DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-12 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 6/1/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: actuations means in claims 3 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
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 1-12 and 16-20 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.
Claims 1 is rejected for reciting “imitates properties” as it is unclear as what properties are being imitated. Additionally, claim 1 recites cellular medium that would be adversely affected by the shear and temperature conditions”. It is unclear what type of cellular medium this would be and whether the type of material that is adversely affected vary with different conditions.
Claim 1 is also rejected for reciting “further comprises cellular medium that would be adversely affected”. It is not clear what would be consider “adversely affected”. For example, extrusion can improve solubility, water retention, and digestibility of some proteins while altering amino acid availability and changing protein structure. These results may or may not be considered adversely affected depending on the desired product.
Claim 1 is also rejected as it is not clear what percentages are based on (e.g. weight, volume?).
Claim 1 is also unclear as the claim recites that “said product that imitates properties of meat, poultry, fish and seafood and products derived therefrom.” In other words, the product imitates properties of ALL of these properties. However, as the preamble recites that the product is” meat, poultry, fish, seafood, or products derived therefrom”, the claim is interpreted as the properties of only one of these need be met.
Claims 2-12 and 16-20 are rejected as they depend on a rejected base claim or dependent claim.
Additionally, claims 4 and 17 recite the limitation "the cavity" in lines 5 and 3, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6 and 18 recite the limitation "the material to be processed" in lines 2 and 2, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 7,045,160 (DE HAAN).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DE HAAN discloses a method for the manufacture of a product that imitates properties of meat, poultry, fish, seafood, or products derived therefrom (col. 1, Iines 6-9), comprising the steps: a) dosing and depositing a first material onto a surface, so as to obtain a first deposit in a desired shape (col. 11, Iines 20-22); b) solidifying the first deposit so that the first deposit has a self-containing structure (col. 11, Iines 22-25); d) releasing the product from the product carrier, so as to obtain the product that imitates properties of meat, poultry, fish and seafood, and products derived therefrom (col. 11, Iines 25-27); wherein the first material comprises a protein (col. 4, Iines 18-19), wherein the protein content in the dry raw materials is 35 to 90 wt. %, (col. 4, lines 27-32; col. 9, Iines 55-58; table 3), and
the product can be mixed in a kneader and can contain cellular medium that would be adversely affected by the shear and temperature conditions applied in extrusion in that (col. 20, Iines 19-25).
PNG
media_image2.png
67
640
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
488
604
media_image3.png
Greyscale
DE HAAN teaches at col 5, lines 10-19 and 25-30 that by adding edible component(s) to the proteinaceous substance, it will be realized that the fungal cell content of the second composition is often lower than that of the second. The textured product may comprise pellets, granules or sheets, it may be prepared by a process involving extrusion (and therefore may be an extrudate), may comprise a dough, a paste, or a meat-like chunk, or may be in the form of a roll (such as by rolling the substance if it is in the form of a sheet). The process includes preparation of the initial food product or additional supplementation. Thus, DE HAAN does teach adding a second material which can be added simultaneously with or separate/ after the formation of the first material.
PNG
media_image4.png
147
645
media_image4.png
Greyscale
DE HAAN teaches that the product can be prepared by extrusion (col. 5, lines 15-20).
PNG
media_image5.png
67
651
media_image5.png
Greyscale
DE HAAN teaches that the product can be a cellular material (col. 4, lines 19-26).
PNG
media_image6.png
132
649
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
100
646
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As to claims 7 and 19, the mechanical shaping may include placing the mixture of fungal cells and edible component(s) into a mould or other container of a desired shape/pattern and then cooling (col. 11, lines 20-30).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE HAAN.
PNG
media_image8.png
138
655
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
95
638
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
88
654
media_image10.png
Greyscale
As to claims 6 and 17-18, DE HAAN is silent as to the material of mold but teaches that the mold can be used to hold food material (col. 22, lines 10-20). It would have been obvious to use a food grade material to hold food and of a material that does not adhere to the food.
DE HAAN does not specially mention filling cavities but does teach filling containers (col. 11, lines 20-30). It would have been obvious that the material could fill a cavity of a container as the mechanical shaping may include placing the mixture of fungal cells and edible component(s) into a mould or other container of a desired shape. This includes by extrusion as taught by DE HAAN (col. 11, lines 10-20).
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DEHAAN as applied to claim 1above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0042175 (KLIMKE).
DEHAAN is cited for the reasons noted above but silent as to the modules.
KLIMKE teaches a depositing apparatus that is simple operate and to fix [0011]. The apparatus has a tank to hold deposition material as claimed [0012], a depositing assembly as claimed [0012], motor, [0013]-[0016], actuation means [0013-[0016] , and machine frame [0014], wherein the tank and the depositing assembly form part of a module which is removable in one piece from the machine frame, and the module is releasably connected to the motor and is equipped with a further frame, and the further frame in the machine frame is fastened by way of a plug-in connection which is disposed in a substantially horizontal manner [0085]-[0086].
It would have been obvious to use the machine of KLIMKE with DE HAAN, as KLIMKE teaches the machine is simple to operate and fix.
Claims Free of Prior Art
Claims 8-12, and 20 are free of the prior art. DE HAAN discloses a method for the manufacture of a product that imitates properties of meat, poultry, fish, seafood, or products derived therefrom (col. 1, Iines 6-9) and KLIMKE teaches a depositing machine to manufacture the products [0012]. However, the prior art does not teach that the method is carried out in a series of modules or in plant comprising a plurality of modules in which product provided on or in a product support, preferably into a cavity of said product carrier can be processed and/or transported, wherein at least some of the modules comprise a processing device, with the modules each having a module frame, the a length of the module being the same as or a multiple of a smallest module length, wherein the modules are designed in such a way that they can be connected or are connected to adjacent modules in the a longitudinal direction, at least one module (101) having at least one transport device for transporting said product carriers (16) in a linear movement along a transport direction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP A DUBOIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30-6:00p.
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.
/PHILIP A DUBOIS/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights