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 .
Status of Claims
Receipt of Remarks/Amendments filed on 08/06/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 43-55 are cancelled. Claims 1, 7, 23 and 29 have been amended. Claims 56-57 are new. Claims 1-42 and 56-57 are presented for examination on the merits for patentability.
Rejection(s) not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections presently being applied to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. While a copy of the Office Action issued July 6, 2026, in corresponding JP Application No. 2023-540263 was not provided by the Applicant, the Examiner was able to obtain a copy of the Office Action in English translation from Global Dossier on 09/16/2026. (See Form 892). Accordingly, the information disclosure statements were considered by the Examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 05/22/2026 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information. A copy of the Office Action issued April 29, 2026, in corresponding CN Patent Application No. 202280053522.0 was not provided by Applicant, and the Examiner did not find this document in Global Dossier. As such, the relevance of this document cannot be ascertained by the Examiner. The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Modified Rejection As Necessitated by the Amendment Filed 08/06/2026
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.
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 1-42 and 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cavallini et al. (US 2005/0003071 A1, cited in IDS; Of record), hereinafter Cavallini, in view of Millar et al. (US 4250198), hereinafter Millar, as evidenced by Arvidson et al. (Macromolecules 46.1 (2013): 300-309; Of record).
Cavallini discloses a process for making a vegetable base meat analog inter alia burger patties and sausage, comprising sequentially blending methyl cellulose (MCC) into a water/ice mix to form a cream, then blending in a modified gluten, a vegetable protein product having high solubility in water and capable of forming a gel with mild heat treatment, an oil to make an emulsion base, and a modified food starch and flavoring ingredients to form a flavored emulsion base (Abstract). The flavored emulsion base or vegetable base meat analog pieces may be incorporated into a variety of vegetarian food products to improve the texture, mouthfeel and juiciness of the vegetarian food products (Example 1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 22, Cavallini expressly teaches preparing an emulsion base meat analog by first adding about 90% of the total amount of a 50/50 water/ice to a bowl cutter, and then adding 1.5 mass % of methylcellulose with high gelling properties, and fully dispersing by a chopping operation performed at a low knife speed; other ingredients including a vegetable protein component are added to obtain a flavored emulsion base, which can be cooked in an oil bath continuous oven until the core temperature reaches approximately 87.8°C (190°F) to approximately 90.6°C (Example 1). Cavallini also teaches an example the preparation of a vegetable burger patty by hydrating dry extruded soy protein concentrates such as RESPONSE 4402 and RESPONSE 4320 with water at a ratio of two parts water to one part of the soy protein product, and then mixing 30 mass % of hydrated RESPONSE 4402 and 30 mass% of hydrated RESPONSE 4320 with 20 mass% of the flavored emulsion base mixture prepared in Example 1 (Example 2).
The MCC reads on the water-absorbing thickening polysaccharide in Claims 1 and 4. Because the 1.5% MCC is added to 90% of the total water amount, the feature of addition water being added to MCC within 30 seconds is obvious. With regards to the amount of MCC, while Cavallini does not teach an exact amount, it teaches the formulation of the flavor emulsion base to comprise 1.5% MCC. As such, one of ordinary skill in the arts would easily calculate the amount in kilogram depending on the desired amount of formulation.
Cavallini teaches granular RESPONSE 4402 and RESPONSE 4320 but not fibrous vegetable protein as claimed in amended Claims 1 and 23.
Millar is in the same field and teaches a nutritious tasty meat snack analog such as polish sausage, having characteristics simulating the meat-based product, which is made from non-meat protein material, fat, water, spices, colorings and flavorings (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 43-51).
Millar recognizes that prior art analog products consisting of gelled emulsions of protein
in water lacks fibrous material and have high moisture contents which necessitates refrigeration to prevent microbial spoilage. However, using texturizing fibrous proteins allow room temperature storage without spoilage for long periods (Col. 1, line 66 to Col. 2, line 4).
Millar teaches using texturizing protein, preferably fibrous protein, used alone or in admixture with granular textured vegetable protein (Col. 3, lines 52-66; Claim 18). The fibrous protein is formed from protein micellar mass (PMM), which is formed from plant proteins inter alia wheat and soybeans, which also reads on the claimed features of fibrous vegetable protein and the specific vegetable proteins in Claims 7-8 (Col. 4, lines 1-43). Millar relates that the texturing proteins, which may be in the form of protein fibres and/or granules, impart a chewiness to the product which simulates meat-like characteristics (Col. 1, lines 56-59). An example was provided wherein TVP granules were added to the composition comprising pea PMM and with protein fibers of different sizes (Example 7).
Cavallini teaches burger patties and sausages made with vegetable base meat analog; Millar also teaches sausages. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Millar with that of Cavallini and use the fibrous vegetable protein together with granular protein in preparing a meat analog, and replacing the vegetable protein product in Cavallini to prepare meat analogs such as sausages that will not spoil easily. Therefore, the claimed invention of the instant application would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The known work in the field of meat analogs and sausages would have prompted variations where the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. One would have been motivated to do so to obtain a meat analog having a chewiness which simulates meat-like characteristics while permitting room temperature storage without spoilage for long periods.
Regarding Claim 2, Cavallini expressly teaches the ice/water is 55.75% to 1.5% MCC, which is equivalent to 37 part water to 1 part MCC, and which is within the range claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
278
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Cavallini teaches Methocel from Dow Chemical Co. [0047], which is a powder, as evidenced by Arvidson (p. 302, L. Col., 2nd paragraph).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Cavallini teaches MCC which is the same water-absorbable polysaccharide thickener used (Specification, [0084]-[0088]). Cavallini therefore renders obvious the features of Claim 5 “wherein the water-absorbable polysaccharide thickener has thermal gelling ability as a property to gel on being heated in an aqueous solution” and of Claim 6 “wherein a viscosity of the water-absorbable polysaccharide thickener at 20°C when being formulated as a 2% by mass aqueous solution is 2000 mm2/s or more” as these are inherent properties. Because the prior art composition is the identical composition claimed, the composition must necessarily have the characteristics claimed in Claims 5-6. It is noted that In re Best (195 USPQ 430) and In re Fitzgerald (205 USPQ 594) discuss the support of rejections wherein the prior art discloses subject matter, which there is reason to believe inherently includes functions that are newly cited, or is identical to a product instantly claimed. In such a situation the burden is shifted to the applicants to “prove that subject matter to be shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on” (205 USPQ 594). There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.
Regarding Claim 7, Cavallini teaches using RESPONSE® 4402 and RESPONSE® 4320 soy protein concentrates, which are granular in structure [0040].
Regarding Claim 9, Cavallini teaches blending the vegetable protein into the MCC cream with gluten, and adding oil and other ingredients, then the rest of water/ice (Example 1).
Regarding Claim 10, Cavallini also teaches an example the preparation of a vegetable burger patty by hydrating dry extruded soy protein concentrates such as RESPONSE 4402 and RESPONSE 4320 with water at a ratio of two parts water to one part soy protein product, and then a portion is added to the flavored emulsion base (Example 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Cavallini teaches 16% wt. of vegetable protein product and the remaining 10% of total water/ice mix, which appears to fall within the claimed range (Example 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Cavallini teaches initially adding 90% of the total water, and then adding the remaining 10% in a separate step, thereby reading on the A:B claimed.
Regarding Claim 13 and 16-17, Cavallini teaches the formulation having 16% vegetable protein product and 1.5% MCC (Table 1). By Examiner’s calculation, this is 0.09 part water-absorbable polysaccharide thickener to one part water-absorbable textured vegetable protein, which falls within the claimed range in Claim 13. The 1.5% MCC is within the claimed range in Claim 16. The 16% vegetable protein product is within the claimed range in Claim 17.
Regarding Claims 14-15, Cavallini does not require heating, and only recites that the flavored emulsion base may be cooked after everything has been mixed in, and the flavored emulsion base fully prepared, and also as part of the food product (Examples 1 and 2).
Regarding Claims 18 and 38, Cavallini teaches mixing the water with MCC, and that after 3-5 minutes, methylcellulose increases in volume [0047]. Mixing encompasses stirring, and as such, Cavallini renders obvious the feature of employing a stirring time of 15 minutes or less while and/or after the water-absorbable polysaccharide thickener is allowed to absorb water by adding water thereto.
Regarding Claims 19-20, Cavallini expressly teaches the process and formula for making an emulsion base meat analog, for example, vegetable burger patties and vegetarian sausage (Examples 1 and 4).
Regarding Claim 21, Cavallini teaches incorporating starch, oil and spice etc. in its formulation (Tables I and II).
Regarding Claim 23, Cavallini also teaches hydrating soy protein concentrates such as RESPONSE 4402 and RESPONSE 4320 with water first prior to mixing with the flavored emulsion base mixture prepared in Example 1 (Example 2).
Cavallini has taught all the features claimed in Claims 24-42.
Regarding Claims 56-57, Cavallini expressly using 16% vegetable protein product in preparing a vegetarian sausage formulation (Example 4; Table 3).
Response to Remarks:
Applicant argues that Cavallini does not teach the amended feature of fibrous vegetable protein in independent Claims 1 and 23.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment does not rely on Cavallini for the fibrous vegetable protein feature, but on Millar, which teaches fibrous protein.
Applicant argues that although Cavallini describes the RESPONSE 4402 and 4320 granular soy protein concentrates, these granular soy protein concentrates are used at a
different stage of the process from the TVP claimed, i.e. It is this vegetable base meat analog that is combined with the RESPONSE 4402 and 4320 granular soy protein concentrates at [0040] to prepare vegetable burger patties.
This argument is also not persuasive. Claims 1 and 23 comprise 1) a step of allowing a thickener to absorb water, and 2) a step of adding VP to the hydrated thickener and mixing together. Example 2 of Cavallini teaches hydrating Response 4402 and 4320, and mixing with a flavored emulsion base comprising hydrated methylcellulose from Example 1. Applicant is reminded that the claimed method recites a “comprising” language, which allows for additional steps to be performed.
Furthermore, Millar has rendered both the granular and fibrous vegetable protein obvious.
Applicant argues that the vegetable protein product of Cavallini is not a textured vegetable protein but a powdered vegetable protein.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment relies on Millar, which teaches the combination of fibrous protein and granular textured vegetable protein.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nishimura et al. (US 9,314,045 B2), hereinafter Nishimura, teaches meat-like foodstuff that has a natural meat-like texture when chewing and is also similar in appearance to natural meat (Abstract). The raw-material mixture comprises: a first hydrated and split textured vegetable protein; a hydrated and split-second textured vegetable protein; and a binder (Abstract; Claim 1). Nishimura teaches different examples of composition of foodstuff comprising two different textured vegetable protein A1 and A2 at different amounts, which results in different textures (Example 1-1; Tables 1 and 2). Nishimura teaches the "first textured vegetable protein" and the "second textured vegetable protein" are "granular vegetable protein", or vegetable proteins having meat-like tissue equivalent to that of the "granular vegetable protein" (Col. 4, line 60 to Col. 5, line 12). Nishimura expressly teaches the preparation of meat-like foodstuff wherein a first textured protein, a second textured vegetable protein, a granular vegetable protein and a fibrous vegetable protein were mixed (Comparative Example 3; Col. 16, lines 4-8). Nishimura also teaches different binders, and expressly teaches examples using guar gum and carrageenan, which the Applicant identifies to be thickeners (Col. 7, lines 53-65; Examples 2 and 3).
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 JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2038. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10-6 EST.
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 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 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.Y.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights