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 Claims
The status of the claims upon entry of the present applications are as follows:
Pending claims: 8-14
Canceled claims: 1-7
Claims currently under consideration: 8-14
Currently rejected claims: 8-14
Allowed claims: None
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.
Claims 8-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keys et al. (US 2017/0020167 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Keys teaches a dry eggless composition comprising a mixture of hydrocolloids and a crosslinking agent that crosslinks the hydrocolloid mixture to form a gelling hydrocolloid when a liquid activator is added (claim 1). Keys also teaches that the gelled hydrocolloid may comprise alginate (claim 13). Keys further teaches that the liquid activator may comprise “a milk” or water, where the milk may be plant-based and/or derived from nuts [0092]. Keys provides an embodiment of a dry hydrocolloid composition that includes spray-dried soy milk that is hydrated with water prior to cooking [0114]. In addition, Keys describes an embodiment of the hydrocolloid composition where the crosslinking agent may contain a salt of a divalent cation (e.g., Ca2+) [0081] that dissociates upon hydration of the dry composition and stabilizes the hydrocolloid crosslinking network. (i.e., forming calcium alginate) [0082].
Regarding claim 9, Keys teaches all the elements of claim 8 as described previously. Keys also teaches embodiments of fluid, liquid or gelatinous egg-less compositions where the crosslinking agent may be present in amounts ranging from approximately 0.05 wt% to 5 wt % based on the total weight of the composition [0087].
Regarding claim 10, Keys teaches all the elements of claim 8, as described above. Keys also teaches embodiments of a gelatinous composition that contain cellulose (i.e., fiber) for use as a dietary supplement and/or viscosity agent. Key further notes that the composition may contain any suitable amount of the viscosity agent needed to achieve the desired bulk or viscosity [0102] – [0104].
Regarding claim 11, Keys teaches all the elements of claim 8 as described above. In addition, Keys teaches a hydrocolloid composition comprising a liquid activator and a lipid source (claims 1 and 6).
Regarding claim 12, Keys teaches all the elements of claim 8 as described above. In addition, Keys provides embodiments of fluid, liquid or gelatinous compositions containing protein that may be in liquid form and sourced from nuts (e.g., almond) or legumes (e.g., soy) [0058]. Keys also provides composition protein concentrations ranging from about 0 wt % – 5 wt%, based on the total weigh of the composition [0060].
Regarding claim 14, Keys teaches all of the elements of claim 8 as described above. Keys also teaches an egg-substitute composition that may be used in cooked food products. More specifically, Keys discloses that the composition may be used to make scrambled eggs and omelets [0113].
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keys (US 2017/0020167 A1) in view of Li (US 2013/0052304 A1) and Rodriguez (US 2015/0313269 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Keys teaches all elements of claim 8 as described above. Keys also provides embodiments of fluid, liquid or gelatinous compositions comprising a liquid activator present in concentrations ranging from 60 – 95 wt % based on the total weight of the composition [0093].
Key does not specifically teach composition liquid concentrations ranging from 10% to 50%.
However, Li teaches an egg substitute composition comprising 1-10 wt % moisture (claim 13). Further, Rodriguez teaches that embodiments of a dry egg-substitute composition may be reconstituted with varying amounts of liquid (e.g., water or milk), depending on the desired viscosity and the particular use [0127].
It would have been obvious for one with ordinarily skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to produce a product according to Keys having a fluid content in the range of 10-50%. Both Li and Rodriguez are directed to the same field of endeavor, namely producing egg-substitute food products. Since Keys discloses the egg substitute is suited for use in a variety of cooking/baking applications, including compositions that would encompass other ingredients, such as muffins, cheesecakes, and French toast [0113], one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to consult Li and Rodriguez for additional clarification regarding suitable fluid concentrations for such applications wherein a high liquid concentration may not be optimal. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the amount of liquid in the liquid concentration to achieve a desirable fluid concentration suitable for producing a scrambled egg-like food product or other type of food product. The claimed fluid concentration range of 10-50% would thus be obvious to a practitioner of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARLA D SWAIN whose telephone number is 571-272-7095. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-4:30 PM, ET, 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 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-centerfor 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.
/MDS/
Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793