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 of Group I, claims 39-55 in the reply filed on March 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 56-57 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected process, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
39-57
Withdrawn claims:
56-57
Previously canceled claims:
1-38
Newly canceled claims:
None
Amended claims:
None
New claims:
None
Claims currently under consideration:
39-55
Currently rejected claims:
39-55
Allowed claims:
None
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: p. 17, [0085], Schemes 1 and 2 are illegible.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 48 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 48 recites chickpeas, lentils, and legumes twice each. Delete the second instance of each recitation.
Claim 48 recites both canola and rapeseed, which are known in the art to be alternative names for the same seed. Delete one instance of the recitation.
Claim 48, line 9, deleted the period in “(bananas). and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 41 and 48 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 41 recites the limitation “when in powder form”. However, claim 39, upon which claim 41 depends, does not recite that the composition may be in a powder form. It is unclear if “when in powder form” is referring to the composition of claim 39 or the plant protein source. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the composition of claim 39 may be in powder form.
Claim 41 recites the limitation “at least 90% plant protein source” but does not recite the units for the percentage. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that the claim recites “at least 90% by weight”.
Regarding claim 48, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vrljic (US 2018/0027851 A1) as evidenced by Kullmann (Kullmann, Willi. “Protease-mediated Peptide Bond Formation”, The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 256, No. 3, p. 1301-1304, published 1981 [accessed online May 1, 2026]).
Regarding claims 39 and 50, Vrljic teaches of a meat substitute (i.e., a food product; Abstract) comprising plant proteins (i.e., plant derived polypeptides; [0018]) that are crosslinked ([0022]) and that the proteins can be assembled into a matrix ([0142]). Vrljic also teaches that the composition can comprise amylase (i.e., a polysaccharide degrading enzyme) and protease (known in the art to be a peptide bond forming enzyme)([0125]). Vrljic also teaches that the components of the consumable can be suspended in a hydrogel ([0247]). Vrljic further teaches that the consumable product may be made of entirely plant-based proteins and/or fats ([0015]). Thus, the product would be essentially devoid of animal derived proteins and/or fats.
Evidence to support that protease is a peptide bond forming enzyme is provided by Kullmann. Kullmann teaches of protease-controlled peptide synthesis (i.e., peptide bond formation; p. 1301, Abstract).
Regarding claim 40, Vrljic teaches that in some embodiments the consumable contains no methylcellulose ([0250]).
Regarding claim 42, Vrljic teaches that the proteins can be tagged using glutathione-S-transferase ([0139]).
Regarding claim 44, Vrljic teaches that the crosslinking enzyme may be a tyrosinase or a peroxidase ([0161]), which are known oxidoreductases that that are a multicopper enzyme capable of oxidating phenol residues. Evidence to support that tyrosinase and peroxidases are multicopper enzyme capable of oxidating phenol residues is provided by the instant specification. The instant specification states that the oxidoreductase may be a multicopper enzyme capable of oxidating phenolic residues. Optionally, the oxidoreductase may be a tyrosinase or a peroxidase ([0022]).
Regarding claim 45, Vrljic also teaches that the composition can comprise amylase ([0125]).
Regarding claim 48, Vrljic also teaches that the plant protein can be from pea, chickpea, lentil, or legumes ([0018]).
Regarding claim 49, although Vrljic does not teach that the hydrogel is thermostable, MPEP §2112.01(II) states that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Additionally, MPEP §2112.01 states where the claimed and prior art are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Thus, the hydrogel of Vrljic that has the same composition would be thermostable.
Regarding claim 51, Vrljic teaches of a meat substitute (i.e., meat alternative; Abstract)
Regarding claims 52-55, although Vrljic does not explicitly state the properties of the consumable with and without methylcellulose, MPEP §2112.01(II) states that a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Additionally, MPEP §2112.01 states where the claimed and prior art are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Thus, claims 52-55 are anticipated by Vrljic.
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.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrljic (US 2018/0027851 A1) as evidenced by Kullmann (Kullmann, Willi. “Protease-mediated Peptide Bond Formation”, The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 256, No. 3, p. 1301-1304, published 1981 [accessed online May 1, 2026]) in view of Janvary (US 2020/0390125 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Vrljic does not teach the composition comprising at least 90% by weight of the plant protein.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Janvary teaches of an oilseed (i.e., plant) food product (Abstract) having a plant protein content of preferably 90 to 99 weight% based on dry matter ([0034]), which falls within the claimed range of “at least 90% plant protein source”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Vrljic with the use of plant protein in an amount taught by Janvary. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrljic (US 2018/0027851 A1) as evidenced by Kullmann (Kullmann, Willi. “Protease-mediated Peptide Bond Formation”, The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 256, No. 3, p. 1301-1304, published 1981 [accessed online May 1, 2026]) in view of Pang (Pang, Yan Ling Joy, et al. “tRNA synthetase: tRNA Aminoacylation and beyond”, Wiley Interdisciplinary Rev RNA, published July 1, 2015 [accessed online May 1, 2026]).
Regarding claim 43, Vrljic does not teach wherein the transferase is a amino-acyltransferase.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Pang teaches of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (i.e., amino-acyltransferase; Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the glutathione-S-transferase of Vrljic with the use of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase as taught by Pang. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Pang teaches that aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase offers promising pathways for development and treatment of diverse human diseases. Additionally, The claim would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to make this simple substitution of one known element for another and yield predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(B).
Claim 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrljic (US 2018/0027851 A1) as evidenced by Kullmann (Kullmann, Willi. “Protease-mediated Peptide Bond Formation”, The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 256, No. 3, p. 1301-1304, published 1981 [accessed online May 1, 2026]) in view of Christ (US 2021/0252192 A1).
Regarding claim 46, Vrljic teaches that the protein may have the water removed by techniques such as freeze-drying or spray drying to concentrate the protein, and that the proteins can then be constituted with liquid (i.e., a dried composition capable of forming a hydrogel; [0261]).
Vrljic does not teach wherein the composition is in the form of a powder.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hydrogel compositions, Christ teaches that hydrogels can be prepared as a powder ([0096]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dried protein composition of Vrljic with the addition of grinding to form a powder as taught by Christ. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Christ teaches that powder is easily stored and transported ([0096]).
Claim 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrljic (US 2018/0027851 A1) as evidenced by Kullmann (Kullmann, Willi. “Protease-mediated Peptide Bond Formation”, The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 256, No. 3, p. 1301-1304, published 1981 [accessed online May 1, 2026]) in view of Creative (“Effect of Temperature on Enzymatic Reaction”, Creative Enzymes, version from November 2, 2020 [accessed online May 4, 2026] https://web.archive.org/web/20201102152803/https://www.creative-enzymes.com/resource/effect-of-temperature-on-enzymatic-reaction_50.html).
Regarding claim 47, Vrljic does not teach wherein the at least one polysaccharide degrading enzyme and/or the at least one peptide bond forming enzyme is reversibly inactivated by drying and/or freezing and wherein the reversibly inactive enzyme is reactivated upon hydration and/or thawing.
However, in the same field of endeavor as enzymes, Creative teaches that enzyme will eventually become inactive at freezing temperatures but will restore most of the enzyme activity when temperatures increase again (p. 2, ¶ 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Vrljic with the use of an enzyme that is inactive at freezing temperatures but reactivates when temperatures increase as taught by Creative. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A).
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48, and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20, 23-26, 28, and 37 of copending Application No. 19/304,167 (reference application, hereinafter ‘167). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 39, claim 20 of ‘167 recites a composition comprising plant-derived polypeptides treated with glycosidase (i.e., a polysaccharide degrading enzyme) and a crosslinking enzyme (i.e., a peptide bond forming enzyme and/or oxidoreductase, which would result in a matrix comprising crosslinked plant derived polypeptides), wherein the composition is devoid of animal derived proteins and/or fats, wherein the composition is capable of forming a hydrogel. Although instant claim 39 is silent regarding the composition being essentially devoid of artificial and synthetic stabilizers and thickeners as recited in ‘617 claim 20, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to exclude such compositions from the instant claimed invention.
Regarding claim 40, claim 28 of ‘167 recites that the composition is essentially devoid of methyl cellulose.
Regarding claim 42, claim 23 of ‘167 recites that the crosslinking enzyme may be a transferase.
Regarding claim 44, claim 24 of ‘167 recites that the oxidoreductase is a multicopper enzyme capable of oxidating phenolic residues.
Regarding claim 45, claim 25 of ‘167 recites that the glycosidase (i.e., polysaccharide bond degrading enzyme) is pectinase, pectinmethylesterase, amylase, invertase, cellulase, or any combination thereof.
Regarding claim 48, claim 26 of ‘167 recites the same polypeptides as instant claim 48.
Regarding claim 50, claim 37 ‘167 recites a food product comprising the composition of claim 20. For the reasons described above, the food product of instant claim 50 is obvious in view of ‘167 claim 37.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Generally available M-Th 8:00a-5:00p, F 8:00-2:00.
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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights