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 November 6, 2023. The earliest effective filing date of the application is May 7, 2021.
Priority
The present application is a 371 National Stage Application of PCT/EP2022/062217 which has a filing date of May 5, 2022.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12 – 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 19, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 11 and 17 – 20, in the reply filed on December 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
Status of Application
The amendment filed December 19, 2025 with the Response to the Requirement for Restriction has been entered. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1 – 20
Withdrawn claims: 12 – 16
Claims currently under consideration: 1 – 11 and 17 – 20
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 9 – 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites:
“0.01 – 5 wt.% of a coagulating agent;
45 – 93 wt.% water;” which should be
“0.01 – 5 wt.% of a coagulating agent; and
45 – 93 wt.% water;”.
Claim 9 recites “sodium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide.” which should be rewritten as “sodium hydroxide, and calcium hydroxide.” to put it into proper grammar.
Claims 10 and 11 recite “Meat analogue” which should be “A meat analogue”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 11 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 11 recites the phrase "bacon analogue or mincemeat, including burger, sausage and meatball analogues " renders the claim indefinite. While “including” is an acceptable open transitional phrase. In the instant case, the term is structured to be like “such as” or “for example”. Given this, the types of mincemeat analogues listed after “including”, “burger, sausage, and meat ball analogues”, are not considered to be limiting.
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 1, 3 – 7, 9 – 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (KR 20180057422 A – IDS Filed on June 7, 2024 – Clarivate Machine Translation) in view of Ding (US 20070065558 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 9, and 20, Lim teaches a fat composition totaling 3780.4g comprising:
264g (6.98 wt%) of konjac (i.e., glucomannan gum);
44g (1.16 wt%) of acetic acid starch (i.e., browning agent);
40g (1.06 wt%) of sugar (i.e., browning agent);
80g (2.12 wt%) of vegetable oil (i.e., a fat); and
3,180 g (84.1 wt%) of purified water (p. 4, Example 1: Preparation of vegetable bacon).
Lim teaches the fat composition may also comprise calcium hydroxide (i.e., a coagulating agent – p. 3, paragraph 5).
Lim does not teach the fat composition comprises 0.01 – 5 wt% of the calcium hydroxide (i.e., a coagulating agent).
Ding teaches a complex powder comprising konjac glucomannan and alkali in a ratio of at least 100:2 (Claims 1 and 2). Ding teaches when the complex powder is mixed with water and heated, a thermos-irreversible gel is formed ([0007]). Ding teaches a suitable alkali is calcium hydroxide ([0014]).
Lim and Ding are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, forming gels with konjac and calcium hydroxide. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used konjac glucomannan and calcium hydroxide in a ratio of at least 100:2 in the fat composition of Lim, as taught by Ding, because such ratios result in a gel that is thermo-irreversible.
Given the fat composition of Lim comprises 264g of konjac, according to the teachings of Ding, the calcium hydroxide must be present in an amount of at least 5.28g (i.e., 0.14 wt% of the fat composition) to achieve a thermo-irreversible gel.
The range of calcium hydroxide weight percentage in the fat composition, at least 0.14 wt%, as disclosed by the modified composition of Lim, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01 – 5 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 4, 5, 17, and 18, Lim teaches the fat composition also comprises 40g (1.16 wt%) xanthan gum (i.e., a gelling agent – p. 4, Example 1: Preparation of vegetable bacon).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Lim teaches a vegetable bacon comprising the fat composition as described above and soybean protein (p. 4, Example 1: Preparation of vegetable bacon).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Lim teaches a vegetable bacon (i.e., a bacon analogue) comprising 25 wt% of the fat composition as described above and 75 wt% raw soybean meat (i.e., a protein source – p. 4, Example 1: Preparation of vegetable bacon).
Claims 1 – 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geistlinger (US 20150296834 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Geistlinger teaches food products having structures, textures, and other properties similar to those of animal meat (Abstract). Geistlinger teaches a hydrated protein fibrous product comprising at least 5 wt% non-animal protein (Claims 1 and 15); about 0.5% and about 5% by weight of lipid (Claim 18); about 0.5% and about 10% by weight of carbohydrate (Claim 20); and a moisture content between about 50% and about 85% by weight (Claim 23). Geistlinger teaches the carbohydrate is maltodextrin (i.e., dextrin, which is a browning agent – [0078]). Geistlinger teaches the meat structured protein products provided herein comprise between about 0.1% and about 5% by weight calcium hydroxide (i.e., a coagulating agent – ([0075]). Geistlinger teaches forming the hydrated protein fibrous product into patties (Example 4). Geistlinger teaches the hydrated protein fibrous product was formed into patties wherein binders were added to facilitate desired patty crumbling in the following proportions: carrageenan (0.4%); methylcellulose (1.7% – [0158]).
While Geistlinger does not explicitly state in Example 4 that the methylcellulose is konjac flour, Geistlinger teaches the carrageenan and methylcellulose are binding agents; and an alternative acceptable binding agent for use in patties is konjac flour ([0094]). MPEP § 2144.06.II states an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the methylcellulose with konjac flour (i.e., glucomannan gum) before the effective filing date of the application because konjac flour (i.e., glucomannan gum), like methylcellulose, is a binder identified as suitable for use in the patties of Geistlinger. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have tried using konjac flour in the patty of Geistlinger because it is explicitly identified by Geistlinger as suitable for use in patties.
According to the proportions described above, the modified patties of Geistlinger comprise:
1.7 wt% konjac flour (i.e., glucomannan gum);
0.5 – 5 wt% lipid (i.e., fat);
0.5 – 10 wt% maltodextrin (i.e., a dextrin, which is a browning agent);
0.1 – 5 wt% calcium hydroxide (i.e., a coagulating agent); and
50 – 85 wt% water.
The range of lipid (i.e., fat) weight percentage in the patties, 0.5 – 5 wt%, as disclosed by Geistlinger, overlaps with the claimed range of 2 – 25 wt% fat. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
The range of maltodextrin (i.e., dextrin, which is a browning agent) weight percentage in the patties, 0.5 – 10 wt%, as disclosed by Geistlinger, overlaps with the claimed range of 4 – 20 wt% browning agent. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 2, The range of lipid (i.e., fat) weight percentage in the patties, 0.5 – 5 wt%, as disclosed by Geistlinger, overlaps with the claimed range of 5 – 12 wt% fat. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 3, konjac flour is konjac gum.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the patties of Geistlinger further comprise 0.4 wt% carrageenan ([0158]).
Regarding claim 6, Geistlinger teaches the hydrated protein fibrous product comprises at least 5 wt% non-animal protein (Claims 1 and 15). Geistlinger teaches the protein may be derived from any one plant source or from multiple plant sources, or it may be produced synthetically ([0076]).
Regarding claim 7, Geistlinger teaches examples of suitable plants for sourcing proteins include but are not limited to legume plants, potato, and soybean ([0119]).
Regarding claim 8, maltodextrin is a dextrin.
Regarding claim 9, the coagulating agent is calcium hydroxide.
Regarding claim 19, The range of plant protein weight percentages, at least 5 wt%, as disclosed by Geistlinger, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 – 5 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
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