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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa (US 4001441 A) and Reynolds et al (herein referred to as Reynolds, JP 01112953 A).
With regard to Claim 1, Liepa teaches a method for producing a chunk meat-like meat alternative (abstract). Liepa teaches mixing a fiber bundle-shaped textured protein and a binder to obtain a mixture (col 3 lines 11-19).
Liepa teaches after the formation of the mixture the product may be cut or otherwise
formed into suitable shapes, heated, or otherwise further treated (Col 9 lines 46-47). But is silent to stretching the mixture.
Reynolds teaches a method for producing fibrous products such as imitation meat and/or seafood products ([0001], page 2). Reynolds teaches utilizing rollers (i.e., stretching) to obtain a stretched mixture ([0001], page 3). Reynolds teaches a greater degree of orientation and/or length is achieved by using a longer apparatus, repeatedly inserting the material into the apparatus, and maintaining the initial alignment of the material within the apparatus ([0001], page 6). The method taught by Reynold is advantageous because it allows for more effective and controllable direction of the fiber bundles than conventional methods ([0001], page 8).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to further process the mixture taught by Liepa using the stretching process taught by Reynolds to allow for more effective and controllable direction of the fiber bundles. In addition, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be able to achieve the desired degree of orientation of 1.1 or more by routine optimization by utilizing factors such as using a longer apparatus, repeatedly inserting the material into the apparatus, and maintaining the initial alignment of the material within the apparatus. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989) (Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results).
With regard to Claim 2, Liepa is silent to the stretch ratio.
Reynolds teaches increasing material piece length is important for producing products with a good quality white texture ([0001], page 6) and the desired minimum size of the material is what gives it a sufficient final tissue structure within the appropriate processing time ([0001], page 6).
Per the applicants specification, “stretch ratio” is defined as a value obtained by dividing the length of the stretched mixture in the direction of the stretching by the length of the first step mixture in the direction of the stretching (specification [0177]). Thus, the stretch ratio is directly related to the length of the stretched mixture.
Therefore, because Reynolds teaches the length is important to good quality white texture and that the size of the what gives a sufficient final tissue structure, than it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of the stretched material to achieve the desired stretch ratio which as a result will achieve the desired texture and tissue stretch of the final product. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
With regard to Claim 4, Liepa teaches the binder can comprises carrageenan gum (Col 7 line 65). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize carrageenan is a thermally reversible gel-forming polysaccharide as also support by applicant specification paragraph 75. The binder may also comprise carboxymethyl cellulose as a binder. One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that carboxymethyl cellulose is a thermally irreversible binder as described in paragraphs 63-63 in applicants specification.
Claim 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa (US 4001441 A), Reynolds (JP 01112953 A) and Komatsu et al. (herein referred to as Komatsu, JP 04228037 A)
With regard to Claim 3, modified Liepa is silent to molding the stretched mixture to obtain a molded product and heating the molder product to harden the molded product.
Komatsu teaches a method for producing a block-shaped food material that is of a considerable size, has a good appearance, and has a meat-like texture ([0007]). Komatsu teaches a block-shaped food material that is extremely similar to meat in size, appearance, texture, etc. can be obtained by molding a fibrous water-containing material (i.e., stretched mixture) to obtain a molded product and heating the molded product in a fixed compressed state ([0010]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Liepa to include the molding and heating processes as taught by Komatsu to create a food material that is extremely similar to meat in size, appearance, texture, etc.
With regard to Claim 12, Liepa teaches after the formation of the mixture the product may be cut or otherwise formed into suitable shapes, heated, or otherwise further treated (Col 9 lines 46-47). But is silent to cutting the stretched mixture perpendicular in orientation to the fibers and bundling the plurality of stretched mixture before or after cutting.
Komatsu teaches by choosing the appropriate cutting method, it is possible to obtain cooked meat with unprecedented improvements in terms of how easily it can be cut, how easily it can be chewed, and how easily it falls apart. Specifically Komatsu teaches cutting the mixture perpendicular to the oriented fibers to create a steak-like texture ([0039]). Komatsu teaches meat tissue is generally considered to be composed of bundles of muscle fibers made of protein, efforts are being made to obtain fibrous or fibrously organized food materials in order to resemble meat tissue ([0002]). It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to bundle to mixture before or after cutting to obtain a fibrously organized food materials in order to resemble meat tissue through routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) "[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."
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Liepa to cut the mixture perpendicular to the oriented fibers to obtain cooked meat with unprecedented improvements in terms of how easily it can be cut, how easily it can be chewed, and how easily it falls apart.
Claims 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa (US 4001441 A), Reynolds (JP 01112953 A), and Woods et al. (herein referred to as Woods, US 20080179342 A1).
With regard to Claim 5, Modified Liepa is silent to stretching the mixture in a direction perpendicular to a plane including a rotation axis of a set of rollers.
Woods teaches a fibrous material handling and feeding system (abstract). Woods teaches the fibers are dispensed at right angles, more or less, to the longitudinal axes of the rollers, resulting in lessening fiber disturbance ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Liepa to utilize the fiber orientation as taught by Woods to lessening the fiber disturbance.
With regard to Claim 10, Liepa is silent to the stretching comprising passing the mixture through a plurality of sets of rollers arranged in one direction.
Reynolds teaches stretching the mixture by passing the mixture through a plurality of sets of rollers arranged in one direction ([0001], page 3). The rollers as taught by Reynolds have no cracks and is easy to clean, which is a significant advantage in the food manufacturing process ([0001], page 8).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liepa to utilize the rollers as taught by Reynolds because it is easy to clean.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa (US 4001441 A), Reynolds (JP 01112953 A), and Kindermann (US 20060003681 A1).
With regard to Claim 6, modified Liepa is silent to stretching the mixture in a direction parallel to the rotation axis of a set of rollers.
Kindermann teaches a meat rolling device (title). Kindermann teaches the meat flows apart transversely to the processing direction according to the applied pressure, i.e. in axial direction of the rollers ([0011]). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the meat is flowing in the axial direction of the rollers than it would be considered parallel to the axial direction of the rollers. With regard to the rollers, Kindermann teaches the distance between the two rolling mechanisms is variably adjustable ([0036]). Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably be able to reduce the distance between the set of rollers by routine optimization. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) "[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."
Therefore, Kindermann imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that the claimed process of stretching in the mixture in a direction parallel to the rotation axis of a set of rollers was known for such a thing to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of a someone with ordinary skill in the art to stretch the mixture in a direction parallel to the rotation axis of a set of rollers because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa (US 4001441 A), Reynolds (JP 01112953 A), Kindermann (US 20060003681 A1), and Rantala (CZ 293998 B6)
With regard to Claim 7, modified Liepa is silent to the roller having an uneven surface with a shape of a spiral.
Kindermann teaches a meat rolling device (title). Kindermann teaches the device comprises rollers with an uneven surface ([0009], Figures 1-2). Kindermann teaches the rolling material "flow apart" in the grooves of the roller teeth. In this rolling operation, the processed fresh meat is "kneaded thoroughly" and structure of the fresh meat is also relaxed or tendered ([0031]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Liepa to include the uneven roller surface as taught by Kindermann to knead the rolling material (i.e., stretched mixture) thoroughly and therefore relax or tenderize the product.
However, the combination of modified Liepa and Kindermann is silent to the uneven surface being in the shape of a spiral.
Rantala teaches a method and device for processing fibrous raw material ([0001]). Rantala teaches using rollers have tooth-shaped grooves that spirally wind on the surface of their outer shells and consist of grooves and ridges. The walls of these grooves are continuous. The present invention can be used with both wood chips and annual plant material ([0039]). Rantala teaches due to the spiral structure on their surface and opposite directions of rotation, the material in the gap is crushed or ground until it is crushed. Since there is no direct contact between the rollers there is no splitting or cutting effect on the fibrous material. The spirals in the
spiral structure of two adjacent cylinders are preferably directed differently ([0071]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of modified Liepa and Kindermann to include the uneven spiral shape roller as taught by Rantala to crushed or ground the mixture without a splitting or cutting effect on the fibrous material.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa (US 4001441 A), Reynolds (JP 01112953 A) and Yang et al. (herein referred to as Yang, US 3814823 A).
With regard to Claim 8, modified Liepa is silent to wherein stretching the mixture comprises gripping and pulling a surface of the mixture.
Yang teaches a process of forming a meat-like protein-containing product having unidirectional parallel fiber structure similar to that of natural meat fiber structure (abstract). Yang teaches stretching the workable protein dough by subjecting the dough to the well-known “pulling taffy” method (Col 6 lines 44-55). Yang teaches this stretching is essential for providing a unidirectional parallel meat-like fiber structure (Col 5 lines 69-75).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Liepa to include the “taffy pulling” method as taught by Yang to provide a unidirectional parallel meat-like fiber structure to the product.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa (US 4001441 A), Reynolds (JP 01112953 A) and Sato et al. (herein referred to as Sato, EP 3868213 A1).
With regard to Claim 9, modified Liepa is silent to stretching the mixture comprising pressing the mixture with a plate.
Sato teaches a dainty-food-like food product that efficiently takes advantage of soybean protein (abstract). Sato teaches placing the water-absorbed textured soy protein on a lower press plate of a press machine having an upper press plate having approximately planar surface and the lower press plate having approximately planar surface, and pressing the textured soy protein with the upper and lower press plates while heating at 100°C or higher to reduce a thickness of the water-absorbed textured soy protein ([0009], [0029]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Liepa to include the pressing as taught by Sato to reduce the thickness of the product.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liepa (US 4001441 A), Reynolds (JP 01112953 A), Redl et al. (herein referred to as Redl, US 20170258109 A1), and Hibbert et al. (herein referred to as Hibbert, US 3988485 A)
With regard to Claim 11, Modified Liepa teaches stretching the mixture ([0001], page 3) and repeatedly inserting the material into the apparatus to achieve a greater degree of orientation ([0001], page 6). However, modified Liepa is silent to cutting the stretched material and stacking the cuttings to be aligned longitudinally.
Redl teaches a method for obtaining an extended shelf-life proteinaceous meat analogue (abstract). Redl teaches obtaining a dough by mixing typically through an extrusion ([0015], [0021]). The dough taught by Redl reads on the stretched mixture. Next, Redl teaches the dough can be further shaped wherein the shaping step according to the invention comprises at least one or a combination of cutting, molding, sheeting and agglomerating steps ([0020]-[0022]). Redl teaches the sheeting step may be implemented by compressing dough pieces between cylindrical rolls ([0027]). Redl teaches the shaping steps such as the cutting, agglomerating, sheeting and molding steps can be repeated in order to obtain a product having a fibrillar structure which can be close to the myofril structure of skeletal muscles ([0030]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Liepa to include the cutting, and stretching the stretched mixture cuttings as taught by Redl to obtain a product having a fibrillar structure which can be close to the myofril structure of skeletal muscles.
Continuing, the combination of modified Liepa and Redl is silent to stacking the stretched mixture cuttings to be aligned longitudinally.
Hibbert teaches meat-like foods having a perceptible fiber bundle structure resembling that of natural muscle meat (abstract). Hibbert teaches the bulk of the fibers are substantially oriented in a generally parallel manner and passing groups of those fibers between parallel rollers with reciprocating movement in the direction of their axes (Claim 5). Redl teaches this movement rolls the fibres in the bundle together and causes them to become entwined or enravelled in a manner that ensures the preservation of perceptible bundle structure in subsequent processing and the final product (col 3 lines 13-17).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of modified Liepa and Redl to include the alignment taught by Hibbert to ensures the preservation of perceptible bundle structure in subsequent processing and the final product.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the IDS filed 11 December 2026, a copy of the “Written Opinion of the ISA issued in International application No. PCT/JP2023/00450 on May 16, 2023”, was submitted and the IDS has been reconsidered.
First, applicant argues that one with ordinary skill in the art would have been discouraged from applying the stretching process of Reynolds to Liepa’a laminate of fibers and binders because the applicant argues that the combination would completely destroy the “stringy eating quality” of the meat analogue taught by Liepa. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Liepa teaches after the formation of the mixture the product may be cut or otherwise formed into suitable shapes, heated, or otherwise further treated (Col 9 lines 46-47). There are no limitations in Liepa which would dissuade someone with ordinary skill in the art that the stretching, as taught by Reynolds, would “destroy” the meat analogue taught by Liepa. On the contrary, Reynolds provides ample motivation that the “further treated” taught by Liepa could advantageously include the stretching process taught by Reynolds to allow for more effective and controllable direction of the fiber bundles. Thus, applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Further, applicant argues that because Liepa exclusively recites non-pressurizing coating techniques (Applicant points to Liepa Col 8, lines 41-46) this indicates an intentional avoidance of subjecting the aligned fibers to any significant physical pressure that could damage or consolidate their structures. This argument is not persuasive because there is no connection between the processes of spraying the aligned fibers, as cited by applicant, and the stretching technique taught by Reynolds. Further, Liepa clearly teaches embodiments where sheeting is used under pressures of 1000-3000 psi (Col 6 lines 5-16) Which is evidence that the mixture can withstand significant physical pressure. Applicant’s argument is thus not found to be persuasive.
Next, applicant argues with regards to claim 4 that Liepa merely provides a list of alternative edible binder material to be used individually. Applicant argues that there is no disclosure in Liepa or any other cited reference to specifically select and combine a “thermally reversible gel-forming polysaccharide’ and a “thermally irreversible gel- forming polysaccharide” from the extensive list taught by Liepa. However, Liepa teaches the use of a binder with multiple components (Col 10 lines 32-45). Then Liepa teaches the binder can comprises carrageenan gum (Col 7 line 65). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize carrageenan is a thermally reversible gel-forming polysaccharide as also support by applicant specification paragraph 75. The binder may also comprise carboxymethyl cellulose as a binder. One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that carboxymethyl cellulose is a thermally irreversible binder as described in paragraphs 62-63 in applicants specification. Thus, applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that Liepa and the other cited references are all silent regarding the “unique synergistic effect” achieved by the combination of claim 4. This argument is not persuasive because, as discussed above, Liepa teaches the claimed combination of claim 4 as supported by applicant’s specification paragraphs 62-63 and 75. Further the “unique synergistic effect” argued by applicant is in and of itself not evidence of an unexpected result. Please see MPEP 716.02(a) which teaches a greater than additive effect is not necessarily sufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness because such an effect can either be expected or unexpected. Applicants must further show that the results were greater than those which would have been expected from the prior art to an unobvious extent, and that the results are of a significant, practical advantage. Ex parte The NutraSweet Co., 19 USPQ2d 1586 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1991) (Evidence showing greater than additive sweetness resulting from the claimed mixture of saccharin and L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine was not sufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness because the teachings of the prior art lead to a general expectation of greater than additive sweetening effects when using mixtures of synthetic sweeteners.) Therefore, applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KARLA I DIVIESTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (MST).
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 (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.
/K.I.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights