Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
When there are drawings, there shall be a “brief description of the several views of the drawings” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.74.).
The section heading “brief description of the several views of the drawings” as set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.74 is missing. Please correct.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: these claims refer to “claim 3(i)” and “claim 3(ii)” instead of “claim 3”. Appropriate correction is required.
PNG
media_image1.png
74
632
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 2-14 are 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.
The reference to the “IUPAC” in Claim 2, lines 10+ is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how these references further limit the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "tofu" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the tofu".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "plant protein" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the plant protein".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "flour" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the flour".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "kala namak" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the kala namak".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "plant based cream" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the plant based cream".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "tapioca starch" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the tapioca starch".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "corn starch" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the corn starch".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "gum" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the gum".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "garlic powder" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the garlic powder".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "onion powder" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the onion powder".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "white pepper powder" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the white pepper powder".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "natural yellow colouring" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the natural yellow food colouring".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "water" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the water".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "tofu" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the tofu".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "plant protein" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the plant protein".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "flour" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the flour".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "kala namak" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the kala namak".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "plant based cream" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the plant based cream".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "tapioca starch" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the tapioca starch".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "corn starch" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the corn starch".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "gum" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the gum".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "natural yellow colouring" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the natural yellow food colouring".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "white pepper powder" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the white pepper powder".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "onion powder" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the onion powder".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "garlic powder" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the garlic powder".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "methylcellulose" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the methylcellulose".
Claim 6 recites the limitation "water" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the water".
The phrase “preferably …” in Claim 7 is vague an indefinite as it is unclear if anything is required. Applicant is advised to consider cancelling this phrase.
The phrase “preferably …” in Claim 8 is vague an indefinite as it is unclear if anything is required. Applicant is advised to consider cancelling this phrase.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "tofu" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the tofu".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "fava bean protein" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the fava bean protein".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "flour" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the flour".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "kala namak" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the kala namak".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "coconut cream" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the coconut cream".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "tapioca starch" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the tapioca starch".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "corn starch" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the corn starch".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "gum" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the gum".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "garlic powder" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the garlic powder".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "onion powder" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the onion powder".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "white pepper powder" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the white pepper powder".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "natural yellow colouring" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the natural yellow food colouring".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "water" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the water"
Claim 10 recites the limitation "tofu" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the tofu".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "pea protein isolate" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the pea protein isolate".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "rice flour" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the rice flour".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "kala namak" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the kala namak".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "coconut cream" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the coconut cream".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "tapioca starch" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the tapioca starch".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "corn starch" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the corn starch".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "gum" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the gum".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "natural yellow colouring" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the natural yellow food colouring".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "white pepper powder" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the white pepper powder".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "onion powder" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the onion powder".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "garlic powder" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the garlic powder".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "methylcellulose" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the methylcellulose".
Claim 10 recites the limitation "water" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the water".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "tofu" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the tofu".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "plant protein" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the plant protein".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "flour" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the flour".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "water" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the water".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "black salt" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the black salt".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "plant based cream" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the plant based cream".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "tapioca starch" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the tapioca starch".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "corn starch" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the corn starch".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "gum" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the gum".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "natural yellow colouring" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the natural yellow food colouring".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "garlic powder" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the garlic powder".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "onion powder" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the onion powder".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "white pepper powder" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the white pepper powder".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "tofu" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the tofu".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "plant protein" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the plant protein".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "flour" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the flour".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "water" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the water".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "black salt" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the black salt".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "plant based cream" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the plant based cream".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "tapioca starch" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the tapioca starch".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "corn starch" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the corn starch".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "gum" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the gum".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "baking powder" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the baking powder".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "colouring" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the natural yellow food colouring".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "white pepper powder" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the white pepper powder".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "onion powder" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the onion powder".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "garlic powder" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the garlic powder".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "methylcellulose" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the methylcellulose".
The phrase “may …” in Claim 11, line 10 is vague an indefinite as it is unclear if anything is required. Applicant is advised to consider cancelling this phrase.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "(i)" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the (i)".
The phrase “may …” in Claim 11, line 11 is vague an indefinite as it is unclear if anything is required. Applicant is advised to consider cancelling this phrase.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the composition" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "composition".
Claim 11 recites the limitation "(i)" in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the (i)".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a plant-based vegan simulated beaten egg composition" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the plant-based vegan simulated beaten egg composition".
Clarification and/or correction 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shoemaker (2019), The Best Tofu, April 1, 2019.
See Shoemaker (2019) publication on ISR filed 12/21/2023.
PNG
media_image2.png
62
462
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 1-14, Shoemaker (2019) teaches a plant-based vegan simulated beaten egg composition in the form of an omelet, comprising tofu, water, plant-based cream, natural yellow food coloring (turmeric), garlic powder and onion powder (See entire publication.), however, fails to expressly disclose all of the various ingredients, amounts thereof, method of producing a kit/combination.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for selecting one ingredient, combination/kit and amount over another. The use of ingredients like flour, starch, gums, and the others are common ingredients known in the art. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select any of ingredients and amounts thereof set forth in the claims based on consumer’s subjective preference. The selection of ingredients and amounts would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a simulated food product that satisfies the subjective preference of a consumer.
Regarding the method steps including blending and cutting, it is noted that Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for selecting method step over another.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select any known method step that is effective of combing the ingredients so as to satisfy the subjective preference of a consumer. The selection of method steps would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a simulated food product that satisfies the subjective preference of a consumer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 October 24, 2025
Prosecution Insights