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 1-10, 16-21, and 24) in the reply filed on 31 March 2026 is acknowledged. The examiner would like to note that claims 25-27 were missed in the restriction requirement filed 17 February 2026, however in applicants response the applicant elected claims 25 and 26 to Group I and Claim 27 with group II. The examiner agrees with the placement of these claims and therefore the claims are examined herein. Continuing, the traversal is on the ground(s) that both Nishiura and Smith refer to PVP having a protein percentage that is substantially higher than 15%. This is not found persuasive because first, Nishiura is not relied upon to teach the claimed protein percentage. Second Smith teaches that the protein powders can comprise different ratios of protein to carbohydrate, and can be mixed to achieve a texture and mouthfeel approximating that of a soft gel after the addition of water and incubation with transglutaminase ([0041]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize PVP with the desired protein content to achieve the desired texture and mouthfeel.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (herein referred to as Smith, WO 2021119498 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Smither teaches a food composition comprising meat or meat substitute (abstract). Smither teaches a processed protein ingredient mixed with transglutaminase ([0007], [0013]).
Smith teaches using powdered pea protein but does not specify the percent protein in the protein ingredient. However Smith teaches that varying the fat, protein, and water content, as well as the incubation time for enzymatic action, one of skill in the art can use the method to produce vegan analogues of hard cheeses, butter, cream cheese, processed cheese, yogurt, Greek yogurt, pudding, sour cream, skyr, kefir, buttermilk, cream, and other similar dairy products ([0040]). Smith also teaches that the protein powders can comprise different ratios of protein to carbohydrate, and can be mixed to achieve a texture and mouthfeel approximating that of a soft gel after the addition of water and incubation with transglutaminase ([0041]).
Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would be able to deduce that varying the protein content within the processed protein ingredient would achieve the desired analogue, texture, and mouthfeel. It is important to note that the above examples are specific to vegan dairy products and vegan egg products, but because Smith additionally teaches meat analogues, one with ordinary skill in the art would be able to apply the teachings from the above examples to the meat products also taught by Smith. Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize a processed protein with the desired protein content, such as 15%, to achieve the desired type of analogue with the desired texture and mouthfeel. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to Claim 2, Smith teaches the processes protein ingredient is derived from plants ([0043]).
Claims 5-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (WO 2021119498 A1) in view of Nishiura et al. (herein referred to as Nishiura, WO 2010131719 A1)
With regard to Claim 5, Smith teaches a food composition comprising processed vegetable protein treated with transglutaminase ([0007], [0013]) and water ([0007]). Smith teaches the composition containing vegetable protein treated with transglutaminase and water can be used to make vegan meat products resembling the texture and mouthfeel of a cooked ground beef or pork ([0053]), but is silent to the food composition containing ground meat.
Nishiura teaches a ground meat product, which sustains the original texture thereof as a ground meat product (abstract). Nishiura teaches in processed meat products, this paste-like meat acts as a "binder" to bind other ingredients together, and is called mince in the case of livestock meat, and surimi in the case of seafood (page 13). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize minced meat is equivalent to ground meat. Nishiura teaches mixing a protein cross-linking enzyme with the soy protein material (i.e., processed vegetable protein) in the presence of water, and then mix it with the meat, in order to impart a texture reminiscent of that of a paste product (page 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith to include ground meat as taught by Nishiura to bind other ingredients together and impart the desired texture.
With regard to Claim 6, Smith teaches the processes vegetable protein is peas ([0043]).
With regard to Claim 8, Smith teaches the product contains fat ([0030]) Smith teaches The ratios of protein, fat, and water, as well as the incubation time with enzyme, can be varied to produce different kinds of products, products with different firmness, consistency, etc., based on the information provided herein to one of skill in the art ([0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include fat in the desired amount, such as < 15%, to achieve the desired kind of product with the desired firmness, consistency, etc. wherein the organoleptic properties are typical for ground meat products with fat contents higher than 20%.
With regard to Claim 9, Smith teaches the ratios of protein, fat, and water, as well as the incubation time with enzyme, can be varied to produce different kinds of products, products with different firmness, consistency, etc., based on the information provided herein to one of skill in the art ([0038]). Smith also teaches that the protein powders can comprise different ratios of protein to carbohydrate, and can be mixed to achieve a texture and mouthfeel approximating that of a soft gel after the addition of water and incubation with transglutaminase ([0041]).
Therefore, absence a showing of criticality one with ordinary skill in the art would be able to deduce that varying the protein content within the processed protein ingredient would achieve the desired analogue, texture, and mouthfeel. Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize a processed protein with the desired protein content, such as < 12%, to achieve the desired type of analogue with the desired texture and mouthfeel. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to Claim 10, The combination of Smith and Nishiura teach all the limitations of Claim 5. Therefore the food composition taught by Smith and Nishiura would inherently exhibit lower weight loss and shrinkage on heating, even when preceded or followed by a step of freezing, when compared to a composition without PVP and/or TG. See MPEP 2112.01(II) "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (WO 2021119498 A1) in view of Nishiura (WO 2010131719 A1) and Lee et al. (herein referred to as Lee, KR 20200141958 A).
With regard to Claims 7 and 25, Smith is silent to an additional protein reacting with the transglutaminase.
Lee teaches an artificial meat food composition using plant protein ([0001]). Lee teaches using transglutaminase as a protein crosslinking agent ([0040]). Lee teaches using a protein crosslinking agent with one or more (emphasis added) plant proteins selected from the group consisting of soybean protein (emphasis added), wheat protein, almond protein, mushroom protein, potato protein, and pumpkin protein ([0060]).
Therefore, Lee imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that transglutaminase reacting with more than one plant protein, specifically soy proteins, was known to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize transglutaminase with more than one plant protein, specifically soy protein,, because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability fort a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
Claims 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (WO 2021119498 A1) in view of Berry (“Ingredient tip: Pea-protein-based ‘breadless’ crumbs”) and Espeleta et al (herein referred to as Espeleta, EP 2084972 A1)
With regard to Claims 16 and 17, Smith teaches a processed protein ingredient in mixture with transglutaminase ([0007], [0013]). Smith teaches the processed protein ingredient and transglutaminase can be made into crumbles ([0046]). Smith teaches protein crumble can be produced with varying properties, optimizing them for their intended uses and the products into which they may be incorporated ([0050]). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize a “crumble” would be equivalent to a “breadcrumb-like material”.
However, Smith is silent to the crumbles being used as a coating.
Berry teaches using pea protein as a direct replacement for traditional breadcrumbs that can coat beef, chicken, pork or even analogs for baking and frying (whole document).
Therefore, Berry imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that pea protein was known to be successfully used as a coating for meat or meat substitutes and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize the pea protein crumbles taught by Smith as a coating for meat or meat substitutes, because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
However, the combination of Smith and Berry is silent to the protein crumbles coating a steak.
Espeleta teaches a substitute meat food product that can have the appearance of breaded skirt steak (abstract). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize a skirt steak is in reference to a steak from a beef source. Espeleta teaches the skirt steak is coated with breadcrumbs (claim 63).
The combination of Smith and Berry teaches the protein crumbles taught by Smith can function as a coating for meat or meat substitute products. See MPEP 2144.06 discusses combining or substituting equivalents known for the same purpose. "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to substitute the crumbles taught by Smith for the breadcrumb coating on the skirt steak as taught by Espeleta because the crumbles and the breadcrumbs are known to be equivalents as taught by Berry above.
With regard to Claim 18, Smith teaches the processed protein ingredient comprises peas ([0043]).
With regard to Claim 20, The combination of Smith, Berry, and Espeleta teaches all the limitations of Claim 16. Therefore the steak coated with a breadcrumb layer taught by Smith, Berry, and Espeleta would inherently have said layer exhibiting good adhesion to the steak during storage and processing, and/or crispy character after microwave oven heat treatment performed immediately after taking said composition from a freezer.. See MPEP 2112.01(II) "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Claims 19 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (WO 2021119498 A1) in view of Berry (“Ingredient tip: Pea-protein-based ‘breadless’ crumbs”), Espeleta (EP 2084972 A1), and Lee (KR 20200141958 A).
With regard to Claim 19 and 26, Smith is silent to an additional protein reacting with the transglutaminase.
Lee teaches an artificial meat food composition using plant protein ([0001]). Lee teaches using transglutaminase as a protein crosslinking agent ([0040]). Lee teaches using a protein crosslinking agent with one or more (emphasis added) plant proteins selected from the group consisting of soybean protein (emphasis added), wheat protein, almond protein, mushroom protein, potato protein, and pumpkin protein ([0060]).
Therefore, Lee imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that transglutaminase reacting with more than one plant protein, specifically soy proteins, was known to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize transglutaminase with more than one plant protein, specifically soy protein,, because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability fort a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA I DIVIESTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (MST).
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/K.I.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights