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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1-7 in the reply filed on December 29, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden established by the patent office. This is not found persuasive because the requirements for restriction differ in national state applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 as compared to national applications filed under 35 U.S,C, 111(a).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 8-16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 December 29, 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
See paragraph [0010] of the filed specification.
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.
Claims 1-7 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
-claim 1 recites the broad recitation “plant protein textured in a dry process”, and the claim also recites “ in particular oat protein . . .rice proteins . . . or legume proteins”, “in particular chosen between pea and faba bean proteins” and “even more preferentially pea proteins” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
-claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a first material rich in plant proteins” and the claim also recites “in particular oat, rice or legume proteins” and “in particular chosen from peas or faba beans” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
-claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a second material rich in plant proteins” and the claim also recites “in particular oat, rice or legume proteins” and “in particular chosen from peas or faba beans” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
-claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a dry weight ration . . . ranging between 60/50 and 90/10” and the claim also recites “preferentially between 70/30 and 80/20” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
-claim 1 recites the broad recitation “the water to mixture mass ratio before cooking ranging between 5% and 25%”, and the claim also recites “preferentially between 5% and 20%”, “preferentially between 5% and 15%”, “preferentially between 10% and 15%” and “more preferentially 10%” which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
- claim 5 recites the broad recitation “wherein the materials rich in plant proteins are characterized by a particle size characterized by a Dmode ranging between 150 microns and 400 microns”, and the claim also recites “preferentially between 150 and 200 microns or between 350 and 400 microns”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
-claim 6 recites the broad recitation “with a dry weight ratio of plant protein to plant fiber ranging from 70/30 to 90/10” and the claim also recites “preferentially from 75/25 to 85/15”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
-claim 7 recites the broad recitation “wherein the plant fiber contains between 40% and 60% of polymers made up of cellulose hemicellulose and pectin” and the claim also recites “preferentially between 45% and 55%”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
-claim 7 recites the broad recitation “between 25% and 45% of pea starch”” and the claim also recites “preferentially between 30% and 40%”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected because they are dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sein et al. (WO 2021/009387) as evidenced by Barac et al. (“Profile and Functional Properties of Seed Proteins from Six Pea (Pisum sativum) Genotypes”, Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2010, 11, 4973-4990) and Roman et al. (“Evaluation of protein composition and functionality of lupin protein isolates extracted from different blue lupin (Lupinus angustifolius) cultivars”, Current Research in Food Science, 11, (2025), pp. 1-11).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Sein et al. disclose a method for preparing a texturized vegetable protein comprising the steps of: (a) mixing 2-75% (w/w) rapeseed protein, from 10-95% (w/w) legume-derived protein, 2-50% (w/w) plant-based fiber and from 5-30% (w/w) water in an extruder; (b) heating the mixture in step (a) to a temperature of from 100°-180°C and extruding the heated mixture through an extrusion die to obtain an extruded product; and (c) drying the extruded product to obtain a texturized vegetable protein (p. 3/L5-29, p. 5/L30-31, p. 19/Example 5/L36-37).
Sein et al. disclose wherein the legume-derived protein is selected from the group consisting of lupin protein, faba bean protein and pea protein or combinations thereof (p. 4/L15-22, p. 10/L1-p.12/L6-Examples). Sein et al. disclose examples wherein the rapeseed protein is a rapeseed protein isolate in an amount ranging from 10-30% by weight of the protein component and the legume-derived component comprises a combination of pea protein isolate and faba bean protein flour or a combination of pea protein isolate and lupin protein isolate in an amount of 70-90% by weight of the protein component (p. 10/L1-p. 12/L6- table of compositions). Sein et al. allows for the ratio of pea protein isolate to lupin protein isolate in the legume-derived component to range from 0:100 to 100:0.
Therefore, when the legume-derived component comprises a combination of pea protein isolate (a first material rich in plant proteins) and lupin isolate (a second material rich in plant proteins) in a ratio of, for example, 70:30, the limitation requiring a dry weight ratio of a first material rich in plant proteins to a second material rich in plant proteins ranging from 60/40 to 90/10 is satisfied.
Sein et al. disclose the pea protein isolate is from Cosucra (p. 10/L10). As evidenced by Barac et al., the solubility of Pisane™ (pea protein isolate from Cosucra, Belgium) at pH 7 is about 40% (p. 4975/2.1 Material, p. 4983/Figure 3).
Sein et al. disclose the lupin protein isolate is no. 10600 from ProLupin, Germany (p. 10/L13). As evidenced by Roman et al. lupin protein isolate number 10600 from ProLupin, Germany has a solubility at pH 7 of about 26% (p. 2/C2/2.3. Preparation of lupin flours and protein isolates from blue lupin seeds).
Given Sein et al. disclose a first material rich in plant proteins, i.e., pea protein isolate and a second material rich in plant proteins, i.e., lupin protein isolate, inherently the protein materials would comprise protein an amount of greater than 80% by weight.
Regarding claim 2, Sein et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Sein et al. disclose the legume-derived protein may be soybean derived, the reference does not require soybean. Sein et al. disclose the legume-derived proteins may be from pea, soybean, faba bean kidney bean green bean, haricot bean, pinto bean, mung bean, adzuki bean, chickpea, lupin, lentil and peanut (p. 4/L15-22).
Regarding claim 4, Sein et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sein et al. is silent with respect to water-holding capacity of the lupin protein isolate.
However, given Sein et al. disclose a lupin protein isolate exhibiting a solubility of less than 30% at pH 7, inherently the protein isolate would have a water holding capacity of less than 4 grams per gram of isolate.
Regarding claim 5, Sein et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sein et al. is silent with respect to the particle size of the materials rich in plant proteins as characterized by a Dmode.
Given Sein et al. disclose lupin protein isolate (no. 10600 from ProLupin, Germany) and pea protein isolate (Pisane™ from Cosucra, Belgium), inherently the materials would exhibit a Dmode in the broadly claimed range of between 150 microns and 450 microns.
Regarding claim 7, Sein et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Sein et al. disclose the plant fiber may consist of mixtures of cellulose, hemicellulose, pectins and other non-starch polysaccharides or plant cell-wall biopolymers (p. 4/L23-31). Sein et al. is silent with respect to how much of the plant fiber is made up of polymers made up of cellulose, hemicellulose and pectin.
Given Sein et al. disclose pea fiber, faba bean fiber and lupin fiber (p. 4/L23-27), identical to the fiber disclosed in the present application, inherently the fibers would comprise the claimed range of polymers made up of cellulose, hemicellulose and pectins.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759