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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed 7/16/26. Claims 1-11 are cancelled and claims 12-16 are added. Claims 12-16 are pending.
All previous objection and rejections are withdrawn due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 12-16 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.
In claim 12, the limitation “ cooking the mixture until the product core temperature if above 81 degrees C”. This limitation is not totally supported by the original disclosure. Paragraph 0089 of the published application discloses “ will be cooked above 81 degrees”. There is no disclosure of the core temperature of the product.
Claims 12-16 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.
In claim 12, terms like “ hardness, stickiness” are indefinite because they are relative; it’s unclear what value is require to be considered as increasing hardness or stickiness. There is no base value established; it’s unclear because it’s relative. Line 3, the recitation “ the total weight, the final product” does not have proper antecedent basis. Line 7, the recitation “ the product core temperature” does not have proper antecedent basis. Line 9, the limitation “ sensory stickiness” is vague and indefinite because the term is relative. It’s not clear what quality or characteristic is defined as stickiness; there is no frame of reference. The claim does not set forth that the product is sticky; thus, it’s unclear what would qualify as “ sensory stickiness is not increased”.
Claim 13 is vague and indefinite. It’s not clear if the claim is intended to be a separate independent claim or a dependent claim. The claim recites “ highly cross-liked leguminous distarch phosphate as defined in claim 1”. But, claim 1 is cancelled. It’s assumed that the claim is meant to recite claim 12 but claim 12 is not directed to method of making starch and the claim is also not directed to making meat-free patty. Line 2, the recitation “ the total weight, the final product” does not have proper antecedent basis. The limitation “ without increasing stickiness” has the same problem as claim 12. ( for prior art application, it’s treated as a separate claim)
In claim 14, Lines 1-2, the recitation “ the total weight, the final product” does not have proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 is vague and indefinite because the claim depends from claim 1 which is cancelled. ( It’s assumed that the claim is meant to depend from claim 12)
Claim 16 has the same problem as claim 15. . ( It’s assumed that the claim is meant to depend from claim 13)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro ( WO 2020218055) in view of Fumihiko ( WO 2019240267).
For claims 12,13, 14 Takahiro discloses a cross-linked leguminous starch as food texture improver. Takahiro discloses a method of incorporating the texture improving agent into a meat and substituted meat product. For claim 14, the substituted meat product comprises soybean protein. The method comprises mixing the starch improver to the meat or meat substituted in amount of 5%-50% and cooking the formed product at temperature of about 130-200 degrees C. Takahiro discloses pea starch and the starch is cross-linked starch. ( see pages 4-8)
Takahiro does not disclose the distarch phosphate with phosphorus content and mincing as in claim 12, highly cross-linked distarch phosphate as in claim 13, the distarch phosphate and phosphate content and the form of patty as in claim 14 and the properties as in claims 12,13, 15-16.
Fumihiko the use of crosslinked leguminous starch in food product. Fumihiko discloses the starch is selected from mung bean starch, pea starch. Fumihiko discloses the crosslinked starch is a high phosphate cross-linked starch. Since the starch is a cross-linked phosphate starch, it’s a distarch phosphate. Fumihiko discloses the phosphate-crosslinked starch has a phosphorus content of .5% or less which encompasses the claimed range because 130-150mg/kg is .013-.015%. Fumihiko discloses the starch has a low phosphorus content and a high resistant starch content. Resistant starch is a dietary fiber and has various physiological benefits. Fumihiko discloses the resistant starch in the high phosphate cross-linked starch is maintained during heating by cooking. ( see abstract, pages 3, 8)
Takahiro discloses the use of cross-linked leguminous starch including pea starch. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the highly cross-linked distarch phosphate as disclosed in Fumihiko as the starch to obtain the benefit of starch with high level of resistant starch which has health benefits. It would have been obvious to use minced meat and to form patty as an obvious matter of preference depending on the appearance desired for the meat or meat substitute product. Takahiro discloses cooking at 100-130 degrees C, thus, it’s obvious the product will reach the temperature at which the product is cooked. As to the properties, Takahiro in view of Fumihiko discloses the same method steps, same substrate and same starch; thus, it’s obviously inherent the same properties are present. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), in re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 12,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu ( CN 109527426) in view Fumihiko ( WO 2019240267).
For claim 12, Xu discloses a method of making duck meat. The method comprises the steps of mincing duck into a meat paste, adding resistant starch, shaping and cooking in 90-100 degrees C. The resistant starch is used in 12-17 parts. ( see page 2)
Xu does not disclose the distarch phosphate with phosphorus content as in claim 12 and the properties as in claims 12 15.
Fumihiko the use of crosslinked leguminous starch in food product. Fumihiko discloses the starch is selected from mung bean starch, pea starch. Fumihiko discloses the crosslinked starch is a high phosphate cross-linked starch. Since the starch is a cross-linked phosphate starch, it’s a distarch phosphate. Fumihiko discloses the phosphate-crosslinked starch has a phosphorus content of .5% or less which encompasses the claimed range because 130-150mg/kg is .013-.015%. Fumihiko discloses the starch has a low phosphorus content and a high resistant starch content. Resistant starch is a dietary fiber and has various physiological benefits. Fumihiko discloses the resistant starch in the high phosphate cross-linked starch is maintained during heating by cooking. ( see abstract, pages 3, 8)
Xu discloses adding resistant starch to the raw minced meat mixture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the highly cross-linked distarch phosphate as disclosed in Fumihiko as the resistant starch to have high level of resistant starch even during heating. Xu discloses cooking at 90-100 degrees C, thus, it’s obvious the product will reach the temperature at which the product is cooked. As to the properties, Xu in view of Fumihiko discloses the same method steps, same substrate and same starch; thus, it’s obviously inherent the same properties are present. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), in re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 13,14,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu ( CN 112869177) in view of Fumihiko ( WO 2019240267).
For claim 13, Lu discloses a method of forming meat-free product comprising plant protein matrix. The method comprises the step of incorporating a starch into the plant protein matrix and cooking the product. The starch is used in the range of 7.90-13.2%. The starch is the total of the white meat portion and red meat portion. For claim 14, Lu discloses a meat-free product comprising 7.90-13.2% starch. ( see abstract,page 4)
Lu does not disclose the highly cross-linked leguminous distarch phosphate and forming patty as in claim 13, the patty and phosphorus content as in claim 14 and the properties as in claims 13, 16.
Fumihiko the use of crosslinked leguminous starch in food product. Fumihiko discloses the starch is selected from mung bean starch, pea starch. Fumihiko discloses the crosslinked starch is a high phosphate cross-linked starch. Since the starch is a cross-linked phosphate starch, it’s a distarch phosphate. Fumihiko discloses the phosphate-crosslinked starch has a phosphorus content of .5% or less which encompasses the claimed range because 130-150mg/kg is .013-.015%. Fumihiko discloses the starch has a low phosphorus content and a high resistant starch content. Resistant starch is a dietary fiber and has various physiological benefits. Fumihiko discloses the resistant starch in the high phosphate cross-linked starch is maintained during heating by cooking. ( see abstract, pages 3, 8)
Lu discloses adding starch to the plant protein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the highly cross-linked distarch phosphate as disclosed in Fumihiko as the starch to have high level of resistant starch which is disclosed to have health benefits. It would have been obvious to form patty as a matter of preference on the configuration wanted for the product. As to the properties, Lu in view of Fumihiko discloses the same method steps, same substrate and same starch; thus, it’s obviously inherent the same properties are present. It has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. in re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), in re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 ( Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The claims are completely amended to a method and requires the new ground of rejection as set forth above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
September 23, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
