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
Claims 1-15 filed on 8/16/2023 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/16/2023 was filed before the first Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 and dependent claims 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.
Claim 1 recites a meat substitute provided with a flavor agent coating with no further information except that the flavor agent coating optionally is between 0.1% to 5% of the weight of the meat substitute. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 recites “flavor precursors” with an optional listing. The scope of the claimed “flavor precursors” is not known.
Claim 6 and 7, 13 and 14 recites a number of optional amounts without specifying a claimed range rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Furthermore the optional amounts are narrower recitation of the broadly claimed values for the claimed component, rendering the claims indefinite.
Claim 8 is unclear and broadly interpreted to recite a flavor agent coating comprising oil that may be a plant oil. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Nadal et al. (WO2020232347A1) in view of Shen (Yeast Extract a great off note blocker), Mao et al. (US2016235094A1) and Varadan et al., (US10172380 B2) cited in an IDS.
Regarding claim 1 and 2, Nadal and Varadan (Examples 10 and 11) disclose a meat substitute that is a meat substitute hamburger [0078].
Regarding the coating Nadal discloses a sprayed on coating comprising an oil base. [0086], thereby implicitly disclosing a method as in claim 15.
Regarding claims 3-7, Nadal does not specifically disclose an yeast extract coating. However Shen discloses benefits of an yeast extract coating to improve palatability of a meat substitute, but does not specifically disclose application as a coating. Mao however discloses applying yeast extract as a coating on meat substitute pet food products to improve their palatability.
As Nadal, Shen and Mao are directed to food products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply yeast extract as a coating in an oil base on a meat substitute product with a reasonable expectation of successfully improving the palatability and meat flavor of such a product.
An yeast extract as a flavor in Shen is expected to have a composition including limitations an in claims 3-7 as it provides flavor precursors of meat.
Regarding claim 8 Nadal discloses an oil that is a plant oil.
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Nadal and Varadan disclose an uncooked meat substitute that may be shaped as a hamburger and Varadan (Example 11) discloses a hamburger as in claims 10 and 11, wherein the meat like dough may comprise texturized soy protein.
Claim 12-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (US2013243916A1) in view of Nadal et al and further in view of Shen.
Regarding claim 12 Mao discloses a coating for a food product comprising 1-80% dry yeast extract which encompasses the claimed range. Nadal discloses spraying flavoring on a base of oil applied to a food product [0086]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined dry yeast extract with oil to ensure adherence of the dry extract to the surface of the meat substitute with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Shen discloses an yeast extract that is specifically applicable to a meat substitute. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the extract for the targeted application of improving the flavor and taste of a meat substitute with a reasonable expectation of success. An yeast extract as a flavor in Shen is expected to have a composition including limitations as claimed as it provides flavor precursors of meat.
Claims 1-15 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
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