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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 16-18, 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/30/26.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-15, 19 in the reply filed on 6/30/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art of Noble allegedly does not teach or suggest the specific combination of a thermogelling hydrocolloid with a reversibly gelling hydrocolloid as claimed. This is not found persuasive because Noble teaches an egg yolk substitute and further explicitly teach using a thermogelling hydrocolloid (methyl cellulose, as disclosed by Applicant on page 6, par.4, lines 1-7 of the instant specification) with a reversibly gelling hydrocolloid (carrageenan, as disclosed by Applicant on page 7, par.1, lines 1-4 of the instant specification) and combinations thereof [Noble, 0083].
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 3, last paragraph, line 6, “(Cicer arientinum)” should read “(Cicer arietinum)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-15, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-15, line 1, and claim 19, lines 3-4, all recite the limitation of “The egg yolk substitute product”. The claims should recite “The vegan-based egg yolk substitute product” in order to maintain nomenclature consistency with “A vegan based egg yolk substitute product” recited in claim 1, line 1.
In claim 8, line 2, “the hydrocolloid” should read “the combination of the reversibly thermogelling hydrocolloid with the reversibly gelling hydrocolloid”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 19 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, last 3 lines recites “wherein a portion of the combination of the reversibly thermogelling hydrocolloid with the reversibly gelling hydrocolloid comprises 0.5-5.0% by weight”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear as to what the 0.5-5.0% by weight is, (i.e., is the 0.5-5.0% by weight for a portion of the reversibly thermogelling hydrocolloid or a portion of the reversibly gelling hydrocolloid each separately, or if the 0.5-5.0% by weight is of both combined).
Claim 10 recites “wherein the vegetable protein (b) comprises pea protein, lupine protein, potato protein, chickpea protein, or Faba bean protein”. The claim is indefinite because claim 1 recites “a protein from legumes, oilseeds, cereals, algae or microorganisms” and claim 10 separately recites “wherein the vegetable protein (b) comprises pea protein, lupine protein, potato protein, chickpea protein, or Faba bean protein”. That is, claim 10 is not reciting that these are specific species of the various genus recited in claim 1 (i.e., wherein the protein from legumes is selected from pea protein, lupine protein, chickpea protein, or Faba bean protein). Further, claim 10 includes “potato protein” which is a tuber and does not fall under any of the genus recited in claim 1 of “legumes, oilseeds, cereals, algae or microorganisms”.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation "the vegetable protein" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no prior recitation of a vegetable protein in claim 1 (b).
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear what a “raw and/or hydrolyzed and/or fermented” modifies or applies to. For example, does the raw and/or hydrolyzed and/or fermented conditions are applicable to only the flour, or are these applicable to all of flour, protein concentrate, protein isolate or a combination thereof?
Claims 2-9, 12-15, 19 are rejected by virtue of their dependance on a base rejected claim.
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) 1-3, 7-15, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noble et al. [WO2021116949A1], hereinafter Noble.
Regarding claim 1, Noble teaches a vegan based egg yolk substitute product, comprising:
Water [Noble, 0003];
a protein from legumes (peas) or algae (euglena protein) [Noble, 0006, 0082, 0351-0352];
a vegetable oil [Noble, 0128], optionally including at least one emulsifier [Noble, 0173];
a combination of a reversibly thermogelling hydrocolloid (methyl cellulose, as disclosed by Applicant on page 6, par.4, lines 1-7 of the instant specification) with a reversibly gelling hydrocolloid (carrageenan, as disclosed by Applicant on page 7, par.1, line 3, and page 7, par.2, line 3 of the instant specification) [Noble, 0083, 0177, 0207, 0234];
a natural coloring substance (addition of beta-glucan isolate in combination with the Euglena protein flour gives the vegan based egg yolk substitute product a yellow color) [Noble, 0280];
the partially pregelatinized starch is an optional limitation; and
salt [Noble, 0081];
wherein a portion of the combination of the reversibly thermogelling hydrocolloid with the reversibly gelling hydrocolloid comprises 0.1-5.0% by weight [Noble, 0084], which is a range that encompass the claimed range of 0.5-5.0% by weight.
Regarding claim 2, the claim merely further limits the type of carotenoid for the optional/unselected limitation of “at least one carotenoid-including food product”, since Noble already teaches the other limitation of a natural coloring substance required by claim 1, element e) and claim 2 does not positively recites that the product of claim 1 further includes the carotenoid-including food product.
Regarding claim 3, see claim 2 discussion above, and further Noble teaches the vegan based egg yolk substitute product wherein the mixture does not contain partially pregelatinized starch (f).
Regarding claim 7, Noble teaches the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of claim 1, wherein the mixture further comprises a spice or a flavoring formulation (i.e., onion in powder and/or minced form, roasted garlic, yeast extract) [Noble, 0075, 0081, 0306].
Regarding claim 8, Noble teaches the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of claim 1, wherein the hydrocolloid (d) comprises methyl cellulose and carrageenan [Noble, 0083, 0177].
Regarding claim 9, Noble teaches the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of claim 1, wherein the vegetable oil (c) comprises rapeseed oil, coconut fat or sunflower oil or any combination thereof [Noble, 0128].
Regarding claim 10, Noble teaches the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of claim 1, wherein the vegetable protein (b) comprises pea protein, potato protein, chickpea protein or Faba (fava) bean protein [Noble, 0077].
Regarding claim 11, Noble teaches the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of claim 1, wherein the vegetable protein comprises a raw protein (Euglena- derived protein , a protein -rich flour derived from Euglena), a protein concentrate, a protein isolate or a combination thereof. [Noble, 0082].
Regarding claim 12, Noble teaches the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of claim 1, comprising between 5% by weight and 35% by weight of the protein (b) [Noble, 0050], since the composition may be enriched with protein molecules to an increase of 5-35% of said protein molecules, which would produce a final protein enriched composition comprising between 5% by weight and 35% by weight of the protein when the initial composition (prior to protein enrichment) was 0% by weight of the protein.
Regarding claim 13, Noble teaches the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of claim 1, comprising between 5% by weight and 20% by weight of the vegetable oil (c) [Noble, 0127].
Regarding claim 14, Noble teaches the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of claim 1, comprises the at least one emulsifier, said at least one emulsifier comprising lecithin [Noble, 0079, 0173].
Regarding claim 15, Noble teaches the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of claim 1, further comprising between 0.1 and 0.5% by weight of transglutaminase [Noble, 0189], which is a range that falls within the claimed range of between 0.001 and 3.00% by weight.
Regarding claim 19, Noble teaches an ingredient in a dish or a baked product or a simulated egg comprising the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of claim 1 [Noble, abstract, 0008, 0036-0037, 0042, 0143, 0270].
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noble et al. [WO2021116949A1], hereinafter Noble, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vassiliou [US5151293A].
Regarding claims 4-5, Noble teaches the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of claim 1, comprising a reversibly gelling hydrocolloid such as carrageenan as discussed above, where the carrageenan may be specifically k-carrageenan (kappa carrageenan) [Noble, 0083, 0177], but does not explicitly recites wherein the mixture is enveloped by a shell, said shell comprising crosslinked or thermoreversibly gel-forming hydrocolloid required by claim 4, and wherein the shell comprises calcium alginate or k-carrageenan required by claim 5.
Vassiliou teaches egg yolk substitute (simulated egg) product [Vassiliou, abstract], wherein the mixture (egg yolk mixture/composition [Vassiliou, col.21, l.1-68]) is enveloped (encapsulated [Vassiliou, col.57, l.29]) by a shell (restrictive barrier/skin/membrane surrounding the egg yolk [Vassiliou, col.5, l.38-42]), said shell comprising crosslinked hydrocolloid (alginate hydrocolloid crosslinked with a crosslinking agent or calcium salt such as divalent calcium cations (calcium alginate) [Vassiliou, col.18, l.12-20; col.14, l.5-21]) or thermoreversibly gel-forming hydrocolloid ([Vassiliou, col.5, l.38-46; col.10, l.28-43]) such as carrageenan (known as kappa carrageenan or k-carrageenan, see [Noble, 0083, 0177])) [Vassiliou, col.19, l.45-47; col.38, l.16-19].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to envelop the vegan based egg yolk substitute product mixture in a shell, said shell comprising crosslinked or thermoreversibly gel-forming hydrocolloid, and wherein the shell comprises calcium alginate or k-carrageenan as taught by Vassiliou, in the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of Noble, because Noble already teaches that kappa carrageenan is suitable for use in egg substitute products [Noble, 0083, 0177]. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to envelop the vegan based egg yolk substitute product mixture in a shell comprising crosslinked or thermoreversibly gel-forming hydrocolloid, such as calcium alginate or k-carrageenan as taught by Vassiliou, because Vassiliou teaches that these crosslinked or thermoreversibly gel-forming hydrocolloids provides structural integrity to the yolk of the egg yolk substitute product, better flowability control at consumption or serving temperatures and the convenience of being able to have the egg-white in bulk packaging, accompanied by individual separate packages of egg yolks of different types, such as for example “sunny side up", "over easy", "over medium", and the like [Vassiliou, col.15, l.1-33].
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noble et al. [WO2021116949A1], hereinafter Noble, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Keys et al. [US20170020167A1], hereinafter Keys.
Regarding claim 6, Noble teaches the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of claim 1, wherein the mixture further comprises a salt (black salt, as disclosed by Applicant on page 6, par.2, lines 1-3 of the instant specification) in order to impart the sulfuric quality reminiscent of egg [Noble, 0075, 0300, 0306], but does not specifically recite the black salt includes sulfur-compounds or -salts.
Keys teaches an egg substitute composition [Keys, abstract], comprising the black salt Kala Namak, which is a salt that includes sulfur-compounds [Keys, 0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the specific black salt of Kala Namak that includes sulfur-compounds as taught by Keys, in the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of Noble, because Noble already teaches using black salt, and also expresses interest in providing an egg substitute product with sulfur notes which is characteristic of traditional egg products. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the specific black salt of Kala Namak that includes sulfur-compounds as taught by Keys, in the vegan based egg yolk substitute product of Noble, because Keys teaches that using Kala Namak black salt, which is high in sulfur content, would provide the advantage of enhancing the “eggy” flavor of the egg substitute composition [Keys, 0095].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA whose telephone number is (571)270-0963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (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 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.
/LUIS EUGENIO DIOU BERDECIA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights