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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the application
2. Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 24-29 are pending in this office action.
Claims 1-8, 10, 11, 24-29 have been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 26-28 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.
5. Claims 26-28 recite “Meat-like” and “processed-meat-stock-soup-like”. It is unclear what “-like” was intended to convey [MPEP 2173.05 (b) III]. This renders claims 26-28 indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
6. 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.
(g)(1) during the course of an interference conducted under section 135 or section 291, another inventor involved therein establishes, to the extent permitted in section 104, that before such person’s invention thereof the invention was made by such other inventor and not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed, or (2) before such person’s invention thereof, the invention was made in this country by another inventor who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention under this subsection, there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other.
A rejection on this statutory basis (35 U.S.C. 102(g) as in force on March 15, 2013) is appropriate in an application or patent that is examined under the first to file provisions of the AIA if it also contains or contained at any time (1) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in 35 U.S.C. 100(i) that is before March 16, 2013 or (2) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.
7. 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:
8. 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 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.
9. Claim 1-8, 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Li, Shan et al. CN 111616349 A) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Li, Shan et al. CN 111616349 A).
10. Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7, Li et al. discloses a composite plant-based liquid seasoning production method wherein soybean oil, rapeseed oil, coconut oil, and other raw materials are mixed, lipase enzyme is added, and hydrolysis and oxidation treatment is performed to oxidize fats and oil of plant origin in order to make oxidized oil containing plant-based beef-flavored liquid seasoning finished product (at least in [0055]-[0059] in Example 4 and all Examples 1-9 and in claims 8,9 of Li et al., and in Example 1 and Examples 2-9 also describe obtaining the same seasoning by similar methods.). Li et al. also discloses that enzymatic decomposition (using lipase) and a heating reaction are key to the formation of a beef-flavored aromatic compound (at least in [0031], and in claims 8,9 of Li et al.) and that the seasoning is suitable for all kinds of foods, and is also suitable for vegetarians, environmentalists, and those involved in their weight management and seeking the taste of meat in vegetable food product (at least in paragraph [0095]). Therefore, Li et al. anticipates claims 1,3,5,7.
It is to be noted that the phrase “animal-fat consistency” is defined in applicant’s specification as “implementing a specific treatment on an oil and fat yields an ingredient having an exceptional effect for imparting an animal-fat consistency, thereby perfecting the present invention (at least in PGPUB in [0011] ) and this specific treatment is oxidizing oil and/or product obtained by enzymatically hydrolyzing an oxidized oil and fat that is not derived from animals is used as an active ingredient from plant origin and not from animal origin (in PGPUB at least in [0014]). Therefore, the disclosed invention relating to a composite plant-based liquid seasoning having a beef flavor as disclosed by Li et al. (at least in claims of Li et al.), it is possible by one of ordinary skill in the art to perform enzymatic decomposition (using lipase) and a heating reaction for having ‘enzymatically treated oxidized oil’ which are key to the formation of a beef-flavored aromatic compound containing ‘seasoning’ with a reasonable expectation of success to use the seasoning which is suitable for all kinds of foods, and is also suitable for vegetarians, environmentalists, and those controlling their weight who are seeking the taste of meat in food (at least in Li et al., paragraph [0091]). Therefore, Li et al. anticipates claims 1,3,5,7.
Li et al., therefore, discloses that the obtained enzymatically treated oxidized beef- flavored fat or oil can be made as food seasoning to various known foods and drinks to impart a beef flavor (or to further improve the existing flavor) in food product (at least in [0002]). Therefore, enzymatically treated oxidized beef- flavored fat or oil as disclosed by Li et al. and discussed above, reads on “an agent” as claimed at least in independent in claims 1,3,5,7. Therefore, Li et al. anticipates claims 1,3,5,7.
Therefore, Li et al. discloses that the disclosed oxidized beef- flavored fat or oil containing food seasoning can be used in the preparation of food product ([0002]). It is to be noted that the oxidized oil and fat that is not derived from an animal source, however, provides beef- flavored fat or oil containing food seasoning when used in the preparation of food product as disclosed by Li et al. ([0002]), which is identical to the claimed oxidized oil and fat, would have identical property including identical claimed property to impart an animal fat consistency in to a food product as claimed in claims 1,3,5 and 7. Therefore, Li et al. anticipates claims 1,3,5,7.
Regarding claim limitation of “an edible oil and fat that serves as base oil and an oxidized oil and fat” of claims 5, 7, it is to be noted that Li et al. discloses that lipase enzyme mediated hydrolysis and oxidation treatment to obtain oxidized oil and fat from mixed vegetable oils to obtain beef-flavored liquid seasoning contains mixed vegetable oils also ( at least in claim 8, [0007], [0012], [0013]-[0015] of Li et al.). Therefore, it anticipates claim limitation of an edible oil and fat that serves as base oil and an oxidized oil and fat” of claims 5, 7. Therefore, Li et al. anticipates claims 5,7.
11. Regarding claims 2, 4, 6 and 8, the oxidized oil is derived from plant origin and includes rapeseed oil, coconut oil etc. (at least claim 3 of Li et al.). Therefore, Li et al. anticipates claims 2,4,6,8. Therefore, Li et al. anticipates claims 2,4,6,8.
12. Regarding claims 26-29, Li et al. discloses that “plant liquid seasoning with enzymatically treated oxidized beef flavored oil seasoning” ([0007], ) can be made using the disclosed steps ( at least [0023]-[0031]) which is a red purple colored liquid having no raw material from animal origin but provides meat colored beef flavored liquid seasoning product which has a rich aroma and natural taste and is suitable for all types of foods and all types of people including vegetarians who pursue meat taste in food and pay attention to weight management ([0031]). Therefore, Li et al. anticipates claims 26-29.
OR as Obvious variant,
13. Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7, Li et al. discloses a composite plant-based liquid seasoning production method wherein soybean oil, rapeseed oil, coconut oil, and other raw materials are mixed, lipase enzyme is added, and hydrolysis and oxidation treatment is performed to oxidize fats and oil of plant origin in order to make oxidized oil containing plant-based beef-flavored liquid seasoning finished product (at least in [0055]-[0059] in Example 4 and all Examples 1-9 and in claims 8,9 of Li et al., and in Example 1 and Examples 2-9 also describe obtaining the same seasoning by similar methods.). Li et al. also discloses that enzymatic decomposition (using lipase) and a heating reaction are key to the formation of a beef-flavored aromatic compound (at least in ([0031]) and in claims 8,9 of Li et al.) and that the seasoning is suitable for all kinds of foods, and is also suitable for vegetarians, environmentalists, and those involved in their weight management and seeking the taste of meat in vegetable food product (at least in paragraph [0095]). Therefore, Li et al. meets claims 1,3,5,7.
It is to be noted that the phrase “animal-fat consistency” is defined in applicant’s specification as “implementing a specific treatment on an oil and fat yields an ingredient having an exceptional effect for imparting an animal-fat consistency, thereby perfecting the present invention (at least in PGPUB in [0011] ) and this specific treatment is oxidizing oil and/or product obtained by enzymatically hydrolyzing an oxidized oil and fat that is not derived from animals is used as an active ingredient from plant origin and not from animal origin (in PGPUB at least in [0014]). Therefore, the disclosed invention relating to a composite plant-based liquid seasoning having a beef flavor as disclosed by Li et al. (at least in claims of Li et al.), it is possible by one of ordinary skill in the art to perform enzymatic decomposition (using lipase) and a heating reaction for having ‘enzymatically treated oxidized oil’ which are key to the formation of a beef-flavored aromatic compound containing ‘seasoning’ with a reasonable expectation of success to use the seasoning which is suitable for all kinds of foods, and is also suitable for vegetarians, environmentalists, and those controlling their weight who are seeking the taste of meat in food (at least in Li et al., paragraph [0091]). Therefore, Li et al. meets claims 1,3,5,7.
Li et al., therefore, discloses that the obtained enzymatically treated oxidized beef- flavored fat or oil can be made as food seasoning to various known foods and drinks to impart a beef flavor (or to further improve the existing flavor) in food product (at least in [0002]). Therefore, enzymatically treated oxidized beef- flavored fat or oil as disclosed by Li et al. and discussed above, reads on “an agent” as claimed at least in independent in claims 1,3,5,7. Therefore, Li et al. meets claims 1,3,5,7.
Therefore, Li et al. discloses that the disclosed oxidized beef- flavored fat or oil containing food seasoning can be used in the preparation of food product ([0002]). It is to be noted that the oxidized oil and fat that is not derived from an animal source, however, provides beef- flavored fat or oil containing food seasoning when used in the preparation of food product as disclosed by Li et al. ([0002]), which is identical to the claimed oxidized oil and fat, would have identical property including identical claimed property to impart an animal fat consistency in to a food product as claimed in claims 1,3,5 and 7.
