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 the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of the request for continued examination, amendment and response filed 5/26/2026. Claims 1,2,5-10,12,16-19,23,25,27,28,35 and 37-39 are pending in the application. Claims 1 and 39 were amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1,2,5-7,9,10,12, 16-18, 23,25,27, 28,35,37,38 and 39, are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by, or under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Herz et al. (WO2021009075A1) cited in an IDS.
Regarding claims 1, 9, 27 and 39, Herz discloses a fat mimetic and a method of making (emulsion gel, exemplified in Example 1). The emulsion gel is composed of 70 % (w/w) oil- phase and 30 % of a 10 % soy protein isolate dispersion (corresponding to a protein to water ratio of 1:9 in the composition as claimed in claim 7) , resulting in a total concentration of 3 % SPI in the emulsion,. The oil phase contained either pure canola oil or was prepared with 70 % canola oil and 30 % solid fat, which was melted into the liquid oil. A mini food processor was used to make the emulsion by slowly adding the oil phase to the SPI dispersion while constantly stirring. When all the oil was mixed in, 1 % sodium chloride and 0.75 % of a 10 % transglutaminase solution (25 mg TG/ g SPI, corresponding to 75mg /100g of the emulsion) were added (as in claim 12) to make an oil in water emulsion, water being the continuous phase to which oil is added, as in claim 16. Then, the emulsion was filled into flexible aluminum forms (corresponding functionally to a casing as in claim 10 and 28, as the claims do not specify a casing material) and heat treated in a heating chamber. First, it was heated to a core temperature of 40 °C which was kept constant for one hour to give the transglutaminase the possibility to react. Next, the product was heated at a chamber temperature of 90 °C until it reached a core temperature of 85 °C and cooled with a cold shower for 10 min, before storing at 2 °C.
Herz further discloses slicing the fat mimetic and layering the slice in preparing bacon analogue (page 12 paragraph 2).
Herz therefore discloses an animal fat substitute composition and its method of making, as claimed. Regarding the limitation of “composition exhibits contraction upon cooking”, it is expected that the method in Herz would produce a composition with the claimed characteristic having been prepared by a method identical to the claimed method with the claimed materials.
As in claims 2,5-7, Herz therefore discloses an animal fat substitute comprising one or more plant proteins, exemplified by soy protein, and water, wherein an exemplary protein to water ratio is 1:9.
Regarding claim 17, soy protein inherently has amino acids glycine and glutamine.
Regarding claim 18,Herz discloses soy protein in the fat mimetic.
Regarding claim 23, Herz discloses adding dietary fiber to the fat mimetic wherein the dietary fiber having a native starch content of 35-40% (page 4 lines 12-15) The fat mimetic therefore comprises a native starch as claimed. The open ended transitional phrase “comprising” does not preclude a source of native starch.
Regarding claim 25, the fat mimetic in Herz comprises about 70% lipid phase which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 37, Herz discloses a bacon product.
Regarding claim 38, Herz discloses plant-based bacon as claimed.
Regarding product by process claim 39, the method of making is taught in Herz as described above with steps of forming a mixture of one or more plant proteins, a plant based oil and a plant based fat, and combinations , and water , emulsifying the mixture to form an emulsion, adding transglutaminase which inherently stabilizes the emulsion by cross-linking, thermally processing the emulsion. The emulsion inherently exhibits contraction on cooking, having been made with identical components by an identical method as claimed.
Herz therefore anticipates or renders obvious the subject matter in claims 1,2,5-7,9,10,12, 16-18, 23,25,27,35,37,38 and 39, rendering the claims unpatentable.
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 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herz et al. (WO2021009075A1) cited in an IDS.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed with reference to claim 1 above, Herz discloses an exemplary protein to water ratio of 1:9. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a dispersion ratio depending upon the nature of the protein and the desired texture of the sliceable emulsion with a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant has not shown any unexpected effects of the claimed ratio.
Regarding claim 19, an effective amount of transglutaminase would vary based on activity of the enzyme, the type of protein substrate. Herz discloses mixing in an exemplary 0.75 % of a 10 % transglutaminase solution (25 mg TG/ g SPI, corresponding to 75mg /100g of the emulsion). One of ordinary skill in the art would apply an effective amount of transglutaminase to obtain a desired stable structure in the emulsion, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 8 and 19 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Response to Arguments
Claim amendments render the previous rejections moot. New grounds of rejection are detailed in the current Office action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights