discloses that meat juice is mixed with “fresh minced meat” , it is applicable to supplement any meat including the extracted solid meat protein (i) of claim 1. The reason is one of ordinary skill in the art to consider supplementation of fat free meat juice concentrate to supplement Mahboob’s solid meat residue also which meets claimed solid residue (i) of claim 1 because one would reasonably have expected to that this will perform enrichment of nutritional value and aroma as disclosed by Bastetti et al. (in Bastetti et al. (in Bastetti et al., page 5, paragraph above Table 1 and page 4 under Description, second paragraph) in an effective manner while concentrated form will have convenient small volume for absorption purpose with higher nutrients including higher amount of soluble proteins in small concentrated form having better effect of nutritional enrichment and enriched aroma and flavor with minimal loss during absorption compared to introducing absorption by using straight non concentrated form as disclosed by Mahboob ( page 2 last two paragraphs of Mahboob).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to consider supplementation of fat free meat juice concentrate to supplement Mahboob’s solid meat residue with the teaching of Bastetti because nutritionally enrichment concentrated soluble protein containing aqueous concentrate has good amount of essential amino acids with the nutrients having good nutritional value and aroma, flavor in concentrated form as disclosed by Bastetti et al. (in Bastetti et al. (in Bastetti et al., page 5, paragraph above Table 1 and page 6, first paragraph and also page 4 under Description, second paragraph)
Regarding claims 1(f) and claim 1 (g), drying and grinding step, it is to be noted that Dake et al. discloses that the soluble protein broth can be evaporated and also can be dried by methods known in the art to make powder ([0042]). Dake et al. also discloses that the fine particles or powders can be made using grinding method ([0014]). Dake et al. also discloses that this soluble protein in concentrated dried form can be combined with food to nutritionally enrich food etc.([0044]).
It is also to be noted that Mahboob in view of Bastetti meet the claimed step of “the separated liquid component (ii) is further separated to separate water comprising soluble proteins at step (c )” as claimed in claim 1 ( c ). Therefore, it would have been obvious that the liquid component (ii) is not reintroduced into the method of making final grounded protein product as claimed in claim 1 (g).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mahboob in view of Bastetti et al. to include the teaching of Dake et al. to dry the solid component (i) in combination with the concentrate in order to have nutritionally enriched dried grounded protein material in powder form([0042]-[0043]) to be used as animal protein source.
Even if Dake et al. does not specifically mention the drying step of drying solid component (i) in combination with concentrate after the step of claim 1 (d), and grinding at the step of (g) of claim 1, however, if we consider the teachings of Dake as taught in paragraphs [0042], and [0014], it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to perform grinding step which is one of the methods known in the art ([0014]) to make the final product including powdered protein broth plus solid protein fraction (i), in combination, to be grounded to make powder form ([0042]). It is also to be noted that Dake et al. also discloses the drying step can be performed by methods known in the art to make powder ([0043]) and after drying moisture content can be about 5% ([0052]). Therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to consider the teaching of Dake et al. to grind which can be performed by methods known in the art ([0043]).
It is to be noted that even if Mahboob et al. in view of Bastetti et al. and Dake et al. do not teach the sequential steps to add at the step (c) of claim 1, they teach substantially the same product produced by substantially the same method as instantly claimed by applicant; where the claimed and prior art products are produced by substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established. To switch the order of performing process steps, i.e. the order of the addition of the ingredients into the final mixture, would be obvious absent any clear and convincing evidence and/or arguments to the contrary (MPEP 2144.04 [R-1]). "Selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results". Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the sugar to the solid cooked meat pieces after the separation step.
13. Regarding claim 2, Mahboob et al. discloses the meat can be from Pork specimen (page 4, below Table 2 section) and it can be any raw meat , raw ground meat (at least claim 1 of Mahboob et al.). Therefore, it can include any internal organs as raw meat or ground meat also.
14. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahboob et al. WO 95/05092 in view of Bastetti et al. (IT 1229671 B) in view of in view of Dake et al. US 2015/0305368 as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Gu M et al. (CN 103300398 A).
15. Regarding claim 7, modified Mahboob as modified by Bastetti’s concentrated meat juice water comprising soluble proteins containing can be absorbed (i.e. soaking) by solid meat (page 3 under Summary of the invention). Dake et al. discloses drying and grinding step, to make powder ([0014], [0042]-[0044]) as discussed for claim 1(f) and (g) above.
However, they are silent about further conditions at the drying step as claimed in claim 7.
Gu M et al. discloses that drying and dehydrating the soaked chicken wing soaked in water comprising other components using a hot air dryer machine at 80-90 degree C (At least under Description).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mahboob in view of Bastetti et al. and Dake et al. to dry combined water comprising soluble protein concentrate with dry solid protein to allow soaking of the liquid concentrate followed by drying using a hot air dryer machine at 80-90 degree C (At least under Description) to make dried protein material.
In addition, according to MPEP 2143.01, “Obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (discussing rationale underlying the motivation-suggestion-teaching test as a guard against using hindsight in an obviousness analysis)” In this instance, even if Gu M et al. discloses that drying and dehydrating the soaked chicken wing soaked in water comprising other components using a hot air dryer machine at 80-90 degree C (At least under Description), however, there is some suggestion by Gu M et al. to treat chicken meat soaked in water which is comparable to claimed solid protein component (i) and water soluble protein containing concentrate (liquid), therefore, the drying method is applicable to meet claim 1(f ).
Regarding the temperature, as claimed in claim 7, the disclosed temperature range meets claimed temperature of claim 7. However, this is optimizable.
Absent showing of unexpected results, the specific amount of temperature is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the water content is variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of drying temperature and time, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of drying temperature in Mahboob in view of Bastetti et al. to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. desired dried protein material (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
16. Claims 34, 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahboob et al. WO 95/05092 in view of Bastetti et al. (IT 1229671 B) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Sachindra et al. US 2004/0185165 A1.
17. Regarding claims 34, 35, they are silent about mixing at least one additional ingredient to the protein product to make a food composition.
Sachindra et al. discloses that milk powder, salt, etc. can be added to make dried chicken soup mix and with the addition of water, liquid soup is made (at least page 3 col 2 “Flow Chart” continues page 3 col 1 and [0036] e.g. adding water).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Mahboob et al. in view of Bastetti et al. to include the teaching of Sachindra et al. to make soup mix and liquid soup mix to be used as food. Even if it is not specified as animal food, however, broadly disclosed “food composition” provides the information that chicken soup mix can be used for both human and animal.
Allowable Subject matter
18. Applicants’ amendments of independent claims 9, 24 overcome the rejections of record made under 112 first and second paragraph rejections in the last final office action mailed 2/27/2026. Therefore, examiner has considered the claims 9, 10, 14-16, 19-21, 24-27 to be in condition for allowance.
The reasons for allowance was discussed under “Allowable subject matter” in item #19 in the last final office action mailed 2/27/2026. No prior art alone or in combination can address further proposed amended claims 9, 24 which recite the processing steps by considering two portions of liquid component (ii), one portion is processed to “decanting at least a portion of the water to separate a portion of the water from the fats “ as claimed in amended claims 9 (c ), 24 (c ) and, in combination, reintroducing at least a portion of the separated liquid component (ii) in the second vessel to the solid component (i) to obtain a mixture” as claimed in amended claims 9 (g) and 24 (g). Therefore, it is interpreted that “at least a portion” cannot be total portion of liquid component (ii). It should be two portions having fat free water comprising soluble protein in concentrated form as claimed in amended claim 9 ( c) and containing water and another portion provides part of at least a portion of the separated liquid component (ii), therefore, contain fat which is part of liquid component (ii) total amount of liquid component (ii), as claimed in amended claims 9 (g) and 24 (g). However, applicants need to amend claim 9 and 24 further to amend to recite “ decanting at least a portion of the water to separate [[a]] the portion of the water from the fats;” as claimed in amended claims 9 (c ) and 24 (c).
Examiner did not find any prior art alone or in combination to perform the sequential steps including the steps of claims 9 (c ) , 24 (c ) with the steps of claim 9( g) and 24 (g) together. The reason is if we consider the steps (c ), (g) of claims 9,24 together, the claim limitation of “at least a portion” cannot be total. It is portion of the separated water with soluble proteins as concentrate form of valuable nutrients like essential amino acids etc. and a portion of total reintroduced liquid (ii) will contribute some but not the total fat from animal source in the final protein product. Therefore, 103 rejection has not been made. However, amended claims 9, 24 have been rejected only under 112 second paragraph rejections ad discussed above.
Response to Arguments
19. Applicants’ arguments and amendments of claims 9, 24 overcome the 1122 second paragraph rejections of record. Accordingly, independent claims 9,24 along with the dependent claims depend from claims 9, 24 have been considered to be in condition for allowance.
Applicants argued about Dake ‘369 which was not used. Dake’368 was used. Dake’368 was proper and does not teach away. Therefore, the arguments made for Dake ‘369 is considered as moot. However, in this office action, examiner has considered another new secondary prior art by Bastetti et al. (IT 1229671 B) which is used . Mahboob et al. in view of Bastetti et al. can address most of the the claim limitation of amended independent claim 1. Only Dake’368 is used as secondary prior art to address additionally claim 1 (f) and (g).
20. Applicants arguments from third page to fourth page with respect to Mahboob has been considered. However, they are not persuasive.
21. Applicants argued on third page that Mahboob “teaches away” (in bold) from evaporating the water from this aqueous layer and having water present in the mixture is favorable for further separation undesirable fats”.
In response, it is to be noted that the separation of fat has been done prior to evaporation as claimed in claim 1 of the presently claimed invention. The evaporation of the aqueous layer has been made after separation and meets claimed invention. Therefore, the allegations that water present in the mixture is favorable for further separation undesirable fats as alleged by the applicants is not an issye in this respect. The evaporation of the aqueous layer has been made with motivation to concentrate nutrients including soluble proteins to make concentrates for the desired need to supplement good amounts of these essential nutrients with soluble protein with good aroma and flavor as taught by the new secondary prior art by Bastetti et al. and discussed in detail in the office action above.
22. Applicants further argued on fourth page that “Furthermore, Mahboob fails to contemplate any soluble proteins being present in the aqueous layer described above.
In response, Basstetti et al. is used as new secondary prior art to address water comprising soluble protein” and discussed in detail in the office action above.
23. Applicants argued that “Regarding the purpose of removing the fat layer and reintroducing the aqueous layer, Mahboob recites, "[t]he purpose in removing the excess fat is to reduce the amounts of cholesterol, myristic and palmitic acids and to make sure that sufficient amounts of essential fatty acids, including linoleic, gamma lenolenic and arachidonic acid are left behind in the processed meat." See Mahboob at page 5, fourth paragraph. Based on the above passage, a skilled artisan would understand that the benefit of reintroducing the aqueous layer, according to Mahboob, is to retain fatty acids such as linoleic, gamma lenolenic and arachidonic acid. Mahboob, however, is completely silent with respect to soluble proteins being present in this aqueous layer. As Mahboob fails to even contemplate the presence of soluble proteins being in the aqueous layer, a skilled artisan would not be motivated to modify Mahboob to include a step wherein the aqueous layer is further evaporated to supply a fraction of soluble proteins, let alone evaporating the aqueous layer to specific moisture level”.
In response, it is to be noted that Mahboob discloses that the aqueous phase is separated from liquid fat (at least in page 3 under summary of the invention , paragraph 3). Therefore, “liquid fat” is considered molten fat which is separated.
Also as mentioned above, Basstetti et al. is used as new secondary prior art to address water comprising soluble protein” and discussed in detail in the office action above.
Conclusion
24. Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay whose telephone number is (571)-270-1139.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
/BHASKAR MUKHOPADHYAY/Examiner, Art Unit 1792