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
Claims 1-11 and 13 filed in a preliminary amendment on 1/15/2024 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/15/2024 was filed before the first Office action. 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 1,4,8,13 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.
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 “legume flour”, and the claim also recites “preferably soybean flour” 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 “preferably” is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 4 recites “the defatted legume flour” without antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "for example a calcium or magnesium salt" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 13 recites an egg analogue powder comprising at least 40% “functionalized legume flour” without providing composition details except for rheological properties of the “functionalized flour”. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is 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.
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(s) 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al. (US2005196513A1) in view of 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, 10 and 11, 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 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 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 a 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 8, Renkema and Kinsella disclose that divalent ions 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.
Regarding claim 13, Lewis discloses that the soy flour is present at a level of 10-50% by weight of the composition in a dry mix. 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.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Correspondence
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