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
Applicant’s
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
When there are drawings, there shall be a “brief description of the several views of the drawings” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.74.).
The section heading “brief description of the several views of the drawings” as set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.74 is missing. The language is not the same as set forth above.
Please correct.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there is an extra bracket at page 3, line 14.
PNG
media_image1.png
110
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there is blurry shading and text page 30, line 29.
PNG
media_image2.png
156
284
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 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.
The phrase “%” in claims 1, line 5 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the % is weight or volume %.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “60:40 to about 95:5”, and the claim also recites “70:30 to about 80:20” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the source of plant protein" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one source of plant protein".
The abbreviations in claim 3 are vague and indefinite. Please set forth the unabbreviated text in the first instance.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the source of animal protein" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the at least one source of animal protein".
The abbreviations SPI and BT in claim 5 are vague and indefinite. Please set forth the unabbreviated text in the first instance.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "SPI" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the SPI".
Claim 5 recites the limitation "BT" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the BT".
The abbreviations SPI and PPC in claim 7 are vague and indefinite. Please set forth the unabbreviated text in the first instance.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "SPI" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the SPI".
Claim 7 recites the limitation "PPC" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the PPC".
The abbreviations SPI, PPC and MPC in claim 8 are vague and indefinite. Please set forth the unabbreviated text in the first instance.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "SPI" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the SPI".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "PPC" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the PPC".
Claim 8 recites the limitation "MPC" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the MPC".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "step (b)" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (b)" and in claim 1 refer to “steps …”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "step (b)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (b)" and in claim 1 refer to “steps …”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “60 to about 80° C”, and the claim also recites “65 to about 75° C, more preferably about 70° C” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the vessel contents" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "vessel contents".
Claim 13 recites the limitation "agitator arms" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the one or more agitator arms".
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “50 to about 100× faster”, and the claim also recites “80× faster” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the temperature, moisture and shear conditions" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "temperature, moisture and shear conditions".
Claim 15 recites the limitation "step (c)" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the step (c)" and in claim 1 refer to “steps …”.
The phrase “the proteins fibers” is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether this plant protein or animal protein or both. Furthermore, the language does not appear to be grammatically correct as the term “proteins” is not written as being possessive like “proteins’” or “protein’s’”.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “greater than about 0.4”, and the claim also recites “about 0.6 to about 0.8” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Clarification and/or correction required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klossner et al. (US 6,017,576).
Regarding claim 1, Klossner (‘576) teaches a method for producing a texturised hybrid meat analogue, the method comprising: (a) combining at least one source of plant protein and at least one source of animal protein with water to form a protein composition with a moisture content of about 40 to about 70%, (b) injecting high pressure steam into the protein composition in a sealed vessel while applying shear, (c) continuing to apply shear to the protein composition in the sealed vessel for about 5 to about 45 minutes while maintaining the temperature and moisture of the composition, (d) allowing the protein composition to cool, to provide a texturised hybrid meat analogue (See Abs., col. 8, Example 1, FIG-1, claims 1-5.), however, fails to expressly disclose until the protein composition reaches about 120 to about 150° C.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for the protein composition being at any specific temperature.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a higher or lower temperature depending on capabilities of the available equipment and requirements of the customers. The selection of temperature would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding claim 3, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the source of plant protein is a plant protein powder selected from the group consisting of SPI, SPC, TVP, YPF, wheat gluten, black bean protein powder, chickpea protein powder, pea protein powder, broad bean protein powder, mung bean protein powder, rice protein concentrate, potato protein, grass protein and lupin protein.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for the protein composition being at any specific temperature.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a protein depending on availability and requirements of the customers. The selection of protein would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding claim 4, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the source of animal protein is selected from the group consisting of meat, powdered dairy protein and powdered insect protein.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a protein depending on availability and requirements of the customers. The selection of protein would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding claim 5, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the protein composition comprises about 60-90% SPI to about 10-40% BT, wherein the relative amounts of SPI and BT equal 100%.
Altemueller (‘808) teaches a similar method as Klossner (‘576) including providing a texturised hybrid meat analogue comprising a source of plant protein and a source of animal protein in a ratio of about 60:40 to about 95:5, wherein the proteins fibres are substantially aligned (See claims 9, 45, 53 and 59, aligned fibers, wherein 25-99% of the protein is plant protein and 1-75% animal protein, thus the claimed ratio.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a combination of proteins as taught by Altemueller (‘808) for Klossner’s (‘576) method that satisfies the consumers composition ratio. The selection of ratio would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding claim 6, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the protein composition comprises about 60-80% plant protein powder to about 40-20% chicken, wherein the relative amounts of plant protein powder and chicken equal 100%.
Altemueller (‘808) teaches a similar method as Klossner (‘576) including providing a texturised hybrid meat analogue comprising a source of plant protein and a source of animal protein in a ratio of about 60:40 to about 95:5, wherein the proteins fibres are substantially aligned (See claims 9, 45, 53 and 59, aligned fibers, wherein 25-99% of the protein is plant protein and 1-75% animal protein, thus the claimed ratio.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a combination of proteins as taught by Altemueller (‘808) for Klossner’s (‘576) method that satisfies the consumers composition ratio. The selection of ratio would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding claim 7, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the plant protein powder comprises about 30-50% SPI to about 50-70% PPC, wherein the relative amounts of SPI and PPC equal up to 100%
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for the protein composition being at any specific temperature.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a protein depending on availability and requirements of the customers. The selection of protein would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding claim 8, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the protein composition comprises about 20-45% SPI to about 20-45% PPC to about 10-40% MPC, wherein the relative amounts of SPI, PPC and MPC equal 100%.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for the protein composition being at any specific temperature.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a protein depending on availability and requirements of the customers. The selection of protein would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding claim 9, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the protein composition is heated to about 130 to about 140° C, in the sealed vessel in step (b) while shear is continually applied to the composition.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for the protein composition being at any specific temperature.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a higher or lower temperature depending on capabilities of the available equipment and requirements of the customers. The selection of temperature would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding claim 10, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the pressure in the sealed vessel reaches about 2-3 bar in step (b).
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for the protein composition being at any specific pressure.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a higher or lower pressure depending on capabilities of the available equipment and requirements of the customers. The selection of pressure would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding claim 11, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein prior to rapid heating by steam injection, the protein composition is pre-heated to about 60 to about 80° C, preferably about 65 to about 75° C, more preferably about 70° C.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for the protein composition being at any specific temperature.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a higher or lower temperature depending on capabilities of the available equipment and requirements of the customers. The selection of temperature would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding claim 12, Klossner (‘576) teaches wherein the method is carried out in a mixer comprising a sealable vessel that includes at least one steam inlet, wherein the mixer includes mixing apparatus capable of applying shear to the vessel contents (See FIG-1.).
Regarding claim 13, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the sealed vessel applies shear by way of a mixing wheel and an agitator comprising one or more arms, wherein the mixing wheel and agitator arms rotate in opposite directions.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for the protein composition being at any configuration.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a any known configuration, including that set forth in the claim, depending on capabilities of the available equipment and requirements of the customers. The selection of configuration would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding claim 14, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the mixing wheel rotates at about 50 to about 100× faster than the agitator, preferably about 80× faster.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for the protein composition being at any configuration.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a any known configuration, including that set forth in the claim, depending on capabilities of the available equipment and requirements of the customers. The selection of configuration would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Regarding claim 15, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the temperature, moisture and shear conditions within the sealed vessel are maintained for about 5, 10 or 15 to about 30 minutes in step (c).
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for the protein composition being at any specific time.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a less or more time depending on capabilities of the available equipment and requirements of the customers. The selection of time would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klossner et al. (US 6,017,576) in view of Altemueller (US 2008/007808).
Regarding claim 2, Klossner (‘576) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the protein composition comprises a source of plant protein and a source of animal protein in a ratio of about 60:40 to about 95:5.
Altemueller (‘808) teaches a similar method as Klossner (‘576) including providing a texturised hybrid meat analogue comprising a source of plant protein and a source of animal protein in a ratio of about 60:40 to about 95:5, wherein the proteins fibres are substantially aligned (See claims 9, 45, 53 and 59, aligned fibers, wherein 25-99% of the protein is plant protein and 1-75% animal protein, thus the claimed ratio.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a combination of proteins as taught by Altemueller (‘808) for Klossner’s (‘576) method that satisfies the consumers composition ratio. The selection of ratio would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 April 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights