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 the application filed on October 18, 2023. The earliest effective filing date of the application is April 19, 2021.
Priority
The present application is a 371 National Stage Application of PCT/US2022/024749 which has a filing date of April 14, 2022.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 25, 26, 30, 33 – 36, 40, 42 – 45, and 47 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on November 25, 2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 22 – 24 in the reply filed on November 25, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 18 was omitted from the original claim listing in Group I. The Office apologizes for omitting claim 18 from the claim listing in Group I in error. The Office agrees claim 18 should be incorporated into Group I.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Application
The amendment filed November 25, 2025 with the Response to Restriction Requirement has been entered. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 11, 15, 16, 18 – 20, 22 – 26, 30, 33 – 36, 40, 42 – 45, and 47
Withdrawn claims: 25, 26, 30, 33 – 36, 40, 42 – 45, and 47
Previously cancelled claims: 1 – 10, 12 – 14, 17, 21, 27 – 29, 31, 32, 37 – 39, 41, 46, and 48 – 59
Amended claims: 19 and 24
Claims currently under examination: 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 22 – 24
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 recites “ration” in line 2 which is a misspelling of “ratio”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 22 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as evidenced by OutGrow (Pink Oyster (Pleurotus djamor). OutGrow. (n.d.) Retrieved from: https://www.out-grow.com/products/pink-oyster-pleurotus-djamor), Nayak et al. (Effect of drying parameters on water activity of pink oyster mushroom (Pleurotus djamor) powder. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. Vol 7. Iss 2. Pp. 2288 – 2292. (2018)), Fungi Atlas (Pink Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor). Fungi Atlas. (n.d.) Retrieved from: https://fungiatlas.com/pleurotus-djamor/), and Fukuta et al. (Gene cloning of the pink-colored protein from Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (PsPCP) and its species-specific chromoprotein are effective for colorization of the fruit body. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry. Vol 83, Iss 7. Pp. 1354 – 1361. (2019)).
MPEP § 2106 sets forth the Subject Matter Eligibility Test to determine if a claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter. The following analysis is presented within the framework enumerated in MPEP § 2106.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test
Step 1: Applicant’s claims are directed to a product.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 11 recites a composition comprising the naturally occurring phenomena: a non-meat protein, a pigment of Pleurotus djamor or Pleurotus salmoneostramineus, and water.
Claim 15 recites a composition comprising the naturally occurring phenomena: a non-meat protein, a pigment of Pleurotus djamor or Pleurotus salmoneostramineus, water, and a pink chromogenic protein.
Claim 16 recites a composition comprising the naturally occurring phenomena: a non-meat protein, a pigment of Pleurotus djamor or Pleurotus salmoneostramineus, water, and a pink chromogenic protein, wherein the pink chromogenic protein has an absorbance maximum between 450 nm and 600 nm.
Claim 18 recites a composition comprising the naturally occurring phenomena: a non-meat protein, a pigment of Pleurotus djamor or Pleurotus salmoneostramineus, water, a pink chromogenic protein, and indol-3-one.
Claim 19 recites a composition comprising the naturally occurring phenomena: a non-meat protein, a pigment of Pleurotus djamor or Pleurotus salmoneostramineus, water, and a pink chromogenic protein, wherein the pink chromogenic protein comprises a sequence at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO:1.
Claim 20 recites a composition comprising the naturally occurring phenomena: a non-meat protein selected from the group consisting of pea protein, soy protein, corn protein, and wheat protein; a pigment of Pleurotus djamor or Pleurotus salmoneostramineus; and water.
Claim 22 recite a composition comprising the naturally occurring phenomena: a non-meat protein, a pigment of Pleurotus djamor or Pleurotus salmoneostramineus, water, and indol-3-one bound pink chromogenic protein.
Claims 23 and 24 recite a composition comprising the naturally occurring phenomena: a non-meat protein, a pigment of Pleurotus djamor or Pleurotus salmoneostramineus, and water wherein when heated at 130 °C for 2 minutes the a* (i.e., red color) value of L*a*b* colorimetry of the meat substitute decreases by at least 50%.
Claims 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 22 – 24 recite nature-based product limitations – they must be evaluated by the markedly different characteristics analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04 (b) - (c).
Markedly different characteristics analysis
If the nature-based product limitation is not naturally occurring, for example due to some human intervention, then the markedly different characteristics analysis must be performed to determine whether the claimed product limitation is a product of nature exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(c)(I). The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. Markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product’s structure, function, and/or other properties. See MPEP § 2106.04(c)(II).
In this case, there is no modification of the ingredients within the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 11, the pink oyster mushroom Pleurotus djamor naturally comprises a pink pigment, as evidenced by OutGrow (p. 2, paragraph 2). Pleurotus djamor also naturally comprises protein (i.e., a non-meat protein), as evidenced by OutGrow (p. 3, paragraph 3). Pleurotus djamor has a high moisture content (i.e., Pleurotus djamor comprises water), as evidenced by Nayak (Abstract). Therefore, Pleurotus djamor itself is a meat substitute comprising a non-meat protein, a pigment of Pleurotus djamor, and water. Therefore, the limitations of claim 11 encompass, for example, Pleurotus djamor without significantly more.
Regarding claims 15 and 18, as evidenced by Fungi Atlas, Pleurotus djamor and Pleurotus salmoneostramineus are scientific synonyms, therefore they are the same species (p. 1, Scientific synonyms). As evidenced by Fukuta, the pink pigment in Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (i.e., Pleurotus djamor) is a pink chromogenic protein (PsPCP) complexed with 3H-indole-3-one (i.e., indole-3-one – p. 1355, paragraph 2). Therefore, Pleurotus djamor itself is a meat substitute comprising a non-meat protein, a pigment of Pleurotus djamor, water, and a pink chromogenic protein. Therefore, the limitation of claim 15 encompasses, for example, Pleurotus djamor without significantly more.
Regarding claim 16, as evidenced by Fukuta, the PsPCP/3H-indole-3-one complex in Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (i.e., Pleurotus djamor) has a maximum absorbance at 496 nm (p. 1354, paragraph 2). Therefore, Pleurotus djamor itself is a meat substitute comprising a non-meat protein, a pigment of Pleurotus djamor, water, and a pink chromogenic protein with an absorbance maximum between 450 nm and 600 nm. Therefore, the limitation of claim 16 encompasses, for example, Pleurotus djamor without significantly more.
Regarding claim 19, as evidenced by Fukuta, the PsPCP in Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (i.e., Pleurotus djamor) has the amino acid sequence shown below, which has a 100% identity with SEQ ID No. 1 (p. 1357, Figure 2). Therefore, Pleurotus djamor itself is a meat substitute comprising a non-meat protein, a pigment of Pleurotus djamor, water, and a pink chromogenic protein with a sequence that is at least 80% identical to SEQ ID NO: 1. Therefore, the limitation of claim 19 encompasses, for example, Pleurotus djamor without significantly more.
SEQ ID No. 1 (Qy) vs. the amino acid sequence of the natural PsPCP of Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (i.e., Pleurotus djamor) (Db):
Qy 1 MSLTLSPLPPLSNDIYPIGRNSLGNLMTATEKAKELPQEDKSAAQFQATSQESYKSAVSQ 60
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 1 MSLTLSPLPPLSNDIYPIGRNSLGNLMTATEKAKELPQEDKSAAQFQATSQESYKSAVSQ 60
Qy 61 TTKESPSASLAKFCKEAETAYPALYKAIQANDSASAKELAKSIASKLTEVATSAGNVAQA 120
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 61 TTKESPSASLAKFCKEAETAYPALYKAIQANDSASAKELAKSIASKLTEVATSAGNVAQA 120
Qy 121 YNQGAAKAQEGQKLMKSALPGSHPVKDSVDDALQYLSPAAQVFTSMQSSLNESAKNVVAA 180
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 121 YNQGAAKAQEGQKLMKSALPGSHPVKDSVDDALQYLSPAAQVFTSMQSSLNESAKNVVAA 180
Qy 181 ADKVGKVPANQIASEDSGEAIA NAWAKLGVKATAQAEAYNKWQGNQ 226
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Db 181 ADKVGKVPANQIASEDSGEAIA NAWAKLGVKATAQAEAYNKWQGNQ 226
Regarding claim 20, it is well known in the art that soybeans comprise soy protein. Therefore, the limitation of claim 20 encompasses, for example, Pleurotus djamor and soybeans without significantly more.
Regarding claim 22, the PsPCP/3H-indole-3-one complex in Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (i.e., Pleurotus djamor) is an indole-3-one bound PCP. Therefore, Pleurotus djamor itself is a meat substitute comprising a non-meat protein, a pigment of Pleurotus djamor, water, and an indol-3-one bound pink chromogenic protein. Therefore, the limitation of claim 22 encompasses, for example, Pleurotus djamor without significantly more.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Example 1 of the instant specification states that chopped raw Pleurotus djamor loses its color when exposed to 130 °C for one minute ([0084]). Therefore, Pleurotus djamor inherently experiences a decrease by at least 50% of the a* (i.e., red color) value of L*a*b* colorimetry when heated at 130 °C for 2 minutes. Therefore, the limitations of claim 23 and 24 encompass, for example, Pleurotus djamor without significantly more.
In the instant application, each naturally occurring claim element has the same effect it always had. The claimed naturally occurring products perform in their natural way. Their use in combination does not improve in any way their natural functioning. They serve the ends nature originally provided and act quite independently of any effort of the patentee. As such, the characteristics of the claimed invention are not markedly different from their naturally occurring counterparts. Therefore, the claims are drawn to mixtures of naturally occurring products. Thus, the claims are directed to a judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Nothing is done with these naturally occurring products therefore there is no practical application.
Step 2B: Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See MPEP § 2106.05. In this case, there are no additional elements.
Therefore, claims 11, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, and 22 – 24 are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pleurotus djamor as evidenced by OutGrow (Pink Oyster (Pleurotus djamor). OutGrow. (n.d.) Retrieved from: https://www.out-grow.com/products/pink-oyster-pleurotus-djamor - Furnished with Requirement for Restriction Filed on October 8, 2025), and Nayak et al. (Effect of drying parameters on water activity of pink oyster mushroom (Pleurotus djamor) powder. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. Vol 7. Iss 2. Pp. 2288 – 2292. (2018)).
The pink oyster mushroom Pleurotus djamor naturally comprises a pink pigment, as evidenced by OutGrow (p. 2, paragraph 2). Pleurotus djamor also naturally comprises protein (i.e., a non-meat protein), as evidenced by OutGrow (p. 3, paragraph 3). Pleurotus djamor has a high moisture content (i.e., Pleurotus djamor comprises water), as evidenced by Nayak (Abstract). Therefore, Pleurotus djamor itself is a meat substitute comprising a non-meat protein, and a pigment composition comprising an aqueous extract of Pleurotus djamor. Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 11 encompasses Pleurotus djamor.
Claims 15, 16, 19, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pleurotus djamor as evidenced by OutGrow (Pink Oyster (Pleurotus djamor). OutGrow. (n.d.) Retrieved from: https://www.out-grow.com/products/pink-oyster-pleurotus-djamor), Nayak et al. (Effect of drying parameters on water activity of pink oyster mushroom (Pleurotus djamor) powder. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. Vol 7. Iss 2. Pp. 2288 – 2292. (2018)), Fungi Atlas (Pink Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor). Fungi Atlas. (n.d.) Retrieved from: https://fungiatlas.com/pleurotus-djamor/), and Fukuta et al. (Gene cloning of the pink-colored protein from Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (PsPCP) and its species-specific chromoprotein are effective for colorization of the fruit body. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry. Vol 83, Iss 7. Pp. 1354 – 1361. (2019) – IDS Filed on November 9, 2023).
Regarding claim 15, as evidenced by Fungi Atlas, Pleurotus djamor and Pleurotus salmoneostramineus are scientific synonyms, therefore they are the same species (p. 1, Scientific synonyms). As evidenced by Fukuta, the pink pigment in Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (i.e., Pleurotus djamor) is a pink chromogenic protein (PsPCP) complexed with 3H-indole-3-one (i.e., a pink chromogenic protein – p. 1355, paragraph 2).
With respect to the recitation “in an amount effective for increasing the red color of a meat substitute”, because the PsPCP/3H-indole-3-one complex of Pleurotus djamor inherently has a pink (i.e., red) color, any amount of PsPCP/3H-indole-3-one complex in Pleurotus djamor increases its red color. Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 15 encompasses Pleurotus djamor.
Regarding claim 16, as evidenced by Fukuta, the PsPCP/3H-indole-3-one complex in Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (i.e., Pleurotus djamor) has a maximum absorbance at 496 nm (p. 1354, paragraph 2). Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 16 encompasses Pleurotus djamor.
Regarding claim 19, as evidenced by Fukuta, the PsPCP in Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (i.e., Pleurotus djamor) has the amino acid sequence shown in paragraph 27 above, which has a 100% identity with SEQ ID No. 1 (p. 1357, Figure 2). Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 19 encompasses Pleurotus djamor.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, while the prior art is silent with respect to the previously unappreciated precisely claimed heat-induced color changing abilities of Pleurotus djamor, MPEP § 2112.I states “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer”. Example 1 of the instant specification states that chopped raw Pleurotus djamor loses its color when exposed to 130 °C for one minute ([0084]). Therefore, Pleurotus djamor inherently experiences a decrease by at least 50% of the a* (i.e., red color) value of L*a*b* colorimetry when heated at 130 °C for 2 minutes.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nadal et al. (WO 2020232347 A1 – IDS Filed on November 9, 2023) as evidenced by Fukuta et al. (Gene cloning of the pink-colored protein from Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (PsPCP) and its species-specific chromoprotein are effective for colorization of the fruit body. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry. Vol 83, Iss 7. Pp. 1354 – 1361. (2019) – IDS Filed on November 9, 2023).
Regarding claims 11 and 20, Nadal teaches a myceliated protein food product (i.e., meat substitute) comprising pea protein concentrate and a fungal culture (Abstract; [00111]). Nadal teaches the fungal culture of the protein food product is Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (Pleurotus djamor – [0056]; [00151]). Nadal teaches the substrate for the myceliated protein food product (i.e., meat substitute) is wetted with sufficient moisture to allow mycelia to grow (i.e., the mycelia in the myceliated protein food product comprises water – [0023]). As evidenced by Fukuta, Pleurotus salmoneostramineus comprises a pink-colored protein (i.e., a pigment – p. 1354, paragraph 2). As evidenced by Fukuta, the pink-colored protein is produced in the mycelium of Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (p. 1360, Figure 7). Therefore, because the myceliated protein food product of Nadal comprises the mycelium of Pleurotus salmoneostramineus, which produces a pink-colored protein (i.e., pigment), pea protein, and water, the myceliated protein food product of Nadal comprises pea protein (i.e., a non-animal protein) and a pigment composition comprising an aqueous extract of Pleurotus salmoneostramineus. Claims 11 and 20, therefore, encompass the myceliated protein food product (i.e., meat substitute) of Nadal.
Claims 15, 16, 19, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nadal et al. (WO 2020232347 A1 – IDS Filed on November 9, 2023) as applied to claim 11 above, and further evidenced Fukuta et al. (Gene cloning of the pink-colored protein from Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (PsPCP) and its species-specific chromoprotein are effective for colorization of the fruit body. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry. Vol 83, Iss 7. Pp. 1354 – 1361. (2019) – IDS Filed on November 9, 2023).
Regarding claim 15, as evidenced by Fukuta, the pink pigment in Pleurotus salmoneostramineus is a pink chromogenic protein (PsPCP) complexed with 3H-indole-3-one (i.e., a pink chromogenic protein – p. 1355, paragraph 2).
With respect to the recitation “in an amount effective for increasing the red color of a meat substitute”, because the PsPCP/3H-indole-3-one complex of Pleurotus salmoneostramineus inherently has a pink (i.e., red) color, any amount of PsPCP/3H-indole-3-one complex in the myceliated protein food product (i.e., meat substitute) of Nadal increases its red color. Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 15 encompasses the myceliated protein food product (i.e., meat substitute) of Nadal.
Regarding claim 16, as evidenced by Fukuta, the PsPCP/3H-indole-3-one complex in Pleurotus salmoneostramineus has a maximum absorbance at 496 nm (p. 1354, paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 19, as evidenced by Fukuta, the PsPCP in Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (i.e., Pleurotus djamor) has the amino acid sequence shown in paragraph 27 above, which has a 100% identity with SEQ ID No. 1 (p. 1357, Figure 2).
Regarding claims 23 and 24, while the prior art is silent with respect to the previously unappreciated precisely claimed heat-induced color changing abilities of Pleurotus djamor, MPEP § 2112.I states “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer”. Example 1 of the instant specification states that chopped raw Pleurotus djamor loses its color when exposed to 130 °C for one minute ([0084]). Given the myceliated protein food product (i.e., meat substitute) comprising Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (i.e., Pleurotus djamor) mycelia does not require other red or pink components, the myceliated protein food product (i.e., meat substitute) comprising Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (i.e., Pleurotus djamor) inherently experiences a decrease by at least 50% of the a* (i.e., red color) value of L*a*b* colorimetry when heated at 130 °C for 2 minutes.
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.
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 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadal et al. (WO 2020232347 A1 – IDS Filed on November 9, 2023) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Fukuta et al. (Gene cloning of the pink-colored protein from Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (PsPCP) and its species-specific chromoprotein are effective for colorization of the fruit body. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry. Vol 83, Iss 7. Pp. 1354 – 1361. (2019) – IDS Filed on November 9, 2023).
Nadal teaches similar or superior attributes of animal meat provided by the meat-like products provided herein include but are not limited to color, color stability, cooking color ([0072]). Nadal teaches the composition may further comprise a colorant ([0079]).
Nadal does not teach the indol-3-one is in a molar ratio between 0.5:1 to 2:1 with the PsPCP.
Fukuta teaches 3H-indole-3-one bound PsPCP, a chromogenic protein complex is responsible of the pink color in Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (p. 1355, paragraph 2). Fukuta teaches neither 3H-indole-3-one nor unbound PsPCP have a pink color independently, therefore, 3H-indole-3-one and PsPCP must form a complex to produce a pink chromogenic protein (p. 1358, Figure 4). Fukuta teaches pink color may be synthetically formed by mixing recombinant PsPCP with extracted 3H-indol-3-one (p. 1356, paragraph 3).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the molar ratio of 3H-indol-3-one and unbound PsPCP in the myceliated protein food product (i.e., meat substitute) of Nadal to be between 0.5:1 to 2:1 by supplementing the composition with recombinant PsPCP or 3H-indole-3-one during routine optimization to find the myceliated protein food product (i.e., meat substitute) with the desired pink color. MPEP § 2144.05(II) states 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed the molar ratio of 3H-indol-3-one and unbound PsPCP, 0.5:1 to 2:1, would thus be obvious.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadal et al. (WO 2020232347 A1 – IDS Filed on November 9, 2023) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Fukuta et al. (Gene cloning of the pink-colored protein from Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (PsPCP) and its species-specific chromoprotein are effective for colorization of the fruit body. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry. Vol 83, Iss 7. Pp. 1354 – 1361. (2019) – IDS Filed on November 9, 2023).
Nadal teaches similar or superior attributes of animal meat provided by the meat-like products provided herein include but are not limited to color, color stability, cooking color ([0072]). Nadal teaches the composition may further comprise a colorant ([0079]).
Fukuta teaches 3H-indole-3-one bound PsPCP, a chromogenic protein complex is responsible of the pink color in Pleurotus salmoneostramineus (p. 1355, paragraph 2). Fukuta teaches neither 3H-indole-3-one nor unbound PsPCP have a pink color independently, therefore, 3H-indole-3-one and PsPCP must form a complex to produce a pink chromogenic protein (p. 1358, Figure 4). Fukuta teaches pink color may be synthetically formed by mixing recombinant PsPCP with extracted 3H-indol-3-one (p. 1356, paragraph 3).
While Nadal does not teach the myceliated protein food product (i.e., meat substitute) comprises 0.01% to 6% by weight of indol-3-one (i.e., 3H-indole-3-one) bound PCP (i.e., PsPCP), one of ordinary skill in the art would have adjusted the wt% of 3H-indole-3-one bound PsPCP by supplementing the myceliated protein food product (i.e., meat substitute) of Nadal with recombinant PsPCP and 3H-indole-3-one during routine optimization to find the myceliated protein food product (i.e., meat substitute) with the desired pink color. MPEP § 2144.05(II) states 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. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The claimed wt% of indol-3-one bound PCP, 0.01% to 6%, would thus be obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARK JULIA MORENO whose telephone number is (571)272-2337. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 - 4:30 M - F.
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.
/L.J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793