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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-15 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.
In claim 1, the recitation of “ the denaturation temperature” does not have proper antecedent basis. Step c and d are vague and indefinite. Step c recites pushing the composition through a constriction and cooling the composition through a cooling die; however, it’s unclear how the two steps are related. Step c states pushing through a constriction but it’s unclear where the composition goes after being pushed through the constriction and in step d, it’s unclear how the composition is in a cooling die. The “ wherein “ clause is vague and indefinite. The claim states “ the constriction reduces a cross sectional area compared to a cross sectional area before the constriction and wherein a cross sectional area after the constriction is increased again ” but it’s unclear what this cross sectional area refers to; is it the cross sectional area of the extruder or some other device or what?
In claim 3, the limitation “ fava protein or wheat gluten” in the Markush grouping is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is intended by the alternative “or”.
Claim 6 has the same problem as claim 1.
In claim 7, it is unclear what is meant by “ Pas -1” . Does applicant mean Pa* s?
In claim 8, the recitation of “ at the end of the cooling die” is unclear and lacks antecedent basis because the claims have not define the cooling die; thus, it’s unclear what would be considered at the end.
In claim 10, it is unclear what is intended by “ ( based on total composition)” in parentheses. Feature in parentheses is not considered part of the claim.
Claim 15 has the same problem as claim 10.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pibarot ( WO 2020/208104).
For claim 1, Pibarot discloses a method of making an extruded plant-based food product. The method comprises the steps of feeding an extruder barrel (34) with a composition comprising plant protein and fiber, extruding the composition in the extruder (34), pushing the composition through inlet manifold 36 to a cooling die (37), cooling the composition in the cooling die (37), injecting an aqueous solution into the extruded composition. The exrtruder barrel is heated to heat the raw materials of plant protein and water. The composition is moved through an inlet of the extruder through an extrusion length of the extruder and out of the extruder into die 10 which encompasses the cooling die. Example 1 shows the raw materials are heated at temperature reaching 165 in barrels 5-8 and 100 in barrel 9 and cooling to 75 in last barrel. The instant specification discloses heating the extruder barrels to a temperature between 80-300. The temperature in Pibarot falls within the range disclosed. Thus, it’s obviously inherent the temperature is above the denaturation temperature of the plant protein. Example 1 discloses 8.5kg wheat gluten, 4.5 calcium carbonate and 12.5kg water. Thus, the percent of plant protein is 33% and the percent water is 49%. The amounts fall within the claimed range. As shown in figure 1 of Pibarod, the composition exits extruder 34 which comprises the last barrel through inlet manifold (36) which is shown to be a narrow transition between the extruder 34 and cooling die 37, this is equivalent to the claimed constriction. Figure 1 also show the narrowing of the manifold 36 from the end of the extruder showing a reduction in cross sectional area. The cross sectional area is increased again after the manifold in the cooling die 37. The claim does not define the location of the cross-sectional areas. Furthermore, Pibarot discloses in paragraph 0081 that the composition of plant protein and water moves from the extruder through die 10 comprising the cooling die. The composition moves from extruder (34) into an analogue inlet into a channel. The lower part 82 of the die 10 further comprises an extrusion portion inlet 102 which reduce an area of flow path of the composition. The extrusion portion inlet 102 provides a consistent diameter flour restriction prior to the composition entering the channel 103. ( see paragraphs 0019, 0056-0060,0063-0066,0075-0081, example 1)
For claim 2, Pibarot discloses the composition does not comprise protein from an animal source. ( see paragraph 0063)
For claims 3, Pibarot discloses plant protein including wheat gluten, pea protein, faba protein, soy protein et.. ( see paragraph 0063)
For claim 4, Pibarot discloses a combination of two or more plant protein including pea protein, faba protein, soy protein, wheat gluten. In table 6, Pibarod discloses soya protein and wheat gluten in 50:50 ratio. So the percent of wheat gluten in the protein mixture is 50%. ( see table 6)
For claim 5, Pibarot discloses in example 1 heating to 165 degrees C. The temperature falls within the claimed range. ( see example 1)
For claim 8, Pibarot discloses the cooling die may be held at a constant temperature between about 40-95 degrees C. Thus, the product will be in such temperature range at the end. ( see paragraphs 0059-0060)
For claim 9, Pibarot discloses cutting of the extruded composition. ( see paragraph 0061).
For claim 13, Pibarot discloses the aqueous solution is water or water based solution. ( see paragraph 0078)
Pibarot does not disclose the reduction percentage and the use of needle injector as in claim 1, the percent reduction as in claim 6, the viscosity as in claim 8, the amount as in claim 10, the use multiple needle injector as in claim 11, the temperature of the aqueous solution as in claim 12, the ingredients as in claim 14 and the ingredients and amount as in claim 15.
Pibarot discloses in paragraph 0081 that the composition of plant protein and water moves from the extruder through die 10 comprising the cooling die. The composition moves from extruder (34) into an analogue inlet into a channel. The lower part 82 of the die 10 further comprises an extrusion portion inlet 102 which reduce an area of flow path of the composition. The extrusion portion inlet 102 provides a consistent diameter flour restriction prior to the composition entering the channel 103. The connection position at the inlet 100 may be of different sizes and a more consistent product may be achieved through the use of extrusion portion inlet 102. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the percent of reduction of the cross-section area depending on the extruder and the degree of flow restriction desired for the composition as it flows through. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. Pibarot discloses injecting aqueous solution to the composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use needle injection because needle is well known device to use for injection. The viscosity of the composition can vary depending on the amounts of ingredients and extent of heating. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the proper viscosity to provide optimum processing and use. It would have been obvious to use multiple needles when desiring to injecting different solutions into the extruded composition. It would have been obvious to determine the appropriate temperature of the solution depending on the types of solution. For example, if room temperature water is added, the temperature of the solution would be about 20-25 degrees C. It would have been obvious to add flavoring, coloring etc.. to the solution when desiring to affect the appearance, taste and flavor of the product. It would have been obvious to determine the amount of the additive and the amount of solution injected depending on the taste, appearance and flavor desired. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
December 9, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793