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 .
The claims filed September 5, 2023 and July 31, 2024 are acknowledged. Claims 1-3, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 30, 37-39, 52, 55, 63, and 79 are pending in the application. Claims 4-7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 18-21, 23, 26-29, 31-36, 40-51, 53, 54, 56-62, 64-78, and 80-89 have been cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 10, 13, 17, 38, 55, 63, and 79 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8 at line 3, it is suggested to delete one of the duplicated “chickpea” entries.
In claim 10 at line 2, it is recommended to delete “(a)” after “wherein:” and before “the”.
In claim 13 at line 2, it is suggested to correct “Arabic” after “gum” and before “carrageenan” to the lower case form “arabic”.
In claim 13 at line 5, it is recommended to amend “ghatt” to “ghatti” after “gum” and before “their” to correct the typographical error.
In claim 17 at line 3, it is suggested to delete one of the duplicated “a starch” entries.
In claim 17 at line 4, it is suggested to correct “Arabic” after “gum” and before “maltodextrin” to the lower case form “arabic”.
In claim 38 at line 6, it is suggested to delete one of the duplicated “analog” entries.
In claim 38 at lines 6 and 7, it is recommended to replace “(a)” and “(b)” with “(i)” and “(ii)”, respectively.
In claim 55 at lines 2, 6, and 8, it is recommended to replace “(a)”, “(b)”, and “(c)” with “(i)”, “(ii)”, and “(iii)”, respectively.
In claim 63 at lines 2, 3, 5, and 8, it is recommended to replace “(a)”, “(b)”, “(c)”, “(d)” and “(e)” with “(i)”, “(ii)”, “(iii)”, “(iv)”, and “(v)”, respectively.
In claim 79 at lines 3, 4, 6, and 9, it is recommended to replace “(a)”, “(b)”, “(c)” and “(d)” with “(i)”, “(ii)”, “(iii)”, and “(iv)”, respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 13, 22, 24, 25, and 63 are 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 13 recites “their derivatives” at line 5. It is unclear what is encompassed by this limitation. More specifically, “derivative” is a relative term, and the specification fails to provide any guidance for its meaning. In the instant case, a derivative of a composition could include its molecular element, and the metes and bounds cannot be readily ascertained by said relative term. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “gum ghatti, their derivatives, or any combination thereof” (emphasis added) at lines 5-6 of claim 13 is interpreted as “gum ghatti, or any combination thereof”.
Claim 22 recites “and other hydrogenated fats” at lines 10-11. It is unclear what is encompassed by this limitation. More specifically, the phrase "and other" renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "and other"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “margarine, and other hydrogenated fats, and any combination thereof” (emphasis added) at lines 10-11 of claim 22 is interpreted as “margarine, and any combination thereof”.
Claim 24 is not specifically discussed but is rejected due to its dependence on claim 22.
Claim 25 recites “any one of claims 1” at line 1 of the claim. It is unclear what is intended by this limitation and what claim(s) that claim 25 is dependent upon. Therefore, the scope of claim 25 is indefinite. For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “of any one of claims 1” (emphasis added) at line 1 of claim 25 is interpreted as “of claim 1”.
Claim 63 recites “(c) no plant-based fiber; (d) the PBCT” at line 5, and this claim depends upon claims 52 and 37. It is unclear what is intended by this limitation. Claim 37 requires a plant-based fiber (line 4) in the meat alternative formulation. Additionally, the recitation of “the PBCT” lacks antecedent basis as there is no mention of a PBCT in claims 37 or 52. Therefore, the scope of claim 63 is indefinite. For the purpose of the examination, the recitation of “(c) no plant-based fiber; (d) the PBCT” (emphasis added) at line 5 of claim 63 is interpreted as “(c) a PBCT” (emphasis added). Applicant is reminded a claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. See MPEP 608.01(n).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 10, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 37, 39, 52, 55, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Conrad US 4818557 (hereinafter “Conrad”).
With respect to claim 1, Conrad teaches meat replacement products (C1, L11-12).
Regarding the limitation of comprising: a heme protein and a plant-based protein as recited in claim 1, Conrad teaches the grain meat comprises grain protein and hemoglobin (C1, L43-49; C2, L1-3 and 47-53; C3, L54-65; and C4, L5-8).
Regarding the limitation of wherein the meat alternative formulation does not include free amino acids selected from the group consisting of cysteine, cystine, selenocysteine, and methionine as recited in claim 1, Conrad is silent with respect to the presence of free cysteine, cystine, selenocysteine, and methionine (C3, L54-65). Thus, Conrad successfully meets this limitation.
With respect to claim 2, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the meat alternative formulation further does not include free sugars in an amount exceeding 1.5 weight percent as recited in claim 2, Conrad is silent with respect to the presence of free sugars (C3, L54-65). Thus, Conrad successfully meets this limitation.
With respect to claim 8, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the plant-based protein is isolated or derived from at least one of the materials listed in claim 8, Conrad teaches the grain meat is prepared from cereal protein such as wheat or corn (C2, L1-3).
With respect to claim 10, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the plant-based protein comprises less than 30% fats and carbohydrates by weight; and/or the plant-based protein is about 0.5 wt% to about 40 wt% of the meat alternative formulation as recited in claim 10, Conrad teaches the grain meat comprises 3% starch, 14% bran, 15% proteins, and 2.5% wheat germ including wheat germ oil in one embodiment (C3, L54-65).
With respect to claim 16, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of further comprising a plant-based fiber, wherein the plant-based fiber is at least 5 wt% of the meat alternative formulation as recited in claim 16, Conrad teaches the grain meat comprises 14% bran fiber and 3% starch in one embodiment (C2, L14-17; and C3, L54-65).
With respect to claim 17, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 16 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the plant-based fiber comprises one of the listed fibers in claim 17, Conrad teaches the grain meat comprises starch (C2, L14-17; and C3, L54-65).
With respect to claim 22, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of further comprising a fat selected from the group of listed fats in claim 22, Conrad teaches the grain meat comprises wheat germ oil in one embodiment (C3, L54-65).
With respect to claim 24, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 22 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the fat is about 1 wt% to about 30 wt% or about 12 wt% to about 17% of the meat alternative formulation as recited in claim 24, Conrad teaches the grain meat comprises 2.5% wheat germ oil (C3, L54-65).
With respect to claim 25, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of further comprising: (a) a binder, wherein the binder is present at about 0.25 wt% to about 1.5 wt% of the meat alternative formulation; (b) water, wherein the meat alternative formulation comprises about 30 wt% to about 60 wt% water; and/or (c) polyunsaturated fatty acid as recited in claim 25, Conrad teaches the wheat meat comprises wheat germ oil (C3, L54-65). Evidence is provided by Mahmoud et al., “Wheat germ: An overview on nutritional value, antioxidant potential, and antibacterial characteristics” (hereinafter “Mahmoud’). Mahmoud is merely used to show that wheat germ oil comprises polyunsaturated fatty acid. As evidenced by Mahmoud, wheat germ oil contains polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) (P271, Table 3; P271-P272, 3.3 Fatty Acid Composition of Wheat Germ Oil). Thus, Conrad successfully meets the claim limitation of the formulation comprising polyunsaturated fatty acid.
With respect to claim 37, Conrad teaches meat replacement products (C1, L11-12).
Regarding the limitation of comprising: a. a heme protein; b. a plant-based protein; c. a plant-based fiber; d. a fat; and e. water as recited in claim 37, Conrad teaches the grain meat comprising grain protein, bran fiber, wheat germ oil, water and hemoglobin (C1, L43-49; C2, L1-3 and 47-53; C3, L54-65; and C4, L5-8).
Regarding the limitation of wherein the meat alternative formulation does not include free amino acids selected from the group consisting of cysteine, cystine, selenocysteine, and methionine as recited in claim 37, Conrad is silent with respect to the presence of free cysteine, cystine, selenocysteine, and methionine (C3, L54-65). Thus, Conrad successfully meets this limitation.
With respect to claim 39, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 37 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the plant-based protein comprises a first-plant based protein and a second plant-based protein, wherein the first plant-based protein and second plant-based protein are from different plants, optionally wherein the first plant-based protein is about 0.5 wt% to about 25 wt% of the meat alternative formulation, and/or the second plant-based protein is about 0.5 wt% to about 1.5 wt% of the meat alternative formulation as recited in claim 39, Conrad teaches the wheat meat comprises 15% wheat protein, and the wheat meat can be combined with other protein products, such as protein from corn, barley, oat, and rye (C2, L1-3 and 51-53; and C4, L17-19).
With respect to claim 52, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 37 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the formulation is a meat alternative formulation, a meat alternative sausage formulation, or a meat alternative burger formulation as recited in claim 52, Conrad teaches the grain meat may be used to replace the meat in burgers and sausages (C1, L35-37 and 43-49).
With respect to claim 55, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 52 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of the meat alternative nugget formulation of claim 52 as recited in claim 55, Conrad meets this limitation since claim 52 requires one of the listed alternatives to be selected (meat alternative nugget formulation, meat alternative sausage formulation, or a meat alternative burger formulation) and Conrad teaches the grain meat may be used to replace the meat in burgers and sausages (C1, L35-37 and 43-49).
With respect to claim 63, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 52 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of the meat alternative sausage formulation comprising (a) the plant-based protein at about 12 wt% to about 30 wt% of the formulation; (b) the fat is about 7 wt% to about 22 wt% of the formulation, optionally wherein the fat comprises at least two different fats; (c) a PBCT at about 1.5 wt%, wherein about 0.25 wt% of the formulation is a cartilage analog, about 0.25 wt% of the formulation is a perimysium analog, and about 1 wt% of the formulation is a tendon analog and/or (d) water at about 35 wt% to 60 wt% of the formulation as recited in claim 63, Conrad teaches the wheat meat comprises 15% protein and may be used to replace the meat in sausages (C1, L43-49 and 35-37; and C3, L54-65).
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.
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 3, 25, and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad US 4818557 (hereinafter “Conrad”) as applied to claims 1, 37, and 52 above.
With respect to claim 3, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the heme protein is present at 0.2 wt% to 2 wt% of the meat alternative formulation, optionally wherein: (a) the heme protein is a bovine myoglobin; (b) at least 20% of heme moieties of the heme protein are metmyoglobin or metheme; (c) the heme protein has a purity of at least 20%; (d) at least 95% of the heme protein is in a holo-form; and/or (e) the heme protein has a dissociation constant (Kd) of at least 500 µM for molecular oxygen as recited in claim 3, Conrad teaches up to 15% of hemoglobin is added to the grain meat (C4, L5-8), and the range of Conrad encompasses the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 25, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of further comprising: (a) a binder, wherein the binder is present at about 0.25 wt% to about 1.5 wt% of the meat alternative formulation; (b) water, wherein the meat alternative formulation comprises about 30 wt% to about 60 wt% water; and/or (c) polyunsaturated fatty acid as recited in claim 25, Conrad teaches the wheat meat comprises wheat germ oil (C3, L54-65). Evidence is provided by Mahmoud et al., “Wheat germ: An overview on nutritional value, antioxidant potential, and antibacterial characteristics” (hereinafter “Mahmoud’). Mahmoud is merely used to show that wheat germ oil comprises polyunsaturated fatty acid. As evidenced by Mahmoud, wheat germ oil contains polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) (P271, Table 3; P271-P272, 3.3 Fatty Acid Composition of Wheat Germ Oil). Thus, Conrad successfully meets the claim limitation of the formulation comprising polyunsaturated fatty acid.
Conrad also teaches the wheat meat comprises 65% water and 3% starch for a binding effect (C2, L14-17; and C3, L54-65). While Conrad does not expressly disclose the claimed quantities of water and binder, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the concentration of water and starch binder in the grain meat of Conrad with the expectation of successfully preparing an organoleptically desirable product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the texture and mouthfeel of the food is contingent upon the concentration of ingredients, such as water and binder, as well as the final form of the food product, Conrad teaches minor amounts of starch is included if certain binding effect should be desired (e.g. a sausage mass) (C2, L14-17), and it is understood that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
With respect to claim 63, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claims 37 and 52 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of the meat alternative sausage formulation comprising (a) the plant-based protein at about 12 wt% to about 30 wt% of the formulation; (b) the fat is about 7 wt% to about 22 wt% of the formulation, optionally wherein the fat comprises at least two different fats; (c) a PBCT at about 1.5 wt%, wherein about 0.25 wt% of the formulation is a cartilage analog, about 0.25 wt% of the formulation is a perimysium analog, and about 1 wt% of the formulation is a tendon analog and/or (d) water at about 35 wt% to 60 wt% of the formulation as recited in claim 63, Conrad teaches the wheat meat comprises 15% protein and may be used to replace the meat in sausages (C1, L35-37 and 43-49; and C3, L54-65).
Conrad also teaches the wheat meat comprises 65% water and 2.5% wheat germ oil (C3, L54-65). While Conrad does not expressly disclose the claimed quantities of water and fat, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the concentration of water and fat in the grain meat of Conrad with the expectation of successfully preparing an organoleptically desirable product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the texture and mouthfeel of the food is contingent upon the concentration of ingredients, such as water and fat, as well as the final form of the food product, Conrad teaches other sources of fat may be added to the formulation (C4, bottom), and it is understood that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
Claims 12, 13, 30, 38, and 79 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad US 4818557 (hereinafter “Conrad”) as applied to claims 1, 37, and 52 above, and in further view of Vrljic et al. US 20150305390 (hereinafter “Vrljic”).
With respect to claims 12 and 13, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of further comprising a hydrocolloid, wherein the hydrocolloid is about 1 wt% to about 5 wt% of the meat alternative formulation as recited in claim 12 and wherein the hydrocolloid comprises one of the listed hydrocolloids in claim 13, Conrad does not expressly disclose the grain meat comprises hydrocolloid.
Vrljic teaches a meat substitute composition. Proteins used to produce the composition include proteins from grains such as corn and wheat. The composition may also include a thickener, such as konjac, carrageenan, agar, pectin, alginin, xanthan, starch, methylcellulose, guar gum, and/or locust bean gum (Abstract; paragraphs [0015], [0115], and [0248]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Vrljic, to select the thickener based in its suitability for its intended purpose in the meat replacement product of Conrad with the expectation of successfully preparing an organoleptically desirable product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Conrad and Vrljic similarly teach meat replacement compositions comprising similar ingredients, Vrljic teaches the thickener provides structure to the consumable (paragraph [0048]), Conrad teaches obtaining the right chewing properties of the end product from a taste point of view by adding ingredients, such as fiber (C2, L54-59), and said modification would amount to the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)) (MPEP 2144.07).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amount of thickener through routine experimentation in the meat replacement composition of modified Conrad with the expectation of successfully preparing an organoleptically desirable product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the texture and mouthfeel of the food is contingent upon the concentration of ingredients, such as thickener, as well as the final form of the food product, Conrad teaches obtaining the right chewing properties of the end product from a taste point of view by adding ingredients, such as fiber, in the right proportions (C2, L54-59), and it is understood that, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05 II).
With respect to claim 30, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 1 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the meat alternative formulation does not comprise an ingredient isolated from an animal, an animal tissue, or an animal cell as recited in claim 30, Conrad teaches adding up to 15% by weight of hemoglobin separated from blood to the grain meat (C4, L5-8).
However, Conrad does not expressly disclose the grain meat does not comprise an ingredient isolated from an animal, an animal tissue, or an animal cell as claimed.
Vrljic teaches a meat substitute composition. Proteins used to produce the composition include proteins from grains such as corn and wheat. The composition may also include hemoglobin isolated from the blood of animals, plants, fungi, ciliates, or bacteria (paragraphs [0015], [0115], [0128]-[0132], [0302], and [0305]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Vrljic, to substitute the hemoglobin separated from blood in the meat replacement product of Conrad with the hemoglobin isolated from plants, fungi, ciliates, or bacteria with the expectation of successfully preparing an aesthetically desirable product free of animal ingredients. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Conrad and Vrljic similarly teach meat replacement compositions comprising similar ingredients, Vrljic recognizes the equivalency of animal and non-animal sources (plants, fungi, ciliates, or bacteria) of hemoglobin and teaches hemoglobin enhances the color of the consumable (paragraphs [0302] and [0305]), Conrad teaches the hemoglobin provides meat color to the product (C4, L5-8), and such modification would have involved a mere substitution of known equivalent structures. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. Mere substitution of an equivalent is not an act of invention; where equivalency is known to the prior art, the substitution of one equivalent for another is not patentable. See In re Ruff 118 USPQ 343 (CCPA 1958).
With respect to claim 38, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 37 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of further comprising a plant-based connective tissue (PBCT) analog, wherein (a) the PBCT analog is present at about 1 wt.%; and/or (b) the PBCT analog comprises a cartilage analog, a perimysium analog, a tendon analog, or any combination thereof as recited in claim 38, Conrad does not expressly disclose this limitation.
Vrljic teaches a meat substitute composition. Proteins used to produce the composition include proteins from grains such as corn and wheat. The composition may also include 1-30 wt% of connective tissue replicas, such as cartilage replicas or fascia replicas, made from plant protein sources (paragraphs [0015], [0115], [0236]-[0239], [0245]-[0247], [0255], [0257], and [0305]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Vrljic, to select the connective tissue replicas based in its suitability for its intended purpose in the meat replacement product of Conrad with the expectation of successfully preparing an organoleptically desirable product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Conrad and Vrljic similarly teach meat replacement compositions comprising similar ingredients, Vrljic teaches the inclusion of connective tissue replicas in the meat substitute mimics the experience of meat consumption (paragraphs [0245] and [0255]), Conrad teaches obtaining the right chewing properties of the end product from a taste point of view by adding ingredients and combining the grain meat with other protein products (C2, L54-59; and C4, L17-19), and said modification would amount to the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)) (MPEP 2144.07).
With respect to claim 79, Conrad is relied upon for the teaching of the formulation of claim 52 as addressed above.
Regarding the limitation of the meat alternative burger formulation of claim 52 as recited in claim 79, Conrad teaches the grain meat may be used to replace the meat in burgers (C1, L11-12, 35-37, and 43-49).
Regarding the limitation of comprising (a) 0.5 wt%-2 wt% bovine myoglobin as recited in claim 79, Conrad does not expressly disclose this limitation.
Vrljic teaches a meat substitute composition. Proteins used to produce the composition include proteins from grains such as corn and wheat. The composition may also include 0.01-5% wt/wt. of bovine myoglobin (paragraphs [0015], [0115], [0128]-[0132], [0260], [0301], [0303], [0305], and [0416]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Vrljic, to select bovine myoglobin based in its suitability for its intended purpose in the meat replacement product of Conrad with the expectation of successfully preparing an organoleptically and aesthetically desirable product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Conrad and Vrljic similarly teach meat replacement compositions comprising similar ingredients, Vrljic teaches the inclusion of bovine myoglobin in the meat substitute provides benefit to the flavor, aroma, and color of the food (paragraphs [0260], [0301], and [0416]), Conrad teaches combining the grain meat with other protein products to add color and further give a desired taste improvement (C4, L5-8 and 14-19), and said modification would amount to the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)) (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding the limitation of comprising (b) 0.5 wt%-40 wt.% plant-based protein, wherein the plant based protein is a textured soy protein as recited in claim 79, Conrad does not expressly disclose this limitation.
Vrljic teaches a meat substitute composition. Proteins used to produce the composition include proteins from grains such as corn and wheat. The composition may also include textured soy proteins and a protein content of 5-30 wt% (paragraphs [0015], [0115], [0145], and [0258]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Vrljic, to select textured soy protein based in its suitability for its intended purpose in the meat replacement product of Conrad with the expectation of successfully preparing an organoleptically desirable product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Conrad and Vrljic similarly teach meat replacement compositions comprising similar ingredients, Conrad teaches obtaining the right chewing properties of the end product from a taste point of view by adding ingredients and combining the grain meat with other protein products (C2, L54-59; and C4, L17-19), and said modification would amount to the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)) (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding the limitation of (c) 10-20 wt% plant-based fat, wherein the plant-based fat is selected from the group consisting of high oleic sunflower oil, coconut oil and any combination thereof are recited in claim 79, Conrad does not expressly disclose this limitation.
Vrljic teaches a meat substitute composition. Proteins used to produce the composition include proteins from grains such as corn and wheat. The composition may also include 1-20% of a lipid component such as coconut oil (paragraphs [0015], [0115], [0146], [0191], and [0258]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Vrljic, to select coconut oil based in its suitability for its intended purpose in the meat replacement product of Conrad with the expectation of successfully preparing an organoleptically desirable product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Conrad and Vrljic similarly teach meat replacement compositions comprising similar ingredients, Vrljic teaches lipid integration provides the consumable with improved mouthfeel and texture (paragraph [0127]), Conrad teaches obtaining the right chewing properties of the end product from a taste point of view by adding ingredients and other sources of fat may be added to the formulation (C2, L54-59; C4, L17-19; and C4, bottom), and said modification would amount to the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)) (MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding the limitation of comprising (d) 1 wt%-3 wt% plant-based connective tissue analog (PBCT), wherein the PBCT comprises a cartilage analog, a perimysium analog, tendon analog, or any combination thereof as recited in claim 79, Conrad does not expressly disclose this limitation.
Vrljic teaches a meat substitute composition. Proteins used to produce the composition include proteins from grains such as corn and wheat. The composition may also include 1-30 wt% of connective tissue replicas, such as cartilage replicas or fascia replicas, made from plant protein sources (paragraphs [0015], [0115], [0236]-[0239], [0245]-[0247], [0255], [0257], and [0305]). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, given the teachings of Vrljic, to select the connective tissue replicas based in its suitability for its intended purpose in the meat replacement product of Conrad with the expectation of successfully preparing an organoleptically desirable product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Conrad and Vrljic similarly teach meat replacement compositions comprising similar ingredients, Vrljic teaches the inclusion of connective tissue replicas in the meat substitute mimics the experience of meat consumption (paragraphs [0245] and [0255]), Conrad teaches obtaining the right chewing properties of the end product from a taste point of view by adding ingredients and combining the grain meat with other protein products (C2, L54-59; and C4, L17-19), and said modification would amount to the use of a known element for its intended use in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success with said modification. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. (“Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious)) (MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYNESHA L. MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)270-1153. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 PM ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/T.L.M/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793