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 82-94 in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Group II are ultimately dependent from a claim of Group 1 and MPEP §1850 shows that unity of invention is considered in relation to independent and not dependent claims. This is not found persuasive because claim 94 is considered an independent claim.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 82-94 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.
Regarding claim 82, the recitation “said at least one hydrocolloid forming polymer comprises one or more viscosity increasing polymers” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how the composition could comprise only one hydrocolloid forming polymer but the hydrocolloid polymer comprise more than one viscosity increasing polymer. Moreover, it is not clear what the difference is between a hydrocolloid forming polymer and a viscosity increasing polymer (see present disclosure p. 23-24). With respect to the prior art the terms hydrocolloid forming polymer and a viscosity increasing polymer are considered to encompass the same materials.
Regarding claim 83, the recitation “wherein said hydrocolloid forming polymer and/or the viscosity increasing polymer comprises a polysaccharide” renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear how a polysaccharide is different than a viscosity increasing polymer (as defined by the present disclosure at p. 23-24). Moreover, as discussed above regarding claim 82, it is not clear what the difference is between a hydrocolloid forming polymer and a viscosity increasing polymer. With respect to the prior art the terms polysaccharide, viscosity increasing polymer and hydrocolloid are considered to encompass the same materials.
Regarding claim 86, the recitation “comprising at least one hydrocolloid forming polymer other than the viscosity increasing polymer” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear what the difference is between the two claimed polymers (see rejection of claims 82 and 83 set forth above).
Regarding claim 89, the recitation “said legume protein or bean proteins are selected from the group consisting of . . .” renders the claim indefinite because there is no antecedent basis for the term “legume protein or bean proteins.”
Claims 84, 85, 87, 88 and 90-94 are rejected because they are dependent from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 82-87, 89, and 91-94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nussi et al. (WO 2022/038244 A1- cited on IDS filed February 11, 2025).
Regarding claims 82, 83, , 86, 87 and 89, Nussi et al. disclose a fish analogue comprising konjac glucomannan (i.e. polysaccharide or viscosity increasing polymer), carrageenan (i.e., polysaccharide or viscosity increasing polymer), a plant protein source and oil (p. 1-2 ). Nussi et al. disclose the fish analogue is made by hydrating (i.e., adding water to) a mixture comprising a plant protein source, konjac glucomannan and carrageenan ; heating the mixture; adding oil to the heat mixture; and cooling the mixture to form a first layer (i.e., homogenous mixture that results in a film -Abstract, p. 1-2, p. 16/Table 7). Nussi et al. disclose the salmon analogue is in the form of a translucent gel (p. 1/L, p. 6-12/Example 1-Development and textural analysis of base gel, p. 12-16/Example 2-Addition of protein to base gel -different protein sources and concentrations). Given the gel of Nussi et al. comprises 90% water it is conserved a hydrogel.
Given Nussi et al. disclose konjac glucomannan and carrageenan, polysaccharides (i.e., viscosity increasing polymers) disclosed in the present application, inherently the polysaccharides would exhibit a viscosity of at least 1,000 cP at 25°C when dissolved in water, at a concentration of about 2% (w/v).
Nussi et al. disclose the first layer comprises between 0.8 and 2.5% by weight viscosity increasing polymer (i.e., about 8 to about 16% by weight on a dry basis – see p. 16/Table 7 wherein the gel comprises 7 wt% protein and 0.8 or 2.5 wt% viscosity increasing polymer).
Nussi et al. disclose the plant protein is soy protein (p. 14-15).
Regarding claim 84, Nussi et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Nussi et al. disclose one or more viscosity increasing polymers (i.e., polysaccharides), since a polysaccharide comprising cellulose is optional, the limitations of claim 84 are satisfied.
Regarding claim 85, Nussi et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nussi et al. disclose a composition comprising konjac glucomannan and carrageenan. Both konjac glucomannan and carrageenan are derived from natural products (i.e., konjac plant root and seaweed respectively – “nature-derived polysaccharide.”
Regarding claim 91, Nussi et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nussi et al. disclose the salmon analogue comprises potato fiber and sucrose (p. 24-25/Example 4 – vegan salmon analogue preparation).
Regarding claim 92, Nussi et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nussi et al. disclose a salmon (i.e., fish) vegan analogue comprising DHA oil from algae (i.e., plant source – p. 24-25/Example 4 – vegan salmon analogue preparation).
Regarding claim 93, Nussi et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set for the above. Nussi et al. disclose the fish analogue has a water content of about 90% by weight (see p. 16/Table 7 when the composition comprise additional protein of 7% by weight).
Regarding claim 94, Nussi et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nussi et al. disclose the fish analogue is made into a layer (i.e., form of a sheet or strip- Abstract, p. 1/L31-p. 2/L3, p. 24-25/Example 4 – vegan salmon analogue preparation).
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.
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 88 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nussi et al. (WO 2022/038244 A1- cited on IDS filed February 11, 2025) in view of Calleja et al. (WO 2018202852-Clarivate Analytics translation).
Regarding claim 88, Nussi et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. While Nussi et al. teach a composition comprising polysaccharides that gel, including konjac glucomannan and carrageenan, the reference is silent with respect to maltodextrin.
Calleja et al. teach smoked salmon substitute comprising a plant component wherein the plant component is a gelling constituent or polysaccharide including konjac, starch, pectin and maltodextrin – Detailed Description, Example 1).
Nussi et al. and Calleja et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fish substitutes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added maltodextrin as a polysaccharide in the fish analogue composition of Nussi et al. because Calleja et al. teach maltodextrin is a polysaccharide that gels similar to, for example, konjac glucomannan.
Claim 90 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nussi et al. (WO 2022/038244 A1- cited on IDS filed February 11, 2025) in view of Savir et al. (WO 2018/189738 A1).
Regarding claim 90, Nussi et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Nussi et al is silent with respect to a composition comprising animal cells or animal cell components.
Savir et al. teach a foodstuff comprising plant-originated substance and cultured animal cells (including fish -Abstract, p. 2/L1-6, p. 7/L9-20, p. 13/L1-2, p. 14/L29-p. 15/L23). Savir et al. teach the cultured animal cells are added to the foodstuff to enhance organoleptic or nutritional properties of the foodstuff (p. 8/L15- p. 9/L29).
Nussi et al. and Savir et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely fish substitute compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added cultured animal (i.e., fish) cells, as taught by Savir et al., to the fish analogue composition of Nussi et al. to obtain a fish analogue with enhanced organoleptic and/or nutritional properties.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ali et al. (“Recent Advances in Edible Polymer Based Hydrogels as a Sustainable Alternative to Conventional Polymers”, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 66, (2018), pp. 6940-6967) teaches about edible hydrogels based on polymers including hydrocolloids, proteins and lipids.
Jiménez-Comenero et al. (“Konjac gel fat analogue for us in meat products: Comparison with pork fats”, Food Hydrocolloids, 26, (2012), pp. 63-72) teaches gels made by combining konjac, carrageenan, cornstarch and water to make a gel and placing the gel in containers to form blocks resembling pork backfat (p. 72/2.1 Materials and konjac gels preparation). No fat or protein is taught.
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, Duane Smith can be reached at 571-272-1166. 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