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 1-3,7-8,11-21,24-28,30-32 and 43-48) in the reply filed on 2/24/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is based on the allegation that "the office has made no showing that there would be an undue burden in examining the subject matter of the alleged Groups I-III together". This argument is not persuasive. The restriction requirement of 2/ l 1 /2026 clearly identifies the common technical feature and shows how that is not a special technical feature ( especially see page 3, last paragraph, and all of page 4 of the restriction requirement of 2/11/2026), and applicant has not present any specific argument against this. The distinctness of species is established on page 5 of striction requirement of 2/11/2026, and applicant has also not presented any specific arguments against the same.
.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-3,7-8,11-21,24-28,30-32,43-49,65 and 70 are pending, non-elected claims 49,65 and 70 have been withdrawn from further consideration and elected claims 1-3,7-8,11-21,24-28,30-32 and 43-48 are examined in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 3,7-8, 20-21, 24-25, 27,30-31 and 43-45, 47-48 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al (US2019037893 A1 or IDS reference to Ajami (WO 2017070303A1) hereinafter Ajami.
Regarding claim 1 Ajami teaches a meat analogue composition (meat like food products (see abstract and [0108], [0330]-[0334], also [0274]-[0281] where Yeast cell wall material with bound carbohydrates with hydrated yeast cell wall material comprising bound ribose,) comprising from
2.0% to 20.0% by weight of a fat composition ([0108] any one embodiment where lipid content range is from 5-25% by weight) ;
from 5.0% to 30.0% by weight of a non-animal protein ([0108] any one embodiment where 10-25% protein range is taught);
from 30.0% to 70.0% by weight of water ([0109] any one embodiment where moisture content of 30-70% is taught).Further Ajami description in [0330]-[0334], also [0274]-[0281] also falls in the claimed range as from 2.0% to 20.0% by weight of a fat composition (19.3 wt.% fat: 9 wt.% canola oil in oil-fiber mixture and 5.6 wt. % canola oil and 3.6 wt.% coconut oil in fat blend, 1.1 wt.% lipids present in fibrous protein product); from 5.0% to 30.0% by weight of a non-animal protein (14.9 wt.% protein from pea protein isolate, see [0274]-[0281]); from 40.0% to 70.0% by weight of water (56.2 wt.% water, 37.9 wt.% water in colored water mixture, 18.3 wt.% water in fibrous protein product).
Regarding colorant and alkali Ajami teaches in [0330] from 0.01% to 5% by weight of one or more colourants (0.6 wt.% colourants, 0.5 wt.% Vegetone Vivid Red 57.01, 0.1 wt.% Natural Dark Red 5493 in colored water mixture); and
from 0.005% to 5% by weight of one or more alkali ingredients in [0274] and [0278] in protein component where 1% potassium bicarbonate and 0.5 wt.% calcium hydroxide which translates to (0.6 wt.% total alkali ingredients; 0.4 wt. % potassium bicarbonate, 0.2 wt.% calcium hydroxide in fibrous protein product material.
Thus, the product taught by Ajami includes all the component as recited in ranges that either fall or overlap the claimed ranges.
Regarding the overlapping of ranges between the invention and prior art composition it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Regarding claim 3 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to Claim 1, wherein the meat analogue composition comprises from 0.1% to 5% by weight of the one or more alkali ingredients ([0274] and [0278] where 1% potassium bicarbonate and 0.5 wt.% calcium hydroxide in the protein fraction translates to 0.4 wt.% potassium bicarbonate, 0.2 wt.% calcium hydroxide in the finished food composition).
Regarding claim 7 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according claim 1, wherein the one or more alkali ingredients comprise an alkali metal salt, an alkaline earth metal salt, an ammonium salt, an amine, or a combination thereof ([0274] and [0278] where potassium bicarbonate, calcium hydroxide are taught, which are alkali metal salts).
Regarding claim 8 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to Claim 7, wherein the one or more alkali ingredients comprise a hydroxide, carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride, gluconate, acetate or sulfide salt of a sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium or ammonium cation ([0274] and [0278] where potassium bicarbonate, a bicarbonate and calcium hydroxide, a hydroxide are taught, which fall in the claimed list).
Regarding claims 20 where colorants are recited Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the one or more colourants are present in the meat analogue composition in an amount of from 0.5% to 2.5% by weight of the meat analogue composition claims 20-23 (0.6 wt.% colourants, Vegetone Vivid Red 57.01 comprises betanins from beetroot), which falls in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the one or more colourants comprise natural colourants; nature-identical colourants; synthetic colourants; colouring foodstuffs; or any combination thereof ([0035] where natural colors and extracts are taught).
Regarding claim 24-25 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the fat composition comprises one or more non-animal derived oils (claim 24) and fat composition comprises palm oil, coconut oil, sunflower oil, or a combination thereof (claim 25). ([0320] fat blend comprises coconut oil, which is a non-animal derived oil with oils from claim 25 list).
Regarding claim 27 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the fat composition comprises an interesterified blend of vegetable oil and fully hydrogenated vegetable oil ([106] where hydrogenated as well as esterified lipids are taught, oils that are solid at ambient temperature like butter fat, chocolate fat, chicken fat), conventional fat substitutes).
Regarding claim 30-31 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the meat analogue composition further comprises one or more reducing sugars (claim 30) and reducing sugars are present in an amount of from 0.1% to 5% by weight of the meat analogue composition(claim 31) ( as applied above to claim 1 hydrated yeast cell wall material comprising bound ribose, 0.6 wt.% ribose, ribose is a reducing sugar.
Regarding claim 43-44 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the meat analogue composition further comprises an acidity regulator (claim 43) and acidity regulator comprises citric acid (claim 44) (Ajami [0251] teaches citric acid and its salts, which meet the limitations of claims 43-44 and above cited [0274-0281] and [0330-0334] teaches 0.2 wt.% Foodgard citrus extract is an acid regulator comprising citric acid).
Regarding claim 45 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the fat composition is present in the meat analogue composition in an amount of from 7.5% to 20% by weight of the meat analogue composition (See rejection of claim 1, specially ([0108] any one embodiment where lipid content range is from 5-25% by weight ids taught).
Regarding claim 47 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the meat analogue composition is substantially free of animal protein (Ajami [330-334] teaches pea protein is a legume protein to make the product, i.e., the product is f substantially free of animal protein).
Regarding claim 48 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the meat analogue composition is substantially free of animal-derived products (Ajami abstract, food products that have structures, textures, and other properties comparable to those of animal meat, and that may therefore serve as substitutes for animal meat and [0003] teaches products that “meet the rising demand for vegetarian and vegan dietary products”, i.e., meat analogue composition taught by Ajami is substantially free of animal-derived products.
Regarding claim 52 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition food product comprising a meat analogue composition according to claim 1 (Ajami abstract and [0001-0003] is directed food products that have structures, textures, and other properties comparable to those of animal meat, and that may therefore serve as substitutes for animal meat, also the meat-like food products mixture is formed into burger patties, frozen, thawed and cooked (see [0331]).
Claims 2 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Tolnick et al (US 20180132512 A1), hereinafter Tolnick and Kang et al (US 5075528 A), hereinafter Kang.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to Claim 1, but is silent regarding “one or more alkali ingredients” being “encapsulated” and that alkaline ingredients are “encapsulated within a fat matrix” (as recited in claim 11). However coating or encapsulation for delaying the reaction time for alkaline ingredients was known in the art at the time of effective filing of the application as taught by Tolnick and Kang. Tolnick in para 11 and 79 teaches using an encapsulated baking powder/ a bicarbonate which is alkaline and an exemplary encapsulating agent is fat (para 76). Tolnick recognizes that “the baking powder is encapsulated, as such encapsulation is likely to substantially hinder the leavening action of the baking powder at least until the batter is portioned and packaged” (para 79). Similarly Kang teaches discloses spray chilled fat encapsulated sodium carbonate (see col. 13, lines 5-20) and encapsulating agent is preferably a lipid (col.2, lines 6-12, also see figures and Col. 7, 10-25 where coating/encapsulating fats and their melting points are taught ), as recited in claim 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to include an encapsulated alkali ingredient like a carbonate or a bicarbonate, where the encapsulant is lipid or fat as taught by Tolnick as well as Kang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ajami at least for the purpose of delaying the reaction of alkaline ingredient, such as, delaying the leavening action of the baking powder, at least to provide the time to perform other process steps like portioning and/or packaging of the food product. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Ajami and encapsulate in fat as fat does not react with water and therefore aids in delaying the action of said alkaline ingredient until the food product is subjected to high temperatures.
Regarding claim 12 Ajami as applied above to claims 2 and 11 above teaches the meat analogue composition according to Claim 1, wherein the one or more encapsulated alkali ingredients are encapsulated within a fat matrix of the fat composition (see rejection of claim 1 and 2, 11 above).
Regarding claim 13 and 16 Ajami as applied above to claims 2 and 11 above teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the one or more alkali ingredients are encapsulated by a coating and claim 16 depends from claim 13, “wherein the coating comprises a fat coating, a carbohydrate coating, a monoacylglyceride (MAG) coating, or a combination thereof.”. Since fat encapsulation/ coating has been addressed above in claim 11 , therefore, the same rejection applies to claims 13 and 16 as well.
Regarding claim 14 which depends from claim 13 and recites a water insoluble hydrophobic coating, it is noted that fats and lipids are hydrophobic in nature, hence the rejection of claims 2 and 11 addresses the limitation of claim 14 as well.
Regarding claims 15 and 17 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to Claim 13, wherein the coating “is adapted to degrade at temperatures above 30°C” (claim 15) and “ fat with a melting point of from 40°C to 80°C”, reference is made to Ajami in view of Tolnick and Kang as applied above where the encapsulation is with high melting point fats as the encapsulated food is made for microwave cooking ( see Kang Col. 7, 10-25) where coating/encapsulating fats and their melting points are taught which fall in the claimed temperature range as recited in claims 15 and 17. Since fat encapsulation/ coating has been addressed above in claim 11 , therefore, the same rejection applies to claims 15 and 17 as well.
Regarding claim 18 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 13, wherein the one or more encapsulated alkali ingredients comprise coated particles with an average particle size of less than 650 µm (Kang teaches particle size less than 100 mesh, i.e., 150 µm, which includes claimed size of less than 650 µm). It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to utilize smaller particles as of alkali ingredient as taught by Kang. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ajami at least for the purpose of creating an encapsulated alkali ingredient that is easily mixed and has size similar to other dry powders or flour/ starch components being employed.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami ,Tolnick and Kang as applied above to claim 13-18 above, further in view of Boghani et al. (US 8389031A1), hereinafter Boghani.
Regarding claim 19 Ajami as applied above to claim 13, teaches the meat analogue composition with encapsulated alkali. Ajami, Tolnick and Kang do not teach “the one or more encapsulated alkali ingredients comprise coated particles with a coating thickness of from 25% to 50% of total particle thickness” as recited in claim 19. However, at the time of effective filing of the application encapsulation to create a “delivery system for inclusion in an edible composition” was known as taught by Boghani.(col. 1, lines 5-10). Boghani also teaches that encapsulation enables “the formulation of a suitable target delivery system … on one or more variables (i.e., tensile strength and/or hydrophobicity) and therefore taking into account all components of the delivery system including encapsulating materials and any additives that may be desirably added to the formulation and enables the delivery system” and to achieve a desired result Bognani teaches that “the coating thickness will vary depending on starting particle size and shape of the active material as well as the desired weight percent coating level. In accordance with the present invention, the coating thickness is preferably from about 1 .mu.m to about 200 .mu.m, including 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180 and 190 .mu.m and all values and ranges there between, for example, the thickness of coating material can be from about 10 .mu.m to about 50 .mu.m and 20 to 54% by weight.”(col. 1, lines 5-10, col. 2lines 10-15 and col. 14lines 45-55). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a desired thickness of coating for making an encapsulated alkali particle. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ajami at least for the purpose of achieving a desired finished particle size and encapsulating materials and any additives that may be desirably added to the formulation and enables the delivery system based on starting particle size and shape of the active material as well as the desired weight percent coating level.( see Boghani Col 14).
Claims 26 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami as applied above to claim 1, further in view of Verkuijl et al. (WO 2021/099506 A1).
Regarding claim 26 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 1, but Ajami [0145] and [0160] teaches the lipids are saturated fats. “In other such embodiments, the lipids are unsaturated fats. In yet other such embodiments, the lipids are both saturated and unsaturated fats”, however, Ajami is silent regarding the fat composition wherein the fat composition comprises “from 20% to 85% by weight of saturated fatty acid residues; from 10% to 50% by weight of stearic acid residues (C18:0); and from 2% to 35% by weight of lauric acid residues (C12:0); wherein said percentages of fatty acid residues refers to fatty acids bound as acyl groups in glycerides in the fat composition and being based on the total weight of C4 to C24 fatty acid residues bound as acyl groups present in the fat composition.”, however, such fatty compositions were known to be utilized in meat analogs as taught by Verkuijl. Verkuijl teaches that the fat composition comprises at least 40% by weight saturated fatty acids (page 4 last para.), thus overlapping the claimed range of 20-85% by weight;
at least 40% by weight C18:0 (page 4 para. 10), thus overlapping the claimed range of 10-50% by weight; less than 10% by weight C12:0 (page 4 para. 5), thus overlapping the claimed range of 2-35% by weight; wherein said percentages of fatty acid residues refers to fatty acids bound as acyl groups in glycerides in the fat composition and being based on the total weight of C8 to C24 fatty acid residues bound as acyl groups present in the fat composition (pages 3-4). Thus in light of the teaching of Verkuijl, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include a combination of saturated and unsaturated fatty acids in a desired proportion to achieve the desired viscosity and thickness to the fat component. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ajami at least for the purpose of to achieve the desired fatty texture and mouthfeel in the meat analog product, such that meat analog products provide textural and other properties, nutritional benefits, use versatilities, cooking experiences, and eating experiences that are comparable to those of animal meat or meat derived products as is taught by Ajami in para [0001].
Regarding claim 28 Ajami teaches the meat analogue composition according to claim 1, wherein the fat composition comprises
(a) a fat composition as defined in Claim 26 (see rejection of claim 26 above); and
(b) (i) a blend of a liquid vegetable oil and a fully hydrogenated liquid vegetable oil, or (ii) a blend of a liquid vegetable oil and a vegetable oil stearin (liquid and part to fully solids are taught in [0106] and stearate compounds are taught in [0162]). Claim 28 depends from 26 and the motivation to include specific composition of claim 26 as provided above, also applies to claim 28.
Regarding the overlapping of ranges between the invention and prior art composition it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI CHAWLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30- 5:30.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/JYOTI CHAWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights