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 applicant’s submission dated February 27, 2026, any objections and/or rejections made in previous actions and not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on February 27, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of copending application 18/547,255 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 23 is 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 23 recites the limitation "A process according to claim 1, wherein the pH increasing step" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no pH increasing step recited in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as reciting “A process according to claim 4, wherein the pH increasing step”.
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.
Claim 1-3, 8-14, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al. (US 20150351427 A1) in view of Kweldam (US 20110171359 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Rose et al. teaches a method of producing meat-like fibres from proteins by inclusion of milk proteins, [0013] specifically a composition comprising casein, hydrocolloids, [0014] and divalent metal cations. [0017] A specific embodiment teaches a solution comprising water [0030] and casein [0031] with sodium alginate [0031] at a temperature between 70-90°C. [0030] Then, a colloidal solution of micellar casein and calcium chloride is added with stirring, in order to form fibrous structures. [0033]
Rose et al. reads on a casein containing milk-based liquid by teaching a solution of water and caseinate, as evidenced by the instant specification disclosing a caseinate solution formed by dissolving sodium caseinate in water. [Pg. 23, Ln. 22-23] Additionally, the instant specification teaches a treatment step comprising increasing the temperature of the liquid to at least 60°C, [Pg. 8, Ln. 4-5] therefore, Rose et al. reads on the limitation of “subjecting said liquid to a treatment step”. Rose et al. reads on the limitation of a hydrocolloid capable of precipitating with divalent or polyvalent metal cations in sodium alginate and a divalent or polyvalent metal cation in calcium chloride.
Rose et al. does not teach the hydrocolloid being added to the composition after the treatment step or the use of native milk phosphates.
Kweldam teaches a method of producing a meat analog product comprising mixing a protein, a hydrocolloid capable of precipitating with metal cations, and water, then adding a metal cation with a valency of at least 2 in order to form a fibrous product. [0002] The protein product may be selected from a group comprising sodium caseinate [0018] and the hydrocolloid may be sodium alginate. [0022] Additionally, Kweldam teaches that the method performed with sodium caseinate is preferable due to the lack of calcium in the composition, allowing the method to be performed without phosphate. [0079]
Kweldam is silent to the use of “native milk phosphates” as recited in claim 1, but the instant specification teaches the use of powdered milk. [Example 2] Kweldam also teaches the use of powdered milk, [0018] which would be suitable as a casein replacement and comprise the native milk phosphates recited in claim 1. 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”. Therefore, the powdered milk taught by Kweldam reads on the limitation of native milk phosphates recited in claim 1.
Rose et al. and Kweldam exist within the same field of endeavor in that they both teach a method for producing a milk protein based-meat analog product. Where Rose et al. teaches a variety of milk proteins, Kweldam teaches sodium caseinate and powdered milk as preferable to casein protein due to the lack of calcium in the protein, and the powdered milk would contain native milk phosphates.
According to MPEP 2144.04 IV C, “See In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946), selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected any order of steps in the method taught by Rose et al. in order to determine the best method, including adding the hydrocolloid to the composition after the treatment step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teachings of Rose et al. in view of Kweldam to develop a method of preparing a fibrous composition that would have rendered obvious the invention recited in claim 1.
With respect to Claim 2, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Rose et al. teaches heating the liquid in the treatment step to between 70-90°C. [0031] Therefore, Rose et al. renders obvious claim 2.
With respect to Claim 3, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam teaches the invention recited in claim 2, as described above. Rose et al. teaches heating the casein-containing liquid to between 70-90°C. [0031] According to MPEP 2144.05 I, “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Therefore, Rose et al. renders obvious claim 3.
With respect to Claim 8, 9, and 22, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, the specific embodiment teaches 400g water [0030], 35 ml sunflower oil, [0037] which is about 32g, 40g casein, 1g sodium alginate, and 1g methylcellulose. [0031] This provides a casein containing liquid with a casein content of about 8.4%. This falls within the ranges recited in claims 8, 9, and 22. Therefore, Rose et al. renders obvious claims 8, 9, and 22.
With respect to Claim 10 and 11, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Rose teaches a casein containing liquid comprising acid casein [0031] and water [0030], and teaches that the starting materials are preferably powder. [0045] Therefore, Rose et al. renders obvious the limitation in claims 10 and 11 where the casein-containing milk-based liquid is dissolved casein powder.
With respect to Claim 12, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam teaches the invention recited in claim 10, as described above. Additionally, the protein product may be selected from a group comprising sodium caseinate. [0018] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Kweldam to have selected sodium caseinate in water for use as the casein-containing milk-based liquid in the method of Rose et al. due to the low free calcium content in order to produce a milk protein-based meat analog, and, thereby rendering obvious claim 12.
With respect to Claim 13, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Rose et al. teaches sodium alginate. [0031] Therefore, Rose et al. renders obvious claim 13.
With respect to Claim 14, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above. Additionally, Rose et al. teaches the addition of calcium chloride [0033] in order to introduce divalent metal cations. [0018] Therefore, Rose et al. renders obvious claim 14.
Claims 4-7, 18-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rose et al. (US 20150351427 A1) in view of Kweldam (US 20110171359 A1), in further view of Tolstoguzov et al. (CA 924175 A).
With respect to Claims 4 and 5, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam teaches the invention recited in claim 1, as described above, but both references are silent to the pH of the liquid during the treatment step.
Tolstoguzov et al. teaches a food stuff comprising protein and a fibrous structure that imitates meat and meat products. [Pg. 1, Ln. 1-4] Tolstoguzov et al. teaches that the method disclosed would reduce the laboriousness of the production and dispense with the use of expensive equipment. [Pg. 2, Ln. 14-19] The process taught by Tolstoguzov et al. teaches the use of a colloidal protein solution, coagulated under the effect of a salt comprising a bivalent metal, that is heated, homogenized, and subsequently shaped. [Pg. 3, Ln. 7-15] A colloidal protein composition taught by Tolstoguzov et al. includes casein [Pg. 4, Ln. 22-23] and water-soluble alginate. [Pg. 4, Ln. 3] Tolstoguzov et al. teaches that acceptable bivalent metals include calcium acetate and calcium chloride. [Pg. 5, Ln. 8-9]
Additionally, Tolstoguzov et al. teaches a specific embodiment of the invention wherein a casein-containing liquid is created, comprising 10g of sodium and 100g casein, and treated with heat between 40-60°C and a caustic soda, resulting in a liquid with 7.6 pH. [Pg. 8, Ln. 6-9] This process reads on the inclusion of a pH increasing step through the addition of the caustic soda.
Rose et al., Kweldam, and Tolstoguzov et al. exist within the same field of endeavor in that they are methods of producing fibrous meat analogs through the treatment of milk protein with alginates and divalent metal cations. Where Rose et al. teaches controlling the reaction through the temperature and concentration of the composition, Kweldam teaches sodium caseinate as a preferable casein protein due to the lack of calcium in the protein, and Tolstoguzov et al. teaches controlling the pH. Additionally, Tolstoguzov et al. teaches the method disclosed produces a product that is cheaper to produce [Pg. 4, Ln. 14-16] and has an increased thermal stability. [Pg. 3, Ln. 21-22]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Rose et al. to produce a milk protein-based meat alternative, and incorporate the teaching of Tolstoguzov et al. to produce a cheaper and more thermally stable product, wherein the pH of the casein-containing milk-based liquid is at least 6.8, and more specifically between 7 and 8, during the treatment step, thereby rendering obvious claims 4 and 5.
With respect to Claim 6 and 23, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam, and in further view of Tolstoguzov et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 4 and 5, as described above. Additionally, Tolstoguzov et al. teaches a pH increasing step that takes place during a heating step, wherein the temperature is between 40-60°C. [Pg. 8, Ln. 6-9] This temperature lies within the range recited in claim 23 and is conducted during the pH increasing step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Rose et al. to produce a milk protein-based meat alternative, and incorporate the teaching of Tolstoguzov et al. to produce a cheaper and more thermally stable product, wherein the pH increasing step is performed tandem with the temperature increasing step, thereby rendering obvious claim 6 and 23 obvious.
With respect to Claim 7, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam, and in further view of Tolstoguzov et al. teaches the invention recited in claim 6, as described above. Additionally, Tolstoguzov et al. teaches a pH increasing step that takes place during a heating step, wherein the temperature is between 40-60°C. [Pg. 8, Ln. 6-9] According to MPEP 2144.05 I, “In the case where claim ranges ‘overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” The temperature range taught by Tolstoguzov et al. overlaps with the range recited in claim 7. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Rose et al. to produce a milk protein-based meat alternative, and incorporate the teaching of Tolstoguzov et al. to produce a cheaper and more thermally stable product, wherein the pH increasing step occurs between 20-40°C, thereby rendering obvious claim 7.
With respect to Claims 18 and 19, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam teaches the invention recited in claim 2, as described above. Additionally, Tolstoguzov et al. teaches a casein-containing liquid with 7.6 pH. [Pg. 8, Ln. 6-9] Additionally, Tolstoguzov et al. teaches the method disclosed produces a product that is cheaper to produce [Pg. 4, Ln. 14-16] and has an increased thermal stability. [Pg. 3, Ln. 21-22]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Rose et al. to produce a milk protein-based meat alternative, and incorporate the teaching of Tolstoguzov et al. to produce a cheaper and more thermally stable product, wherein the pH of the composition in the treatment step is at least 6.8, and more specifically between 7 and 8, thereby rendering obvious claims 18 and 19.
With respect to Claim 20, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam teaches the invention recited in claim 3, as described above. Additionally, Tolstoguzov et al. teaches a casein-containing liquid with 7.6 pH. [Pg. 8, Ln. 6-9] Additionally, Tolstoguzov et al. teaches the method disclosed produces a product that is cheaper to produce [Pg. 4, Ln. 14-16] and has an increased thermal stability. [Pg. 3, Ln. 21-22]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Rose et al. to produce a milk protein-based meat alternative, and incorporate the teaching of Tolstoguzov et al. to produce a cheaper and more thermally stable product, wherein the pH of the composition in the treatment step is between 7 and 8, thereby rendering obvious claim 20.
With respect to Claim 21, Rose et al. in view of Kweldam teaches the invention recited in claim 3, as described above. Additionally, Tolstoguzov et al. teaches a casein-containing liquid with 7.6 pH. [Pg. 8, Ln. 6-9] According to the MPEP 2144.05 II, “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”. The recitation of “increasing the pH of the liquid to a value of 7.2 to 7.4” reflects the results of routine experimentation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to experiment with the pH of the liquid, as taught in Tolstoguzov et al., in order to determine the best pH for the method.
Additionally, Tolstoguzov et al. teaches the method disclosed produces a product that is cheaper to produce [Pg. 4, Ln. 14-16] and has an increased thermal stability. [Pg. 3, Ln. 21-22] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, to have used the teaching of Rose et al. to produce a milk protein-based meat alternative, and incorporate the teaching of Tolstoguzov et al. to produce a cheaper and more thermally stable product, wherein the pH of the composition in the treatment step is between 7.2 and 7.4, thereby rendering obvious claims 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 27. 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on an additional reference applied in the prior rejection of record for the matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH CULLEN MERCHLINSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-2260. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/J.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791