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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on December 13, 2023. The earliest effective filing date of the application is September 7, 2023.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), filed on September 7, 2023.
Status of Application
The amendment filed May 22, 2026 with the Remarks has been entered. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1 – 18 and 20 – 23
Withdrawn claims: 1 – 16
Amended claims: 17, 18, and 22
Cancelled claims: 19
Claims currently under examination: 17, 18, and 20 – 23
By not repeating the previously presented objection/rejection(s), it is sufficiently clear that said objection/rejection(s) are withdrawn.
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 17, 18, and 20 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gwiazda et al. (Microstructural Studies on Texturized Vegetable Protein Products: Effects of Oil Addition and Transformation of Raw Materials in Various Sections of a Twin Screw Extruder. National food Research Institute, Yatabe, Tsukuba Ibaraki, Japan 305. Food Microstructure. (USA), 1987 Vol. 6, pp. 57-61, Scanning Microscopy lnternational, Chicago (AMF O'Hare) , IL 60666 USA – IDS Filed on August 28, 2025).
Regarding claim 17, Gwiazda teaches a texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) comprising defatted soybean meal comprising 55% crude protein (i.e., vegetable protein) and 10.5% moisture (p. 58, paragraph 2). Gwiazda teaches the texturized protein product is extrusion-cooked, resulting in well-aligned fiber-like structures within the texturized protein product (i.e., the protein product has a fibrous region in at least a part thereof – p. 58, paragraph 8). Gwiazda teaches the texturized protein product comprises air cells within the fibrous structure (i.e., the protein food material has a porous structure – p. 58, paragraph 8).
With respect to the limitation that the protein food material has “a percentage of a number of voids having a cross-sectional area of 0.1 mm2 or less in a cross section parallel to a direction orthogonal to a fiber direction is 50% or more with respect to a number of all voids present in the cross section”, the instant specification states microvoids form a dense porous structure, for example, in a cross section parallel to a direction orthogonal to the fiber direction, a percentage of the number of voids having a cross-sectional area of 0.1 mm2 or less to the number of all voids present in the cross section is 50% or more ([0054]). The small and dense voids in the porous structure are correlated with the fibrous texture imitating livestock meat and the chewy texture ([0054]). Therefore, it is interpreted “the cross section parallel to a direction orthogonal to a fiber direction” is a cross section of the protein food material that is sliced “against the grain” of the protein food material. In other words, it is sliced orthogonal to the protein food material fibers, and the resulted cross section is evaluated. Such a cross section is illustrated below for clarity of the record:
PNG
media_image1.png
741
675
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Gwiazda shows sample crosswise (i.e., orthogonal) sections of the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) in Figure 4, samples E – H shown below (with added 0.1 mm2 scale example):
PNG
media_image2.png
466
1396
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Gwiazda teaches the fibers are stained (they are black), therefore the pores (i.e., voids) are white in the figure above. By comparing the area of the white pores (i.e., voids) in the samples E – H to the exemplary 0.1 mm2 square, it is determined that 50% or more of the total pores (i.e., voids) in the crosswise sections of the texturized protein products E – H (i.e., a protein food material) have a cross-sectional area of 0.1 mm2 or less.
With respect to the limitation that the protein food material has “an average thickness of a wall separating the voids from each other is 200 μm or less”, attention is drawn to the scale indicator of 500 µm at the bottom right of the Figure 4 of Gwiazda above. The average thickness of a wall separating the voids from each other is 200 μm or less in the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) of Gwiazda.
While Gwiazda does not explicitly state the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) has the precisely claimed pore (i.e., void) size and distance between voids, MPEP § 2112.I states “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer”. In this case, the fact that Gwiazda is silent with respect to the pore (i.e., void) size and distance between voids in the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) does not render novel the previously unappreciated characteristics of the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) of Gwiazda.
