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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment and response filed 7/22/2026. Claims 1,2,4,and 6-19 are pending in the application. Claims 1,6,7 and 17 were amended and claims 3,5 and 20 were canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1,2,4 and 6-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Margolis et al. (US2012/0251686A1) in view of Zhang et al, (WO2018/185318A1).
Regarding claim 1 Margolis describes a process for preparing a plant-based meat analog comprising hydrating dry texturized plant protein with an aqueous containing one or more flavors. Margolis does not specifically disclose adding a second meat flavorant in a further ingredient addition step containing substantially no water.
Zhang however discloses flavoring meat analog products prepared from non-animal protein and specifically discloses incorporating a flavor modifier composition as part of the “dry ingredients.” Zhang defines the dry ingredients as the ingredients other than water and discloses forming a dry blended premix containing the non-animal protein, flavor modifier composition, and other ingredients before adding water. Zhang further discloses that flavorants may be added as additional ingredients.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Margolis by additionally incorporating a meat flavoring component with the substantially water-free /dry ingredient addition, as taught by Zhang. Both references concern improving the meat-like flavor of products comprising non-animal protein , and Zhang demonstrates that flavor components were conventionally suitable for incorporation with the dry ingredients of a meat analog. The modification would have amounted to using a known flavor-addition technique in Margolis’s meat analog process to provide the desired meat-like flavor characteristics.
In particular, Margolis discloses hydrating TVP with a meat-like flavor to provide and retain the desired meat-like flavor during consumption. Zhang discloses flavor compositions intended to provide a “meaty character” or meaty taste to meat analog products. Zhang discloses subsequently adding flavorants to textured non-animal protein during post-texturization processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Margolis’s selected meat flavor as the flavorant in the subsequent flavor addition step taught in Zhang in order to reinforce the desired meat-flavor profile of Margolis’s product. Such modification represents the combination of known flavor addition techniques according to their established functions and would have been expected to provide additional perception of the selected meat flavor while retaining the flavor incorporated in hydration disclosed in Margolis.
The selection of the claimed meat flavorants, including chicken, beef, pork, veal, duck, goose, lamb, turkey, fish, seafood , and mixtures thereof, would have been an obvious selection of meat-like flavor according to the particular meat being simulated. To the extent to which claim 1 permits the hydration and further ingredient addition in any order, this limitation does not distinguish the claimed process from the combination because the rejection does not depend upon a required order between two flavor-addition operations. Margolis discloses a process as claimed, and adding meat flavor (Fig 1). By definition, meat flavor includes a chicken flavor, a beef flavor, a pork flavor, a veal flavor, a duck flavor, a goose flavor, a lamb flavor, a turkey flavor, a fish flavor, a seafood flavor, and mixtures thereof, as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art looking to make a meat analog with upfront and lasting flavor to have applied two step method in Margolis to obtain a texturized protein-based meat analog comprising any of the above meat flavors with a reasonable expectation of successfully maintaining flavor in the analog.
Regarding claim 2, first flavorant in the hydration step is meat flavor and the second flavor is spices derived in the further ingredient addition step (Fig 1).
Regarding claim 4, Margolis discloses a method as claimed but does not specifically disclose an amount of at least 50% by weight. Margolis discloses that textured vegetable protein pieces and the water solution are mixed until the entire water solution has been absorbed by the TVP. Typically, a ratio of around 2.6/1 water to TVP is used, corresponding to about 72% water which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6 - 8, Margolis discloses a process as claimed but does not specifically disclose the amount of flavor added. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add sufficient first flavorant and second flavorant to achieve a desired flavor profile in the meat analog. No unexpected effects of adding flavors in the specified ranges is discerned from the disclosure. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art looking to make a meat analog with upfront and lasting flavor to have applied an optimized amount of first and second flavorant in the two-step method in Margolis to obtain a texturized protein-based meat analog with a reasonable expectation of successfully maintaining flavor in the analog, based on the disclosure in Margolis as above.
Regarding claim 9, Margolis discloses a hydration period of time of about 40 minutes ([0037] for texturized vegetable protein, and that the hydration is carried out until all the liquid provided is absorbed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art looking to make a meat analog with upfront and lasting flavor to have applied two step method in Margolis to obtain a texturized protein-based meat analog to carry out the hydration for a time sufficient to absorb water solution comprising flavor with a reasonable expectation of successfully maintaining flavor in the analog.
Regarding claim 10 -12, Margolis discloses soy as the non-meat protein (abstract, TVP).
Regarding claim 13, Margolis discloses an exemplary non-animal protein level of about 20% in a meat analog which overlaps the claimed range. For example, compositions in Table 3 have a total of three TVP components adding to 20% by weight of the meat analog. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include TVP or other vegetable protein amounts as needed to produce a meat analog with targeted protein content by the claimed method with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 14, Margolis discloses mixing a non-animal derived fat with the hydrated flavored protein. Modifying the fat to an emulsion form to achieve a desired flavor profile in the presence of an emulsifier is a known alternative method to add fat to the composition, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have employed with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 15, Margolis discloses exemplary non- animal derived fat, a branded product (Table 2) which is typically derived from palm and canola oil.
Regarding claim 16, Margolis discloses mixing fat with other ingredients , including protein (Table 3).
Regarding claim 17, a method in modified Margolis would obviously entail ingredients of the first step, further addition step and emulsion step to be mixed in each case for uniform dispersion in a meat analog .
Regarding claim 18, Margolis discloses exemplary meat analog burgers obtained by the method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Margolis discloses a patty, a loaf, a bail, lasagna, sausage, pizza topping(s), chili, and/or other food products that normally contain small pieces of meat can be prepared by the method, which by definition includes nuggets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art looking to make a chicken nugget analog with upfront and lasting flavor to have applied two step method in Margolis to obtain a texturized protein-based chicken flavored nugget with a reasonable expectation of successfully maintaining flavor in the analog.
Response to Arguments
Claim amendments render the previous rejection of claims under 35 USC 112, 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 moot. The amended claims present new grounds for rejection as detailed in the current Office action.
Applicant’s arguments regarding improved upfront and long-lasting flavor have been considered but are not persuasive of nonobviousness. The specification reports improved flavor characteristics for particular exemplified formulations, including emulsified flavorants.
Moreover, the examples are not commensurate in scope with claim 1. Claim 1 broadly encompasses the recited meat flavorants and does not limit the particular flavorant, combination, relative amounts of first and second flavorants, degree of flavor partitioning between the hydration and further ingredient addition steps, protein composition or processing conditions corresponding to the exemplified formulations. Furthermore, the example provided includes pea masker in the formulation tested/compared, which is itself a flavorant. The limited examples therefore do not establish that the asserted improvement would reasonably extend throughout the full scope of claim 1. Any unexpectedness of the results specifically requires objective evidence to be commensurate in scope across the breadth of the claimed invention.
For these reasons, as detailed in the Office action, applicant’s arguments in view of claim amendments do not establish nonobviousness of the invention over the art.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
