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
Claims 1-19 filed in a preliminary amendment on 4/9/2024 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/9/2024 was filed before the first Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 17 and dependent claims 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.
Claim 17 recites “[[T]]he process of preparing a meat analog according to claim 14, wherein the hydration step, the further ingredient addition step, and the emulsion step are mixed together for a period of time ranging from about 1 to about 15 minutes.
The scope of “are mixed together” is unclear, as these are separate steps according to the disclosure and the independent claim. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4,10-12,15,16 and 18 are rejected under 35 USC102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Margolis (US20120251686A1).
Regarding claim 1 Margolis discloses (see Fig. 1, [0030], Table 2) a process for preparing plant-based burgers, comprising a) the addition of meat-like flavors during hydration of dry texturized vegetable protein pieces with a water-solution containing meat-like flavors at a ratio of about 2.6: 1 water to texturized vegetable protein) (see Fig. 1, step 1 and [0030]) (b) adding spices during mixing step 4 (see Fig. 1) without water addition. Margolis further discloses step c) preparing adding fat during mixing step 5 (see Fig. 1 ).
Margolis discloses that the process produces a flavor stabilized protein.
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 3, the process of preparing a meat analog the further ingredient addition step contains substantially no water (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 10 -12, Margolis discloses soy as the non-meat protein (abstract, TVP).
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 18, Margolis discloses exemplary meat analog burgers obtained by the method according to claim 1.
As explained above, Margolis anticipates the subject matter in claims 1-4,10-12,15,16 and 18, rendering the claims unpatentable.
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.
Claims 5-9,13,14,17 and 19 are rejected under 35 USC103 as being unpatentable over Margolis (US20120251686A1).
Regarding claim 5, 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 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 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 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 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 has 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 17, it is unclear how steps are mixed together for 1-15 minutes as claim 1 requires two steps.
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.
Claims 5-9,13,14,17 and 19 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
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
Prosecution Insights