With respect to the limitation that the protein food material has “an average value of ratios of a length of a major axis to a length of a minor axis of the voids present in a cross section parallel to the fiber direction of the protein food material is 5.1 or more”, the instant specification states among the points constituting the outline of the void, two points having the longest distance there between are selected, a line segment connecting the two points is defined as a major axis, and a length of the line segment is defined as a length of the major axis ([0096]). Among straight line groups orthogonal to the major axis line, a straight line group having two or more intersections with the contour of the void is defined as a minor axis group ([0096]). In the minor axis group, a straight line having the longest distance between the most distant intersections is selected as a minor axis line ([0096]). A line segment connecting an intersection of the minor axis line and two points farthest from each other on the contour of the void is defined as a minor axis, and a length thereof is defined as a length of the minor axis of the void ([0096]). The aspect ratio of the void is calculated using the following equation: Aspect ratio of void = Length of major axis of void/Length of minor axis of void ([0096]). According to the description of the major and minor axis lengths above, an illustration is provided below to add clarity to the record:
PNG
media_image3.png
435
383
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, “an average value of ratios of a length of a major axis to a length of a minor axis of the voids present in a cross section parallel to the fiber direction of the protein food material is 5.1 or more” is interpreted to indicate that the voids are, on average, at least 5.1 times as long as they are wide in a lengthwise section (i.e., a cross section that runs parallel to the fibers).
Gwiazda shows sample lengthwise (i.e., parallel) sections of the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) in Figure 4, samples A – D shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
452
1306
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Gwiazda teaches after extrusion cooking, the extrudates observed in lengthwise sections show well aligned fiber-like structures (p. 58, paragraph 8). Gwiazda teaches the lengthwise orientation of the fibers decreased, thickness of the fibrils increased, and size of the air cells (i.e., voids) increased as the oil content increased (p. 58, paragraph 8). Therefore, the oil content reliably controls the dimensions of the pores during extrusion, as shown in Figure 4, and as recited in the disclosure of Gwiazda.
Therefore, while Gwiazda does not teach the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) has voids with the precisely claimed dimensions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the oil content of the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) during routine optimization to find the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) with the desired void dimensions. MPEP §2144.05(II) states where 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). The claimed void dimensions, an average value of ratios of a length of a major axis to a length of a minor axis of the voids present in a cross section parallel to the fiber direction of the protein food material is 5.1 or more, would thus be obvious.
Regarding claim 18, attention is drawn to the scale indicator of 500 µm at the bottom right of the Figure 4 of Gwiazda above. The number of pores (i.e., voids) in the crosswise sections of the texturized protein products E – H (i.e., a protein food material) is inherently greater than 0.5 voids/ mm2.
Regarding claim 20, Gwiazda teaches after extrusion cooking, the texturized protein products observed in lengthwise sections show well aligned fiber-like structures (p. 58, paragraph 8; Figure 4, Samples A – D). Figure 4, samples A – D is shown below with exemplary 30° angle:
PNG
media_image5.png
455
1442
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Given the pores (i.e., voids) in samples A – C of Figure 4 of Gwiazda above are highly aligned, the average angle between the major axes of the pores (i.e., voids) is below 30 °.
Regarding claim 21, the recitation “wherein a degree of orientation XA/XB satisfies 1.005 ≤ XA/XB, in which, in an infrared absorption spectrum obtained by measuring the fibrous region by a polarized infrared total reflection absorption measurement method, XA is an intensity ratio of a peak intensity of an amide I band to a peak intensity of an amide II band measured by irradiating the fibrous region with polarized light parallel to the fiber direction of the fibrous region, and XB is an intensity ratio of a peak intensity of an amide I band to a peak intensity of an amide II band measured by irradiating the fibrous region with polarized light perpendicular to the fiber direction of the fibrous region”, is a recitation of how a property of the composition of claim 17 is measured. In this case, the instant specification states the fact that the degree of orientation XA/XB in the fibrous region satisfies 1.005 ≤ XA/XB means that the protein (that is, the protein fibers) included in the fibrous region is highly oriented ([0108]). Therefore, the recitation above is interpreted to indicate the fibrous region is highly oriented (i.e., well aligned).
Gwiazda teaches after extrusion cooking, the texturized protein products observed in lengthwise sections show well aligned fiber-like structures (p. 58, paragraph 8; Figure 4, Samples A – D).
Therefore, while Gwiazda does not explicitly state the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) has a degree of orientation XA/XB satisfies 1.005 ≤ XA/XB, in which, in an infrared absorption spectrum obtained by measuring the fibrous region by a polarized infrared total reflection absorption measurement method, XA is an intensity ratio of a peak intensity of an amide I band to a peak intensity of an amide II band measured by irradiating the fibrous region with polarized light parallel to the fiber direction of the fibrous region, and XB is an intensity ratio of a peak intensity of an amide I band to a peak intensity of an amide II band measured by irradiating the fibrous region with polarized light perpendicular to the fiber direction of the fibrous region, MPEP § 2112.I states “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer”. In this case, the fact that Gwiazda is silent with respect to the degree of orientation XA/XB of the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) does not render novel the previously unappreciated characteristics of the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) of Gwiazda.
Regarding claim 22, Gwiazda teaches the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) is produced by kneading defatted soybean meal (i.e., vegetable protein), and soybean oil (p. 58, paragraph 2); then extruding the kneaded mixture through a twin screw extruder at 180 °C (p. 58, paragraph 4). Gwiazda teaches after extrusion cooking, the texturized protein products observed in lengthwise sections show well aligned fiber-like structures (p. 58, paragraph 8; Figure 4, Samples A – D).
While Gwiazda does not explicitly state the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) has a standard deviation of the percentage of the number of voids having a cross-sectional area of 0.1 mm2 or less in the cross section parallel to the direction orthogonal to the fiber direction, as measured within the precisely claimed parameters, the instant specification states protein food material is produced by kneading a protein-containing mixture containing a vegetable protein and water by pressurizing and heating the protein-containing mixture in an extrusion section of a twin screw extruder; and after kneading, extruding the kneaded protein-containing mixture at a temperature of from 150°C to lower than 180°C in an outlet of the extrusion section while swelling the kneaded protein-containing mixture inside a discharge die mounted at a downstream end of the extrusion section in an extrusion direction ([0008]). Therefore, because the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) is produced by kneading defatted soybean meal (i.e., vegetable protein), and soybean oil; then extruding the kneaded mixture through a twin screw extruder at 180 °C, as in the method of producing the protein food material of the instant application, the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) inherently has a standard deviation of the percentage of the number of voids having a cross-sectional area of 0.1 mm2 or less in the cross section parallel to the direction orthogonal to the fiber direction, as measured within the precisely claimed parameters. MPEP § 2112.01.I states where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In this case, the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) of Gwiazda and the protein food material of claim 22 are produced by substantially identical processes, therefore they inherently have the same properties, including texture.
Furthermore, MPEP § 2112.I states “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer”. In this case, the fact that Gwiazda is silent with respect to whether the texturized protein product (i.e., a protein food material) has a standard deviation of the percentage of the number of voids having a cross-sectional area of 0.1 mm2 or less in the cross section parallel to the direction orthogonal to the fiber direction, as measured within the precisely claimed parameters, does not render novel the previously unappreciated precisely claimed properties of the protein food product.
Regarding claim 23, Gwiazda teaches extrusion is often utilized to produce meat analogs (i.e., molded meat alternatives) from defatted vegetable proteins (p. 57, paragraph 1). Gwiazda teaches the texturized protein product is made from defatted soybean meal (i.e., vegetable protein) and is extruded (p. 58, paragraphs 2 – 4). Therefore, the texturized protein product of Gwiazda is considered to be a molded meat alternative.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Gwiazda does not disclose the protein food material of claim 17, as amended (p. 11, paragraph 1).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. While Gwiazda does not explicitly disclose the protein food material of claim 17, as amended, the disclosure of Gwiazda renders obvious the composition by disclosing result-effective variables related to oil content and void size. See the rejection of claim 17 above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 LARK JULIA MORENO whose telephone number is (571)272-2337. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 - 4:30 M - F.
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.
/JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/L.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights