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 .
Claim status
The examiner acknowledges the amendment made to claims on 03/10/2026.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 14, 29-34 and 43-47 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 3, 14, 29-31 and 33 are currently amended. Claims 21-25 are currently cancelled. Claims 43-47 are newly presented. Rest of claims are previously presented. Claims 1-6, 9-10, 14, 29-34 and 43-47 are hereby examined on the merits.
Examiner Note
Any objections and/or rejections that are made in the previous actions and are not repeated below, are hereby withdrawn.
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 4 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 4 depends claim 3 and recites that “the hydrocolloid solution and the hydrated protein are mixed with the water separately, and the hydrocolloid solution and the hydrated protein are mixed together”. It is unclear whether there is a further mixing of the hydrocolloid solution (e.g., hydrocolloids + water) with extra water and a further mixing of the hydrated protein (e.g., protein + water) with extra water. For the purpose of examination, claim 4 is interpreted to mean “The method according to claim 3, wherein the hydrocolloids and the protein are mixed with the water separately, and the hydrocolloid solution and the hydrated protein are mixed together”. 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.
Claims 1-6, 9-10, 14, 29-34 and 43-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soucie US Patent No. 4,563,360 (hereinafter referred to as Soucie) in view of Timmons WO 2021/142157 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Timmons).
Regarding claims 1-4, 9, 29, 32-33 and 44, Soucie teaches a method of making a meat alternative product (e.g., edible protein-gum complex fibers having meat-like body and texture, column 2, line 22-25), the method comprising mixing a hydrocolloid (e.g., xanthan gum, Fig. 1) and another hydrocolloid (e.g., carob gum, column 10, line 4-5) with water to form a hydrocolloid solution (Fig. 1), hydrating a protein to form a hydrated protein (Fig. 1), mixing the hydrocolloid solution with the hydrated protein to form an aqueous protein fiber generating solution (Fig. 1), adjusting the pH of the aqueous protein fiber generating solution to form the edible protein-xanthan gum complex fibers, and separating the protein-xanthan gum complex fiber from the aqueous phase by centrifugation or filtration (column 2, line 34-38; column 4, line 15-17; column 4, line 3-5; column 10, line 1-19 and 34-437; Fig. 1). Further, Soucie teaches forming the protein- gum complex fibers to a desired shape (column 6, line 59-60; column 24, line 62-63 which teaches a cube shape; see also column 25, line 9-12 which teaches cutting the complex into patties).
Soucie teaches carob gum but is silent regarding a high acyl gellan gum or konjac gum.
Timmons in the same field of endeavor teaches a meat-like food comprising protein (0001; 0065), and one or more binding agent (0309-0311), wherein the one or more binding agent is selected from the group consisting of xanthan gum, carob gum, high acyl gellan gum, konjac gum, guar gum, gum Arabic, agar gum, pea starch, pre-gelatinized starch, soluble or insoluble fiber, etc. (0312). As such, Timmons has established that high acyl gellan gum or konjac gum is functionally interchangeable with carob gum in preparing a meat-like food that comprises protein. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Soucie by substituting high acyl gellan gum or konjac gum for carob gum in the edible protein-gum complex fibers having meat-like body and texture with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that substituting functional equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.06 II.
The preamble language “binding ingredients of a meat alternative product” as recited in claims 1 and 29 recites the purpose of the claims, and the recited purpose does not result in a manipulative difference between the claims and prior art because the actual steps recited in Soucie in view of Timmons and the instant claims are the same and will necessarily provide the purpose.
Regarding claim 5, Soucie teaches heating the hydrocolloid solution for the purpose of obtaining softer and finer fiber (column 8, line 62-65).
Regarding claim 10, Soucie teaches that the aqueous protein fiber generating solution may further include other component such as a hydrocolloid (column 4, line 64-65). A hydrocolloid reads on the water binding agent.
Regarding claims 14 and 30-31, Soucie teaches that the amount of hydrocolloid (e.g., carbohydrate) in the protein- gum complex fibers is 2.62% (Table 7). Soucie also teaches that in the protein- gum complex fibers, the moisture content is 65-80% and typically 65% (column 10, line 40-43), and the ratio of gum to protein is 1:4 to 1:10 (column 7, line 11-15; column 10, line 7-10). As such, Soucie teaches a hydrocolloid content that overlaps with the ranges as recited in claims 14 and 30-31 (sample calculation: for a protein-gum complex fiber that has a moisture content of 65% and gum/protein ratio of 1:10, the amount of gum will be 35%/11 =~3.2%). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP 2144.05 I)
Further, Timmons teaches that the meat-like food should contain 0.01-15% or narrowly 0.01-4% gum as the binding agent (0311-0312). Further, Soucie teaches that if the ratio of gum to protein is to high, then the complex fiber will be too gummy because too much gum is in the fiber, but if the ratio is too low, the complex fibers will lack fibrous texture (column 7, line 14-18). Therefore, one of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to manipulate the amount of hydrocolloid (e.g., gum) in the aqueous protein fiber generating solution so as to ensure the complex has fibrous texture but not too gummy. Therefore, the amount of hydrocolloid as recited in claims 14 and 30-31 are merely obvious variant of the prior art.
Regarding claims 6, 34, 43 and 45, Soucie teaches mixing a starch (e.g., corn starch) with the protein-gum to make chicken nuggets alternative (column 25, line 30-45). Necessarily the starch will have absorbed excess moisture. Furthermore, Timmons teaches that besides gums, pre-gelatinized starch and fibers are suitable binding agents for a meat-like product (0312). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the aforementioned gum with pre-gelatinized starch or fibers with in the hydrocolloid solution with reasonable expectation of success, for the reason that "it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.06.
Claims 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soucie as modified by Timmons as applied to claims 1 and 43-45 above, and further in view of Ajami US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0310599 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Ajami).
Regarding claims 46-47, Soucie as modified Timmons teaches a meat analogue comprising pre-gelatinized starch as a binding agent but is silent regarding that the pre-gelatinized starch is presented as a pea flour in pre-gelatinized form.
Ajami in the same field of endeavor teaches that pea starch, and physical or chemical modifications thereof including pregelatinized starch, and a flour derived from grains or legumes or roots such as from pea can be used as a binding agent in a meat-like food product (0121-0122).
Where prior art has established that that both pregelatinized pea starch and pea flour are suitable for use as a binding agent in a meat analogue, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have used pea flour in pregelatinized form in the meat analogue and reasonably expected that pregelatinized pea flour could also work. Note that the single largest component in a pea flour is pea starch.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/10/2026 with respect to pending claims have been considered but are moot over the new ground of rejection set forth in the instant office action. Further, it is noted that Mollet, Thomas, or Mellema is no longer relied upon in the instant office action. Further of note is that claim 4 still has issue of indefiniteness as set forth in the para. 7 of the office action issued 12/10/2025.
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 CHANGQING LI whose telephone number is (571)272-2334. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00.
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 H 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.
/CHANGQING LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights