DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figure 2 does not have a legend to identify the 3 different colored columns. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 42-44 and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 42-44 requires “wherein the food additive composition further comprises a lipoxygenase inhibitor, an antioxidant, a shelf life extender, or a mixture thereof.”
The specification provides support to claim food products can include meat shelf life extenders such as carbon monoxide, nitrites, sodium metabisulfite, Bombal, vitamin E, rosemary extract, green tea extract, catechins and other anti-oxidants (p. 29/L1-3). The specification does not provide support to claim food additives comprising shelf-life extenders.
The specification provides support to claim food product can comprise antioxidants such as β-carotene, α-tocopherol, caffeic acid, propyl gallate or epigallocatechin gallate and lipoxygenase (LOX) inhibitors (p. 27/L5-9). The specification does not provide support to claim food additives comprising antioxidants and/or LOX inhibitors.
Claim 59 is rejected as being dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 41, 45-58 and 60-64 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tandy (US 4592917) in view of Proulx et al. (“Iron Bioavailability of Hemoglobin from Soy Root Nodules Using a Caco-2 culture Model” – J. Agric. Food Chem., 54, (2006), pp. 1518-1522).
Regarding claims 41, 58, 60 and 61, Tandy discloses a chicken flavor composition (i.e., food additive) comprising (a) a reducing monosaccharide; (b) an active sulfur-containing substance; (c) a hydroxylated solvent (e.g., water, ethanol, glycerol and propylene glycol); and (d) leucine. Tandy discloses the reducing monosaccharide can be any reducing monosaccharide including glucose and ribose (C2/L56-64). Tandy discloses the active sulfur-containing substance includes a compound or mixture of compounds including sulfur-containing amino acids and their salts, i.e., cysteine, and the vitamin thiamine (C3/L14-40).
Tandy is silent with respect to an isolated heme containing protein.
Proulx et al. teach hemoglobin from soy root nodules (i.e., purified soy leghemoglobin “LHb” – Abstract, p. 1518/Introduction). Proulx et al. teach iron deficiency is a major nutritional problem and fortification of foods with iron has been a successful strategy for improving iron content of foods (p.1518 /Introduction). Proulx et al. teach the bioavailability of iron fortificants is often decreased due to the presence of inhibitors within the food matrix, however, iron bioavailability is higher from heme iron sources (p. 1518/Introduction). Proulx et al. teach the uses of the leghemoglobin to fortify food products.
Given Tandy discloses a chicken flavor composition intended to be incorporated into foods such as soups, sou mixes, casserole dishes, canned and frozen vegetables, animal or pet foods, sauces, gravies, stews, simulated chicken meat products , dips, and bakery products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to have added leghemoglobin, as taught by Proulx et al., to the chicken flavor composition of Tandy to fortify an food product the chicken flavor composition is incorporated into. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because the nutritive qualities of the leghemoglobin are known when used for fortifying foods with iron.
Given the combination of Tandy and Proulx et al. teach the additive of claim 41, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that when a plant-based meat analog product comprising the chicken flavor composition is cooked, a taste and smell of meat is generated and at least two volatile compounds that have a meat-associated aroma are produced compared to a plant-based meat analog product lacking the chicken flavor composition. Note, Tandy disclose incorporating the chicken flavor composition into a vegetable-based simulated chicken meat products (C6/L15-17).
Regarding claim 45, modified Tandy discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Proulx et al. disclose an isolated soybean leghemoglobin (i.e., from a plant Glycine max- p. 1519/Materials and Methods/LHb preparation).
Regarding claims 46-48, modified Tandy discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Proulx et al. teach leghemoglobin isolated from soybean, the limitations of claims 46-48 are satisfied. Claim 41 only requires one of an isolated plant heme-containing protein, an isolated algal heme-containing protein, an isolated fungal heme-containing protein, an isolated ciliate heme-containing protein, and isolated bacterial heme-containing protein, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 49, modified Tandy discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tandy discloses to obtain a more full-bodied flavor and to provide a matrix for effectively carry the flavor and retaining its intensity over time, hydrolyzed protein may be added to the flavorant (C5/L53-C6/L4).
Regarding claims 50-53, modified Tandy discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tandy discloses vegetable hydrolysates including soy hydrolysates, yeast hydrolysates and the like (e.g., algal hydrolysates – C5/L53-
Regarding claim 54, modified Tandy discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tandy discloses the chicken flavor composition may be spray dried, vacuumed dried or freeze-dried (i.e., powder form – C5/L34-37).
Regarding claim 55, modified Tandy discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tandy discloses after the chicken flavor composition is formed, the flavorant may be used as is, i.e., a solution (C5/L34-37).
Regarding claim 56, modified Tandy discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. The combination of Tandy and Proulx et al. do not disclose a chicken flavor composition comprising heme derived from animal sources.
Regarding claim 57, modified Tandy discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Tandy does not disclose embodiments which require animal derived ingredients. Tandy discloses a chicken flavor composition intended to be incorporated into vegetable based simulated chicken meat (C6/L11-16). Proulx et al. teach leghemoglobin (i.e., a heme containing protein) isolated from a plant, soybean (Abstract).
Regarding claims 62-64, modified Tandy discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Proulx et al. teach isolated heme protein from soybean, i.e., leghemoglobin, the reference is silent with respect to myoglobin. However, given Proulx et al. teach heme iron in the human diet is generally present in animal sources as part of hemoglobin and myoglobin and that heme proteins provide good iron bioavailability, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added any type of isolated heme protein to the chicken flavor composition of Tandy, with a reasonable expectation of success to fortify the flavorant with iron.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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
Prosecution Insights