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 election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 6/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that linking is too broad. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons of record. Furthermore, Applicant has cancelled all claims directed to the other groups rendering the issue moot. The only pending claims are those directed to the elected group.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant’s attorney has a typo with his signature.
PNG
media_image1.png
90
218
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. Please correct.
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, 2, 4 and 7-12 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 “wherein the refrigerated shelf-life of the cooked meat substitute is longer than a cooked meat substitute that does not include the shelf-life extending agent” in Claim 1, lines 6-7 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the compared composition is identical but for the “shelf-life extending agent” or is the comparison to all alternative compositions like those including argon or nitrogen or some other additional ingredient including those that include a completely different composition.
The phrase “the meat substitute” in claim 4, lines 1-2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear if it is referring to the “cooked meat substitute” or something else. If it is referring to the “cooked meat substitute” then there is insufficient antecedent basis.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "konjac gum" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the konjac gum".
Claim 9 recites the limitation "psyllium fiber" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the psyllium fiber ".
Clarification and/or correction 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2019/0045809).
The claims are interpreted as being directed to a method and not a product. The properties directed to a product are interpreted to the extent that they further define the method. The relative properties of the produced product are not interpreted as limiting the method as the language does not further define a method step or further define any materials being processed. The relative properties do not further define the method as no precise basis of comparison of any compared product is set forth. The compared product is not defined as having any specific composition other than not having agents added in the claimed method.
Regarding claim 1, Lee (‘809) teaches a method for extending the refrigerated shelf-life of a cooked meat substitute, the method comprising: adding a shelf-life extending agent comprising konjac gum, psyllium fiber, or mixtures thereof to a non-meat protein to obtain a meat substitute; and cooking the meat substitute to obtain the cooked meat substitute; wherein the refrigerated shelf-life of the cooked meat substitute is longer than a cooked meat substitute that does not include the shelf-life extending agent (See Abs., paras. 1, 1-20, 64, 88 and 143, konjac gum, psyllium fiber added to non-meat proteins including peat, soy and wheat. The relative properties of cooked meat substitute are not interpreted as limiting as they do not set forth a method step.).
Regarding claim 2, Lee (‘809) inherently teaches wherein the refrigerated shelf-life of the cooked meat substitute is about 6 days to about 2 weeks (See Abs., paras. 1, 1-20, 64, 88 and 143, where the same konjac gum, psyllium fiber added to the same non-meat proteins including peat, soy and wheat.).
Regarding claim 7, Lee (‘809) teaches wherein the shelf-life extending agent is konjac gum (See para. 64.).
Regarding claim 9, Lee (‘809) teaches wherein the shelf-life extending agent is psyllium fiber (See para. 64.).
Regarding claim 10, Lee (‘809) teaches wherein the non-meat protein is a plant-based protein (See para. 19.).
Regarding claim 11, Lee (‘809) teaches wherein the plant-based protein comprises pea protein, soy protein, wheat protein, or mixtures thereof (See para. 19.).
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) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2019/0045809).
Regarding claim 8, Lee (‘809) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the konjac gum comprises glucomannan units with a G to M ratio of about 1 to about 1.6.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select a konjac gum that has properties including the claimed G to M ratio that it is suitable to be used in cooked meat substitutes. The selection of type of konjac gum would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12, Lee (‘809) teaches the method discussed above including cooking (See paras. 88 and 143.), however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the cooking comprises thermal screw cooking, batching cooking, continuous cook line cooking, kettle cooking, or combinations thereof.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for selecting one method step over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select any known cooking step, including those set forth in the claims to provide a food substitute that is suitable for consumption by a consumer. The selection of cooking step would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
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
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights