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
Claims
Claims 1-22 are pending with claims 14-21 withdrawn and claim 22 new.
WITHDRAWN OBJECTIONS
All objections of record in the Office Action mailed 10/7/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 1/7/2026.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
All rejections of record in the Office Action mailed 10/7/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 1/7/2026.
NEW OBJECTIONS
All objections of record in the Office Action mailed 10/7/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments in the Paper filed 1/7/2026.
Specification
When there are drawings, there shall be a “brief description of the several views of the drawings” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.74.).
The section heading “BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S)” is missing.
Applicant incorrectly amended the section heading in the Paper filed 1/7/2026. Please use the heading per 37 C.F.R. 1.74.
NEW REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Official Correspondence.
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 2 and 3 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 2 recites the limitation "the saltless flavoring" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the flavoring".
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-11, 13 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodenas et al. (US 5,989,601).
The claims are interpreted as being directed to a brine/marinade and not a method of using/making.
Regarding Claims 1 and 22, Bodenas (‘601) teaches a brine/marinade substantially free of salt and phosphate for treating a food product by injection of a brine into the food product, the brine comprising: water; flavoring; and protein from a same type of food product being injected with brine (See Abs., Examples 1-2. The water-based brine does not use NaCl, salt, or phosphate. The brine includes meat/ham trimmings that are of the same animal type that are injected into ham.), however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the protein is in the brine in an amount of about 2% to 30% of the weight of the brine.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious reason for selecting the claimed amount of protein.
The claimed amount of protein in the brine is very broad and includes virtually every conceivable amount. If the amount was greater than 30% the brine would essentially not be injectable while if the amount was less than 2% the amount would serve virtually no purpose.
It would have been foreseeable and within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to select an amount of protein to include into the brine to provide a seasoned food having the desired flavor profile
Regarding Claim 2, Bodenas (‘601) teaches wherein the saltless flavoring is broth/pickling spice (See Abs., Examples 1-2.).
Regarding Claim 3, Bodenas (‘601) teaches wherein the broth is composed in part of the same type of food product being injected with brine (See Abs., Examples 1-2 where broth includes meat/ham trimmings that are of the same animal type that are injected into ham.).
Regarding Claim 4, Bodenas (‘601) teaches wherein the food product is meat, deli meat, fresh meat (See Abs., Examples 1-2 where the meat/deli meat is ham.).
Regarding Claim 5, Bodenas (‘601) teaches wherein the deli meat is pork (See Abs., Examples 1-2.).
Regarding Claim 6, Bodenas (‘601) teaches wherein the protein is a naturally occurring protein (See Abs., Examples 1-2 where the meat/deli meat is ham.).
Regarding Claim 10, Bodenas (‘601) teaches including a cure is nitrite (See Examples 1-2.).
Regarding Claim 11, Bodenas (‘601) teaches a cure accelerator of sodium ascorbate (See Examples 1-2.).
Regarding Claim 13, Bodenas (‘601) teaches a sweetener of dextrose (See Examples 1-2.).
Claim(s) 1, 4-9, 12 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodenas et al. (US 5,989,601).
The claims are interpreted as being directed to a brine/marinade and not a method of using/making.
Regarding Claims 1 and 22, von Lersner (‘987) teaches a brine/marinade substantially free of salt and phosphate for treating a food product by injection of a brine into the food product, the brine comprising: water; flavoring; and protein from a same type of food product being injected with brine (See Abs., col. 1, ll. 13-28, col. 2, l. 24+, col. 2, l. 42+, col. 3., l. 13 to col. 4, l. 58 and col. 5, l. 16+. The aqueous brine overcomes past techniques that use phosphates and salts. The brine includes meat particles that are of the same animal type the brine is applied to.) , however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the protein is in the brine in an amount of about 2% to 30% of the weight of the brine.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious reason for selecting the claimed amount of protein.
The claimed amount of protein in the brine is very broad and includes virtually every conceivable amount. If the amount was greater than 30% the brine would essentially not be injectable while if the amount was less than 2% the amount would serve virtually no purpose.
It would have been foreseeable and within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to select an amount of protein to include into the brine to provide a seasoned food having the desired flavor profile
Regarding Claim 4, von Lersner (‘987) teaches wherein the food product is meat (See Abs., col. 2, l. 24+, col. 2, l. 42+.).
Regarding Claim 5, von Lersner (‘987) teaches wherein the deli meat is deli beef or pork (See Abs., col. 2, l. 24+, col. 2, l. 42+.).
Regarding Claim 6, von Lersner (‘987) teaches wherein the protein is a naturally occurring protein (See Abs., col. 2, l. 24+, col. 2, l. 42+.).
Regarding Claim 7, von Lersner (‘987) teaches wherein the protein is a muscle protein composed of myofibrillar protein and sarcoplasmic protein (See Abs., col. 2, l. 24+, col. 2, l. 42+, sourced from beef.).
Regarding Claim 8, von Lersner (‘987) teaches wherein a proportion of the myofibrillar protein and the sarcoplasmic protein in the brine corresponds to a proportion of the naturally occurring protein in the same type of food product as the food being injected with brine (The claim is interpreted as being directed to a brine and not a food product or a process of using a brine. See Abs., col. 2, l. 24+, col. 2, l. 42+, sourced from beef.).
Regarding Claim 9, von Lersner (‘987) teaches wherein the muscle protein comprises from 10 to 16 percent of the weight of the food product being injected with brin (See Abs., col. 2, l. 24+, col. 2, l. 42+, sourced from beef.).
Regarding Claim 12, von Lersner (‘987) teaches a binder including starch (See col. 4, ll. 32-34.).
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
The limitations of the amended/new claims are discussed above.
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 BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 January 19, 2026