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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-12 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 is vague and indefinite. The body of the claim does not commensurate in scope with the preamble. The preamble cites “ powdered cultured meat” but the body of the claim does not recite a step of the actual cultured meat. The step only recites “ powdering the differentiated cells”; but, it’s unclear what these differentiated cells encompass. The recitation “ the differentiated cells” does not have antecedent basis because the previous step do not recite differentiated cells are formed.
In claim 3, the step “ collecting the differentiated cell and lyophilizing them” is vague and indefinite because claim 1 does not set forth that differentiated cells are formed.
Claim 4 is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what fusion index the claim is referring to. Claim 1 does not set forth any fusion of cell or any formation of differentiated cells.
Claim 6 has the same problem as claim 1 in that it’s unclear what the powdered cultured meat encompasses. Claim 1 just recites powdering of cells after culturing.
In claim 7, the recitation “ the total weight “ does not have proper antecedent basis.
Claim 8 has the same problem as claim 6.
Claim 9 has the same problem as claim 7.
Claim 11 is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what “ specialized “ encompasses. What would be considered as “ specialized”. ( for prior art application, it’s just treated food because there is no parameter defining specialized processed food).
In claim 12, the limitation “ medical food, leisure food” is vague because it’s unclear what would considered as medical food or leisure food.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ock et al ( KR 20220160142) in view Hong ( KR 20220040417) and Hong ( KR 20220040424).
For claims 1,2, 4, Ock discloses a method of culturing muscle cells for producing cattle cultured meat. The method comprises the steps proliferating undifferentiated muscle stem cells by culturing in a culture medium containing serum concentration of 5-20% and culturing the proliferated cells in a medium of 0-5% serum concentration to differentiate into myofibers. The muscle stem cells is suitable for the development of myotube tissue into muscle cell. The serum is fetal bovine serum. Myoblasts fuse to form myotube and muscle fibers. Ock discloses cultured meat product formed from the process. ( see pages 2-4,6)
Ock does not disclose a powdering step as in claim 1, powdering step as in claim 3, the fusion index as in claim 5, the powdered meat as in claims 6, 8,9,the protein content as in claim 7, and the food as in claims 10-12.
Hong ( 417) discloses a method for manufacturing cultured meat by culturing cells. Hong teaches that after maturation, the cell can be further processed to be added to food. The cells can be added to food in the form of powder by pulverizing after freeze-drying. The cells can be added to various foods including chips, processed canned food, seasonings, powder mix etc.. Fat can be added to the cell population. The fat may be added by injecting separately cultured adipocyte or co-culture by injecting adipocytes in the process of muscle cell proliferation. ( see pages 5-6)
Hong (424) discloses a method for manufacturing cultured meat. Hong teaches to process the culture meat into food using food technology. The cultured meat can be pulverized into various particle sizes and added to various types of food including processed canned foods, processed noodles, powder mixes etc.. ( see pages 5-6)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to subject the cultured meat disclosed in Ock to a powdering step as taught in Hong(417) and Hong (424) to form powdered cultured meat to add to various foods. It would have been obvious to use freeze-drying as taught in Hong 417 to form the powder. Freeze drying is a lyophilizing method. Ock discloses fusion to form myotube and muscle fibers; thus, it would have been well within the skill of one in the art to determine the fusion index for formation of muscle fibers. It would have been obvious to add the powdered cultured meat to any foods as an obvious matter of preference as both Hong discloses the powdered cultured meat can be added to a variety of foods. Since the Ock method is carried out on the same type of stem cells as the claimed method, it’s obvious the cultured meat contains protein within the range claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form cultured meat from different groups of cells to achieve different tissues. The myoblast will give muscle fibers while adipocytes will give fat tissue. Hong(417) discloses the different cells can be cultured separately and added. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to prepare two separate cultured meats containing different tissues and then mixing to form a complete product. The proportion of each tissue group can vary depending on what is wanted. For example, if more muscle tissue is wanted than fat, it would have been obvious to use more powder prepared from the muscle cells culture than the fat cell culture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
August 21, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights