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 the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment and response filed 5/20/2026. Claims 1-11,13, 16 and 17 are pending in the application. Claims 1-5,7-11, 13 were amended, and new claims 16 and 17 were added.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/17/2026 was filed before close of prosecution in the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1, 13 and dependent claims 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.
Claim 1 in the preamble recites a “method of making an egg analogue powder”, the steps recite heating a legume flour or legume protein concentrate having specified properties and mixing the heated material with a divalent cation salt “to form a mixture”. The claim does not identify the resulting mixture as the recited egg analogue powder or otherwise specify what processing or characteristics cause the mixture to constitute an egg analogue powder.
The final limitation that “the egg analogue powder does not contain egg or egg-derived ingredients “ specified what is excluded from the egg analogue powder but does not establish what affirmative composition or functional characteristics distinguish the egg analogue powder from the mixture produced by the preceding steps.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether the mixture resulting from the recited mixing step is itself the claimed egg analogue powder or whether additional processing or compositional requirements are needed to produce the egg analogue powder. A person of ordinary skill in the art therefore would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed method.
Claim 13 is indefinite because it does not define with reasonable certainty the scope of the “egg analogue powder”. Claim 13 requires the egg analogue powder to comprise at least 40% of the recited heated legume flour or legume protein concentrate, but does not recite an objective compositional or functional limitation that establishes when a composition containing such a material constitutes an “egg analogue powder”. The product has a combination of legume flour or legume protein concentrate and a divalent cation salt, which could be a part of various types of food compositions. The open-ended transitional phrase comprising does not preclude other undefined ingredients.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US2005196513A1) in view of Boyce et al. (US 4,632,903), Renkema et al (Food Hydrocolloids, 18(1):39-47 (2004), and Kinsella (Journal of the American Oil Chemist’s Society, 56(3) :242-258), and further in view of Labuza (Food Technology 34(4):36-41 (1980)).
Regarding claim 1, 8, 10, 11 and 16, Lewis discloses an egg analog product comprising soy flour and egg white either as a dry product or hydrated product that is functionally equivalent to whole eggs (Abstract, [0013] ), which may contain added color and flavor [0052] as in claim 11. The claimed invention is interpreted to comprise a functionalized legume flour that produces a gel with egg like texture after cooking.
Lewis teaches the use of functionalized soy protein together with egg albumin to provide egg-like food product, thereby demonstrating the known suitability of soy protein for providing functional properties in egg compositions. Boyce further discloses that soy protein can itself be processed to provide an egg-white substitute having functional properties associated with egg white.
It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to increase the degree of egg replacement in Lewis’s composition to replace the egg white component with functionalized soy protein, as taught in Boyce, thereby obtaining an egg analogue free of egg-derived ingredients. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because Boyce discloses soy protein material as an egg white substitute.
Lewis does not disclose a functionalized soy flour. However, at the time of the invention, it was known from Renkema that heating soy protein dispersions (see abstract) to temperatures to the order of 95 deg C induces gelation and the resulting structures are characterized using small amplitude oscillatory shear rheology , including measurement and interpretation of storage modulus (G’), loss modulus (G’) and loss factor (tan delta) as indicators of food structuring. In an egg analogue product, these measures would collectively determine shelf life, oxidative stability, rehydration performance and egg-like texture after cooking.
Renkema shows that heat denatured legume proteins form elastic networks, heating above denaturation temperature produces G’ >> G” and that these are weak gels, directly supporting a tan[Symbol font/0x64] in the claimed range and the G’ range at moderate protein concentration. Renkema further explains why heating a legume flour dispersion to >95°C predictably yields elastic dominant rheology.
Kinsella (abstract) teaches that heat treatment of soy flour and soy protein materials causes protein denaturation and aggregation resulting in altered gelling and viscoelastic properties , thereby providing motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to functionalize soy flour to obtain desired functionality in an egg analogue product that mimics natural egg. Further motivation would have been to potentially eliminate the need to include egg white in a dry egg analogue product of Lewis and prepare a vegan product, for example.
Labuza discloses that dry food powders are processed and conditioned to a water activity of less than 0.6 to ensure stability and preserve functional properties, independent of moisture content, motivating one of ordinary skill in the art to ensure a water activity less than 0.6 in functionalized soy flour.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings to heat treat soy flour for optimized functionality in an egg analogue product with a reasonable expectation of obtaining desired gelling properties based on rheological characterization, and optimization by experimentation, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would reasonably expect that a dry-heated legume flour when hydrated and heated would exhibit elastic dominant rheology with G’ and G” values within the claimed ranges.
Regarding adding a divalent cation salt, Renkema and Kinsella disclose that divalent cations promote protein-protein interactions and strengthen heat set legume protein gels by reducing electrostatic repulsion. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that adding these salts helps to retain powder dispersibility and stability. Therefore the addition of divalent cation salt is a predictable routine means of adjusting gel strength within the claimed rheological ranges. Calcium and magnesium salts are routinely used in food products, as nutritional and functional ingredient, and would have been an obvious choice.
Regarding claim 2, the duration of a heating step would have been experimentally optimized by one of ordinary skill in the art to obtain a flour that in dispersion produces an egg-like weak gel.
Regarding claim 3, 4 and 9, Lewis motivates varying fat and protein levels to mimic egg yolk and egg white and Kinsella teaches that fat acts as a plasticizer in heat-set protein gels moderating G’ and increasing G” without eliminating elastic dominance. Renkema further shows that inclusion of non-protein components reduces network density while preserving weak-gel behavior. One of ordinary skill in the art have accordingly formulated an egg analog with either an intermediate or full fat flour or a defatted flour to obtain analogues similar to egg yolk or egg white with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 5, Renkema demonstrates that storage and loss moduli of heat set legume protein gels scale predictably with solids concentration. Kinsella discloses that such systems maintain elastic-dominant behavior across typical formulation ranges for consistency which would be in the claimed hydration range, to produce a gel with the claimed rheological properties.
Regarding claim 6, convection heating is a routine method of heating and would have been selected in a normal process for gelling proteins absent evidence of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would have logically selected the claimed pH range as it was known, as summarized in Kinsella, that globular protein gelation is optimized at neutral to mildly alkaline pH, away from the isoelectric point , and egg white functionality occurs naturally at pH 7-8.
Regarding claim 13 and 17, an egg analogue product prepared by a method as in modified Lewis has the soy flour is present at a level of 10-50% by weight of the composition in a dry mix, and the composition is egg free. The claimed at least 40% soy flour falls within or overlaps the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a functionalized soy flour as above characterized using small amplitude oscillatory shear rheology , including measurement and interpretation of storage modulus (G’), loss modulus (G’) and loss factor (tan[Symbol font/0x64]) as indicators of food structuring. In an egg analogue product, these measures would collectively determine shelf life, oxidative stability, rehydration performance and egg-like texture after cooking.
Regarding divalent cation salt content, Renkema and Kinsella disclose that divalent cations promote protein-protein interactions and strengthen heat set legume protein gels by reducing electrostatic repulsion. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have known that adding these salts helps to retain powder dispersibility and stability. Therefore the addition of divalent cation salt is a predictable routine means of adjusting gel strength within the claimed rheological ranges.
Claims 1-11, 13, 16 and 17 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Response to Arguments
Claim amendments render the previous rejections under 35 USC 112(b) and 35 USC 103 moot. New grounds of rejection based on the amended claims are detailed in the current Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached 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 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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights