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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In applicant’s reply on 04/28/2026, the claims were amended. Based on these amendments, revised rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 can be found below.
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.
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 2-3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadeau (US 2014/0242228 A1) in view of Miyamoto (US 2017/0143005 A1) found in applicant’s IDS filed 11/07/2023, further in view of Saylock (US 2011/0111102 A1) found in applicant’s IDS filed 11/07/2023, and Brent (US 2006/0263487 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Nadeau teaches a wet pet food product (chunk and gravy composition Par. 0036)
comprising a solid pet food component (food product of restructured meat pieces and meat analogue pieces Par. 0007)
comprising a mixture of a first hydrocolloid (alginate may be a hydrocolloid Par. 0028)
and protein (protein containing composition Par. 0006)
wherein the protein is in particulate form (prepared by grinding Par. 0025; defatted soy flour, corn flour Par. 0027)
alginate in 0.5-3% on a wet weight basis (alginate at a weight % level as compared to the total weight of the pet food composition within the range of from about 0.5 to about 3% Par. 0038)
and a second hydrocolloid comprising one or more of carrageenan, cassia, xanthan, pectin, alginate, agar gum, cellulose, methylcellulose, guar gum, gellan gum, galactomannans, konjac gum, carob gum, starch, modified starch, waxy starch, Arabic gum, karaya gum, tara gum, gum ghatti, gelatin, or any other hydrocolloid from a microbial, plant or animal source (salts mixed with guar gum Par 0030)
wherein the second hydrocolloid in 0.05-25% of the wet pet food product on a wet weight basis (guar gum 0.33% food product Table 7 Pg. 7)
and the solid pet food component of the wet pet food product is in a gravy or in a jelly to form a wet pet food product that is a solids in gravy product or a solids in jelly product (food product combined with gravy to provide a chunk and gravy composition Par. 0036)
the solids in gravy or solids in jelly product having a total moisture content of up to 90% (a moisture content of 55.2% Table 7).
Regarding the thickener (alginate) is 2-4% of the wet pet food product on a wet weight basis, Nadeau teaches the alginate is present from about 0.5 to about 3% (Par. 0038, see above). As Nadeau discloses an overlapping range, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Nadeau to have 2-4% thickener (alginate). It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping range (i.e. 2- about 3%) from the taught range (0.5 to about 3% as seen above). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Nadeau does not teach 5 to 30% protein on a wet weight basis, the first hydrocolloid is curdlan, or a moisture content of at least 69%.
Miyamoto, in the same field of endeavor, teaches curdlan and alginate as suitable thickeners in the food art (Par. 0036). As they are taught as equivalents known for the same purpose, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to substitute the curdlan of Miyamoto for the alginate of Nadeau. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Miyamoto does not teach 19-28% by weight protein in wet food product, or a moisture content of at least 69%.
Saylock, in the same field of endeavor, teaches 5 to 30% protein on a wet weight basis (19-28% by weight protein in wet food product Par. 0100)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of modified Nadeau with the protein content of Saylock. One would have been motivated to make this modification to have a product with an appearance similar to meat (Saylock Abstract).
Saylock does not teach a moisture content of at least 69%.
Brent, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a moisture content of at least 69% (the base food can have a moisture content in the range of preferably at least about 70% Par. 0035; base food having a visible shape and definable dimension Par. 0017; filler as an optional ingredient, can be gravy, gel, jelly, sauce, water, broth, and combinations thereof Par. 0068).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of modified Nadeau with the moisture of Brent. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a product with desirable appearance that has improved texture (Brent Par. 0007).
Regarding Claim 3, Nadeau also teaches the protein is derived from one or more of poultry, pork, beef, lamb, fowl, game, fish, crustaceans, shellfish, larvae, worm, insects, yeast, plant, algae, microalgae, seaweed, fungi, microorganisms or maize gluten powder (pork liver, chicken, Par. 0025; defatted soy flour, corn flour Par. 0027)
each in the form of one or more of meal, powder, slurry or the whole native material, optionally wherein the protein is a low functional protein (prepared by grinding Par. 0025; defatted soy flour, corn flour Par. 0027)
Regarding claim 7, Nadeau further teaches the solid pet food component has a hardness greater than 150±20 g/g when measured in the form of chunk via a Texture Analyzer (Food composition A 1850g, Texture Food composition B 700g Table 17; using a TA-TX2 texture analyzer Par. 0088).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5-6, filed 04/28/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Brent (see above rejection).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL M RODGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 5712703475. 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.
/A.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights