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 .
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 1-15 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 1 recites the limitation "the substrate culture" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what is meant by the term “hydration water” and if it is different than conventional water.
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) 1-3,8,9,12,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le(US 2021/0045410).
Regarding claim 1,
Le teaches a method of preparing a fermented texturized vegetable protein, comprising:(a) inoculating and culturing fungi on a substrate containing the texturized vegetable protein (TVP); and (b) compressing the substrate culture(abstract, para 40).
Regarding claim 2, Le teaches that the texturized vegetable protein can contains proteins derived from soybeans(tempeh, soy sauce and miso, para 15).
Regarding claim 3, Le teaches that the fermented texturized vegetable protein can also contain oil(para 27) and amino acids(para 29).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Le teaches that the fungi is Rhizopus oligosporus(para 19).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Le does not teach the presence of an added binder as recited in claim 13 and teaches that the mycelium-producing fungi acts as a binder(abstract, para 3-4).
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) 4,5,10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le(US 2021/0045410) in view of Woon Heng(How to Make Patty from the soybean pulp).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Le does not specifically teach that the substrate further contains bean-curd dregs. However, Woon Heng teaches using okra(bean-curd dregs) to make patties. Woon Heng teaches that the okra is high in protein and has a mild flavor which makes a great addition to a meal without changing the texture so much. It would have been obvious to include okra(bean-curd dregs) in with the substrate of (a) in Le as taught in Woon Heng because okra is high in protein and has a mild flavor which makes a great addition to a meal without changing the texture so much. It would have been obvious to adjust the amount of okra(bean-curd dregs) depending on the amount of protein desired in the composition.
Regarding claim 10, Le teaches “wherein prior to, during, or prior to and during growth of the mycelium-forming fungi to form a matrix of mycelium, the method further comprises: adding any combination of fat, oil, and carbohydrates to the textured substrate in such a way that the fat, oil and carbohydrates or any combination thereof serve as a feedstock for the mycelium-forming fungi to grow and bind the textured substrate”(claim 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to culture the fungi with okra(bean-curd dregs) since they can serve as a feedstock for the fungi.
Claim(s) 6,7, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le(US 2021/0045410)
Regarding claim 6, Le is silent on the protein content of the composition. However, it would have been obvious to adjust the protein content of the composition depending on the intended nature of the meat replacement product and the consumer’s nutritional needs.
Regarding claim 7, Le does not teach that the substrate of step(a) has an acidity of 0.1% to 0.4%. However, Le teaches forming the composition in the same manner as recited in claim 1. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the composition to have the claimed properties. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to adjust the acidity of the composition depending on the intended purpose of the meat replacement product.
Regarding claim 11, Le teaches compression of the fermented texturized vegetable protein but does not specifically teach vacuum compression or mold compression. However, Le teaches that “any manner of compacting can be used”(para 24). It would have been obvious to use any known method of compacting including vacuum compression or mold compression.
Claim(s) 14,15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le(US 2021/0045410) in view of Appel(US 2014/0342036A1).
Regarding claims 14,15, Le does not teaches heating the compressed substrate culture after step b).
However, Appel teaches a vegetable-based food product that is formed by fermenting a gluten-based material with a mold and then processing it to form a replacement for minced meat(abstract). Appel further teaches heating the composition to at least 100C in order to kill any harmful microbes(paragraph 35). It would have been obvious to heat the compressed substrate culture of Le to a temperature of at least 100C after step b) as taught in Appel in order to kill any harmful microbes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE D LEBLANC whose telephone number is (571)270-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/KATHERINE D LEBLANC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights