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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it’s too short. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a known asserted utility or a well-established utility.
The recitation of a “ use” is not a statutory category of invention.
Claims 1-11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a known asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
A recitation of a “ use” within defining any processing parameter is not enabling.
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 1,2,11 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 1 , the limitation “ food texture improver” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is encompassed in texture improver. It’s not clear what texture alluded to; thus, it’s unclear what is being improved or what improver indicates.
In claim 2, the phrase “ more preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended. The claim recites “ wherein the amount of leguminous native starch or cross-linked starch in the meat product or the meat-free product represent between 1 to 25%”. However, claim 1 does not recite a meat product or meat free product. The recitation of “ for meat or meat-free products” in claim 1 is an intended use. It’s not a positive limitation of meat product. Thus, it’s unclear what the amount represent. The recitation of “ preferably 3-12” and “ for example 5%” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Also, A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation 1-25%, and the claim also recites “ 3 to 12% and 5%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the 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.
Claim(s) 1-4,6,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Pietrasik et al “ Use of native pea starches as an alternative to modified corn starch in low-fat bologna”.
For prior art application, the “ use” claims are interpreted just as using the starch . The claims are not treated as composition. The language of “ as food texture improver for meat or meat-free products” is treated as an intended use.
For claims 1,2,3,4,6, Pietrasik discloses use of native pea starch in bologna. The pea starch contributes to higher chewiness and hardness. ( see abstract). Pietrasik discloses the use of pea starch. The recitation of “ as food texture improver for meat or meat-free products” is an intended use which does not determine the patentability of the product. In any event, Pietrasik also discloses meat product and chewiness and hardness which are considered as texture.
For claim 11, the claim is vague and indefinite as explained in the 112 rejection above. For prior art application, it’s interpreted as an intended use which does not determine the patentability of the product. Nevertheless, Pietrasik discloses to use 3% of the starch in the meat product. ( see table 1)
Claim(s) 1-4, 6,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Pietrasik et al “ Utilization of pea starch and fiber fractions for replacement of wheat crumb in beef burgers”.
For claims 1-4, Pietrasik discloses the use of pea starch in beef burger. For claim 6, Pietrasik does not disclose modifying the pea starch. Thus, the starch is a native starch. ( see abstract). Pietrasik discloses the use of pea starch. The recitation of “ as food texture improver for meat or meat-free products” is an intended use which does not determine the patentability of the product. In any event, Pietrasik also discloses meat product. Pietrasik also discloses the pea starch gives more cohesive and chewy which are considered texture.
For claim 11, the claim is vague and indefinite as explained in the 112 rejection above. For prior art application, it’s interpreted as an intended use which does not determine the patentability of the product. Nevertheless, Pietrasik discloses to use 5% of the starch in the meat product. ( see abstract)
Claim(s) 1-5,7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Fumihiko ( WO 2019240267).
For claims 1,7, Fumihiko the use of crosslinked leguminous starch in food product. ( see page 3). The limitation “ as food texture improver for meat or meat-free product” is an intended use which does not determine the patentability of the product.
For claims 2-5, Fumihiko discloses the starch is selected from mung bean starch, pea starch. ( see page 3)
For claims 8-9, 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. ( see page 8)
For claim 10, 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%. ( see page 8)
Claim(s) 1-4,7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Takahiro ( WO 2020218055).
For claim 1, Takahiro discloses a cross-linked leguminous starch as food texture improver ( see page 4) The limitation “ as food texture improver for meat or meat-free product” is an intended use which does not determine the patentability of the product.
For claims 2-4, Takahiro discloses pea starch. ( see page 4)
For claim 7, Takahiro discloses cross-linked starch. ( see page 5)
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fumihiko ( WO 2019240267).
Fumihiko does not disclose the amount as in claim 11.
The claim is vague and indefinite as explained in the 112 rejection above. The amount is interpreted as an intended use. Fumihiko discloses using the starch as additive in foods ( see page 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the starch in any amount depending on the food and the property such as fiber content desired because the high phosphate cross-linked starch functions as dietary fiber.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahiro ( WO 2020218055).
Takahiro does not disclose the amount as in claim 11.
The claim is vague and indefinite as explained in the 112 rejection above. The amount is interpreted as an intended use. Takahiro discloses using the starch texture improver in different foods ( see page 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the starch in any amount depending on the food and the texture desired. Such parameter can readily be determined through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
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.
January 22, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793