Regarding claim limitation of “an edible oil and fat that serves as base oil and an oxidized oil and fat” of claims 5, 7, it is to be noted that Li et al. discloses that lipase enzyme mediated hydrolysis and oxidation treatment to obtain oxidized oil and fat from mixed vegetable oils to obtain beef-flavored liquid seasoning contains mixed vegetable oils also ( at least in claim 8, [0007], [0012], [0013]-[0015] of Li et al.). Therefore, Li et al. meets claim limitation of an edible oil and fat that serves as base oil and an oxidized oil and fat” of claims 5, 7. Therefore, Li et al. meets claims 1,3,5,7.
14. Regarding claims 2, 4, 6 and 8, the oxidized oil is derived from plant origin and includes rapeseed oil, coconut oil etc. (at least claim 3 of Li et al.). Therefore, Li et al. meets claims 2,4,6,8. Therefore, Li et al. meets claims 1,3,5,7.
15. Regarding claims 26-29, Li et al. discloses that “plant liquid seasoning with enzymatically treated oxidized beef flavored oil seasoning” ([0007], ) can be made using the disclosed steps ( at least [0023]-[0031]) which is a red purple colored liquid having no raw material from animal origin but provides meat colored beef flavored liquid seasoning product which has a rich aroma and natural taste and is suitable for all types of foods and all types of people including vegetarians who pursue meat taste in food and pay attention to weight management ([0031]). Therefore, Li et al. meets claims 26-29.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Claims 10, 11, 24, 25, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, Shan et al. CN 111616349 A) as applied to claims 1,3,5,7 and further in view of Kaplow et al. USPN 3694233.
20. Regarding claims 10, 11, 24, 25, Li et al. is silent about the amount of beef flavored oxidized oil to be added into the food product.
Kaplow et al. provides a guideline in this respect. Kaplow et al. discloses that animal or plant materials are intimately combined with an organoleptically compatible liquid e.g. gravy comprising vegetable oil e.g. coconut oil which includes beef flavor or imitated lamb flavor (col 1 lines 40-42, 45-46; at least in col 6, Example 1, col 13, Ex 6 ) in order to make stew product which can be vegetable stew product also (col 5 line 47 e.g. vegetable stew; col 17 lines 1-5) product for its use as meat flavored (e.g. beef flavor in Example 1 and imitated lamb flavor in Ex. 6) food product. It is to be noted that Kaplow et al. discloses different gravy/sauce compositions and different amounts of meat flavor e.g. including beef flavor (Example 1 has 0.5% beef flavor and Example 6 has 0.25 flavor). Kaplow et al. also discloses that gravy liquid and food solid can be mixed at different ratios including equal amounts also (i.e. beef or imitated lamb flavor will be diluted to half) in order to make vegetable stew also ( col 5 line 47, e.g. vegetable stew” and Examples 1, 6 and col 17 lines 1-5). Therefore, as an example, if we consider in Example 1 coconut oil plus having 0.5% beef flavor which is, after mixing with solid phase in equal amounts of 1:1 (col 17 lines 1-5 of Kaplow et al.), then it meets the claimed range amounts of “ 0.0001 parts to 10 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the food product of claim 10. It shows prima facie case of obviousness according to MPEP 2145.05. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to consider the teachings of Kaplow et al. to modify Li’s ‘ oxidized oil containing beef flavored’ (i.e. veg. origin meat flavor) seasoning into coconut base beef flavored gravy to make it suitable for making final vegetable stew as disclosed by Kaplow et al. (col 5 line 47, col 17 lines 1-10).
Kaplow et al. also discloses that the disclosure with certain illustrative examples is subject to variations to suit taste, appearance and overall organoleptic acceptance ( col 16 last paragraph lines 72-75 and col 17 lines 1-5). Therefore, the amount of ‘enzymatically treated oxidized beef- flavored fat or oil’ as beef/imitated lamb flavor (Examples 1, 6) to be used in the gravy formula (Examples 1, 6) is variable and depends on the desired taste and consistency is necessary for the desired food product including final vegetable stew (col 5 line 47 and col 17 lines 1-10) food product.
It is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amount of “the oxidized oil and fat” to be introduced into the food product in order to impart desired degree of an animal fat consistency with meat-like flavor in the food product”.
Absent showing of unexpected results, the specific amount of “oxidized oil and fat” is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the taste, texture imparted as an animal fat consistency with meat-like flavor are variables (2) that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the degree of amount of oxidized oil and fat to be introduced into the food product, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of “oxidized oil and fat” in Tsutomo et al., to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. imparting an animal fat consistency with meat -like flavor in non-meat food (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Conclusion
21. Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay whose telephone number is (571)-270-1139.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor Erik Kashnikow, can be reached on 571-270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
/BHASKAR MUKHOPADHYAY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1792