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 .
This office action was written in response to the Applicants’ Remarks filed 11/7/25.
Claims 1-30 have been cancelled. Claims 31-60 are pending and have been examined on the merits.
Examiner Notes:
3. The Examiner notes to Applicants that the number of references submitted and the way in which they were submitted is excessive and burdensome on the examination of the application. To date, the Applicants have submitted over 1,200 references which is excessive. Further, the relevance of the references is called into question. For example in the most recent submission following Applicant’s amendment of claims, CN ‘9950 submitted 11/5/25 is directed to the preparation of porcine stem cells; CN ‘0745 submitted 11/5/25 is directed to producing bio-organic fertilizer; CN’6088 submitted 11/5/25 is directed to preparing a fertilizer using waste water. The instant invention is drawn to pet foods containing non-human animal cells. It is not clear how these references are relevant to the production of pet food or pet food products. The Applicant is asked to take care in the further submission of references, to take care in the order in which they are submitted, and to take care in the relevance of what is submitted.
Withdrawn Rejections
4. The 103(a) rejections of claims 31, 35-38, and 39 over Corrigan et al. (WO 2012/099786) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830), Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) have been withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims.
5. The 103(a) rejections of claims 32, 40, and 42-45 over Corrigan et al. (WO 2012/099786) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830) and Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) as applied to claim 31 above and in further view of Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 have been withdrawn.
6. The 103(a) rejection of claim 33 over Corrigan et al. (WO 2012/099786) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830), Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854), and Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 as applied to claim 32 and in further view of Van Gorp et al. (US 5,607,840) have been withdrawn.
7. The 103(a) rejections of claims 46, 50-54, and 57 over Cheison (US 2020/0205441) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830) and Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) have been withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims.
8. The 103(a) rejections of claims 47 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheison (US 2020/0205441) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830) and Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) as applied to claims 46 and 54 above and in further view of view of Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 have been withdrawn.
9. The 103(a) rejection of claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheison (US 2020/0205441) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830) and Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) as applied to claims 46 and 54 above and in further view of view of Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 as applied to claim 47 above and in further view of JP 2023055867 Machine Translation April 2023 has been withdrawn.
10. The 103(a) rejection of claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheison (US 2020/0205441) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830) and Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) and Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 as applied to claim 47 above and in further view of Van Gorp et al. (US 5,607,840) has been withdrawn.
11. The 103(a) rejections of claims 56, and 58-60 over Cheison (US 2020/0205441) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830) and Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) as applied to claim 54 above and in further view of Taftoe et al. (GB 2385767) have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
13. Claims 31, 35-38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0079194) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) and Corrigan et al. (WO 2012/099786).
Regarding Claim 31: Li discloses a method of making food compositions containing cultivated animal cells [abstract]. Li discloses cultivating animal cells (non-human metazoan cell lines) in a bioreactor [0084; 0088; 0110-0112]. Li discloses treating the cultivated cells to produce a cell paste by centrifugation, lyophilization, or heating [0050]. Li discloses including gums, starches, humectants and hydrocolloids which create fibrous structures in the extruded product [0065; 0139]; which the Examiner has determined to be synonymous with solidifying agents as they provide structure to the product. Although Li does not explicitly disclose that the solidifying agent is added in an amount of 0.01 to 15% of the paste, Li does disclose that the cell paste/dough/extrudate comprises at least one other ingredient in an amount between 0.1% to 0.2%, between 0.2% to 0.3%, between 0.3% to 0.4%, between 0.4% to 0.5%, between 0.5% to 0.6%, between 0.6% to 0.7%, between 0.7% to 0.8%, between 0.8% to 0.9%, between 0.9% to 1%, between 1% to 2%, between 2% to 3%, between 3% to 4%, between 4% to 5%, between 5% to 7.5%, between 7.5% to 10%, between 10% to 12.5%, or between 12.5% to 15% [0127]. Since the solidifying agents: gums, humectants and hydrocolloids are additional ingredients, it would have been obvious to include them in amounts as provided for in Li as desired and as deemed operable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Li discloses making a dough/cell mixture by combining the cell paste with additional ingredients and then extruding the dough/cell mixture with additional ingredients through a die [0018; 0145]. Li discloses that the extruded product can be further dried in conventional or convection ovens or using other drying methods to reach a desired moisture content whether a wet or dry extrusion process was used [0255; 0258].
Li discloses a dry extrusion formula where water is added so that the ingredients enter the extrusion mechanism with a moisture content of 5-40% and where the composition is further dried to a desired moisture content [0256-0258]. Although Li does not disclose the moisture content of the end product, since the starting moisture content was 5 to 40% and at this moisture content the composition is further dried, it would have been obvious that Li rendered obvious dried compositions having a moisture content below 14%.
Although Li does not explicitly disclose pet food, Li discloses that the food product of its invention is food safe for humans and that it should also be considered to be suitable for consumption by animals and that such an embodiment is within the scope of Li [0054]. Therefore, the cultivated meat of Li would have been considered suitable for pets and therefore would have been considered to be pet food.
Li does not explicitly disclose that the thermal step is performed at a temperature in the range of 80 °C to 150 °C for 30 seconds to 600 seconds to provide a thermally inactivated cultivated cell biomass.
Li does not explicitly disclose cutting the extrudate into pieces of uniform size.
March discloses a method of making a meat substitute with animal cells (non-human metazoan) [abstract; col. 23, lines 30-58]. March discloses cultivating the cells and biomass in the presence of collagen, hydrogel or soft agar [col. 42, lines 18-22, 36-45; col. 43, lines 14-30]. March discloses that the animal cells can undergo one or more food processing steps including heating and that the heating steps are such that viability, survival, expansion, and or differentiation of the cells would not be supported/possible [col. 52; lines 27-31, 45-50]. March discloses heating the cells from 100°F (37°C) to 600°F (315°C) for at least 30 seconds, at least 5 minutes, at least 10 minutes and is also inclusive of ranges within the time periods [col. 52, lines 50-67; col. 52, lines 1-3].
Corrigan discloses a method of making a pet food by mixing protein with binders (solidifying agents), fats, and saccharides [pg. 3, lines 18-25; pg. 9, lines 18-34; pg. 16, lines 9-16]. Corrigan discloses extruding the mixture [pg. 16, lines 24-34]. Corrigan discloses that the extrusion is via screw extrusion via single or twin screw cooking extruder under heat and pressure [pg. 15, lines 25-28; pg. 16, lines 24-28]. Corrigan discloses extruding the mixture through a die component and cutting to obtain a smaller segment [pg. 17, lines 1-5]. Corrigan discloses drying the cut extrudate to form kibble [pg. 17, lines 6-17]. Corrigan discloses the water content of the kibble being less than 12% [pg. 13, lines 27-34; pg. 13, lines 1-9].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Li to treat the cells to an inactivation step as in March in order to arrest cell division and to prepare the cells for subsequent use in a food product.
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Li to include cutting the extrudate into uniform pieces as in Corrigan in order to provide the extrudate in kibble sized pieces for pets.
Regarding the increase in dynamic viscosity to obtain a primary component, this is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention and in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the recitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. MPEP 2103 states that intended use language "does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim". The above mentioned phrase does not limit the claim to any particular structure, so it is not interpreted to limit the scope of the claims. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding the order of adding ingredients, Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F. 2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F. 2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 35: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 31. Li discloses the storage modulus of wet cell paste (concentrated paste) at 5 to 10 Pa [0090]. Li acknowledges a loss modulus but does not disclose a range [0263]. Although Li as modified does not disclose wherein a dynamic viscosity of the thermally inactivated cultivated cell biomass in the form of a concentrated paste is in the range of 500 mPa:s to 3000 mPa:s, and wherein the loss modulus of the concentrated paste is in the range of 0.1 Pa to 7 Pa, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding the storage modulus, although Li does not explicitly disclose .5 Pa to 10 Pa one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Li overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 36: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 31. Li discloses removing water from the cultured cells to produce a cell paste having 10% to 99% water [0050]. Although modified Li does not disclose that the cell biomass has water removed at 5 to 90%, it would have been obvious that Li would have removed water within the range since the cell paste produced has a water content of 10% to 90% and Li discloses that the water content of animal meats is typically about 75% [0050].
Although Li does not explicitly disclose that the cell biomass has water removed at 5 to 90% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Li overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 37: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 31. Li discloses the meat containing, protein with binders (solidifying agents), fats, color and sugar/saccharides [0139; 0141; 0144].
Regarding Claim 38: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 31. Li discloses that dough is heated in an extruder and that the extruder can be a single or twin screw extruder [0146; 0147; 0152; 0153];
Li does not explicitly disclose the extruder reaching 80-85°C, 90C-95°C, 100C-105°C.
Corrigan discloses that the extruder reaches a temperature range of up to 250 °C [pg. 17, lines 1-5]. Corrigan discloses that the extrusion is via screw extrusion via single or twin screw cooking extruder under heat and pressure [pg. 15, lines 25-28; pg. 16, lines 24-28]. Corrigan discloses extruding the mixture through a die component and cutting to obtain a smaller segment [pg. 17, lines 1-5]. Corrigan discloses drying the cut extrudate and cooling after drying [pg. 17, lines 6-24].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Li to include extruding at temperatures as in Corrigan in order to allow the dough to soften so that it will be easily shaped and to cook the dough. Further it would have been obvious to cool after drying in order to more quickly prepare the food for packaging.
Although Corrigan does not explicitly disclose 80-85°C, 90C-95°C, 100C-105°C one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Corrigan overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 39: Li discloses dried food compositions containing cultivated animal cells [abstract]. Li discloses cultivating animal cells (non-human metazoan cell lines) in a bioreactor [0084; 0088; 0110-0112]. Li discloses treating the cultivated cells to produce a cell paste by centrifugation, lyophilization, or heating [0050]. Li discloses including gums, humectants and hydrocolloids which create fibrous structure in the extruded product [0065; 0139]; which the Examiner has determined to be synonymous with solidifying agents as they provide structure to the product. Although Li does not explicitly disclose that the solidifying agent is added in an amount of 0.01 to 15% of the paste, Li does disclose that the cell paste/dough/extrudate comprises at least one other ingredient in an amount between 0.1% to 0.2%, between 0.2% to 0.3%, between 0.3% to 0.4%, between 0.4% to 0.5%, between 0.5% to 0.6%, between 0.6% to 0.7%, between 0.7% to 0.8%, between 0.8% to 0.9%, between 0.9% to 1%, between 1% to 2%, between 2% to 3%, between 3% to 4%, between 4% to 5%, between 5% to 7.5%, between 7.5% to 10%, between 10% to 12.5%, or between 12.5% to 15% [0127]. Since the solidifying agents: gums, starches, humectants and hydrocolloids are additional ingredients, it would have been obvious to include them in amounts provided for in Li as desired and as deemed operable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Li discloses making a dough/cell mixture by combining the cell paste with additional ingredients and then extruding the dough/cell mixture with additional ingredients through a die [0018; 0145]. Li discloses that the extruded product can be further dried in conventional or convection ovens or using other drying methods to reach a desired moisture content whether a wet or dry extrusion process was used [0255; 0258].
Li discloses a dry extrusion formula where water is added so that the ingredients enter the extrusion mechanism with a moisture content of 5-40% and where the composition is further dried to a desired moisture content [0256-0258]. Although Li does not disclose the moisture content of the end product, since the starting moisture content was 5 to 40% and at this moisture content the composition is further dried, it would have been obvious that Li rendered obvious dried compositions having a moisture content below 14%.
Although Li does not explicitly disclose pet food, Li discloses that the food product of its invention is food safe for humans and that it should also be considered to be suitable for consumption by animals and that such an embodiment is within the scope of Li [0054]. Therefore, the cultivated meat of Li would have been considered suitable for pets and therefore would have been considered to be pet food.
Li does not explicitly disclose that the thermal step is performed at a temperature in the range of 80 °C to 150 °C for 30 seconds to 600 seconds to provide a thermally inactivated cultivated cell biomass.
Li does not explicitly disclose cutting the extrudate into pieces of uniform size.
March discloses a meat substitute with animal cells (non-human metazoan) [abstract; col. 23, lines 30-58]. March discloses cultivating the cells and biomass in the presence of collagen, hydrogel or soft agar [col. 42, lines 18-22, 36-45; col. 43, lines 14-30]. March discloses that the animal cells can undergo one or more food processing steps including heating and that the heating steps are such that viability, survival, expansion, and or differentiation of the cells would not be supported/possible [col. 52; lines 27-31, 45-50]. March discloses heating the cells from 100°F (37°C) to 600°F (315°C) for at least 30 seconds, at least 5 minutes, at least 10 minutes and is also inclusive of ranges within the time periods [col. 52, lines 50-67; col. 52, lines 1-3].
Corrigan discloses dry a pet food by mixing protein with binders (solidifying agents), fats, and saccharides [pg. 3, lines 18-25; pg. 9, lines 18-34; pg. 16, lines 9-16]. Corrigan discloses extruding the mixture [pg. 16, lines 24-34]. Corrigan discloses that the extrusion is via screw extrusion via single or twin screw cooking extruder under heat and pressure [pg. 15, lines 25-28; pg. 16, lines 24-28]. Corrigan discloses extruding the mixture through a die component and cutting to obtain a smaller segment [pg. 17, lines 1-5]. Corrigan discloses drying the cut extrudate to form kibble [pg. 17, lines 6-17]. Corrigan discloses the water content of the kibble being less than 12% [pg. 13, lines 27-34; pg. 13, lines 1-9].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Li to treat the cells to an inactivation step as in March in order to arrest cell division and to prepare the cells for subsequent use in a food product.
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Li to include cutting the extrudate into uniform pieces as in Corrigan in order to provide the extrudate in kibble sized pieces for pets.
Regarding the increase in dynamic viscosity to obtain a primary component, this is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention and in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the recitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. MPEP 2103 states that intended use language "does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim". The above mentioned phrase does not limit the claim to any particular structure, so it is not interpreted to limit the scope of the claims. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding the order of adding ingredients, Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F. 2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F. 2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.
14. Claims 32, 33, 34, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0079194) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) and Corrigan et al. (WO 2012/099786) as applied to claim 31 above and in further view of Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023.
Regarding Claim 32: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 31. Li does not disclose that the cell line is derived from a CHO cell line with a cultivation style in the range of 4 hours to 168 hours.
However, Romero discloses using CHO cell lines as an alternative to livestock meat [abstract]. Romero discloses cultivated meat and using CHO cell biomass production [abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the non-human metazoan cells of modified Li for the CHO cells of Romero in order to further utilize meat that is economically sustainable [Romero, abstract].
Although Romero does not disclose the cell cultivation time it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the cycle would have been 4 to 168 hours because this range is typical for most cells to complete a cycle of cell division.
Regarding Claim 33: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 32. Li discloses that the cells are cultured in suspension culture [0077]. Li discloses that the culture medium contains amino acids [0092] and hydrolysates of protein containing compositions [0108].
Regarding Claim 34: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 32. Li discloses that the cell density is 1x109 to 1x1011 cells/ml of concentrated cell paste [0088].
Further, no particular patentable difference between a composition which is in dry form and one which is the same composition with the addition of water. The mere matter of liquid form, if respective compositions are substantially the same, cannot lend patentability to applicant’s claims. In re Nelson 1938 CD 708.
Regarding Claim 40: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 39. Li does not disclose that the cell line is derived from CHO cell line.
However, Romero discloses using CHO cell lines as an alternative to livestock meat [abstract]. Romero discloses cultivated meat and using CHO cell biomass production [abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the non-human metazoan cells of modified Li for the CHO cells of Romero in order to further utilize meat that is economically sustainable [Romero, abstract].
15. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0079194) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112), Corrigan et al. (WO 2012/099786) and Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 as applied to claim 32 above and in further view of JP 2023055867 Machine Translation April 2023.
Regarding Claim 34: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 32. Although Li as modified does not disclose wherein the cultivated cell biomass is characterized by a cell density in the range of 106 to 1013 cells per 1 g of the cultivated cell biomass since Li as modified discloses a biomass it would have been obvious that the biomass would have contained cells within the claimed range.
However, JP’ 867 discloses culturing mammalian cells for making cultivated or cultured meat [047; 060; 061; 070; 071]. JP’867 discloses the density of the cells in the cultivated product as 100x106 cells/g; 500x106 cells/g (1x108 cells/g; 5x108 cells/g) [068].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Li to cultivate the cells to a density of 100x106 cells/g; 500x106 cells/g (1x108 cells/g; 5x108 cells/g) as in JP’867 as this would provide an appropriate density for cultivated/cultured meat as described by JP’867.
16. Claims 41-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0079194) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) and Corrigan et al. (WO 2012/099786) and Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 as applied to claim 40 above and in further view of Taftoe et al. (GB 2385767).
Regarding Claim 41: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 40. Li discloses the extruded composition containing cultivated cells as having a fat content of 10 to 20% [0126; 0132].
Li does not disclose wherein the thermally inactivated cultivated cell biomass comprises proteins in the range of 40 g to 70 g per 100 g of dry matter.
Taftoe discloses a biomass produced by fermentation that contains 60 to 80% crude protein, 5 to 20% crude fat, 3 to 10% crude ash, crude fiber 1% [pg. 9, lines 22-25; pg. 19, lines 23-30]. Taftoe discloses including the biomass in pet food for the improvement of palatability and increasing the nutritional value of pet food [abstract; pg. 2, lines 2-7; claim 1].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dry pet food of Li to include the protein at amounts as in Taftoe in order to provide improved palatability and nutritional value.
Regarding Claim 42: Li discloses as discussed above in claim 40. Li does not disclose wherein the thermally inactivated cultivated cell biomass contains antibiotics, hormones, growth promoters and sharp residues and therefore discloses that it is free of antibiotics, hormones, growth promoters and sharp residues.
Regarding Claim 43: Li discloses as discussed above in claim 40. Li does not disclose wherein the dry pet food product comprises crude fiber in an amount in the range of 1 wt. % to 10 wt. %, crude fat in an amount in the range of 5 wt. % to 25 wt. %, crude protein in an amount in the range of 20 wt. % to 80 wt. %, and crude ash in an amount in the range of 0.01 wt. % to 10 wt. %.
Taftoe discloses a biomass produced by fermentation that contains 60 to 80% crude protein, 5 to 20% crude fat, 3 to 10% crude ash, crude fiber 1% [pg. 9, lines 22-25; pg. 19, lines 23-30]. Taftoe discloses including the biomass in pet food for the improvement of palatability and increasing the nutritional value of pet food [abstract; pg. 2, lines 2-7; claim 1].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dry pet food of Li to include the crude fiber and crude ash at amounts as in Taftoe in order to provide improved palatability and nutritional value.
Regarding Claim 44-45: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 40. Li discloses protein (primary), plant portion/fiber/starch (secondary) [0059; 0060; Table 7], fat (tertiary) of at least 5% [0030; 0067; 0082].
Corrigan discloses kibble containing 0 to 80% protein (primary), 20% to 100% carbohydrate (secondary), 0 to 15% fat (secondary) [pg. 5, lines 25-29].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pet food of modified Li to include the primary and secondary ingredients at amounts as disclosed in Corrigan in order to provide a nutritionally balanced food product.
Although Corrigan does not explicitly disclose a primary component at 2% to 95% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Corrigan overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Although Corrigan does not explicitly disclose a total water content at 5 to 65% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Corrigan overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Although Corrigan does not explicitly disclose a primary component at 2% to 95% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Corrigan overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Although Corrigan does not explicitly disclose a total water content at 5 to 65% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Corrigan overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
17. Claims 46, 50-54, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0079194) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) and Cheison (US 2020/0205441).
Regarding Claim 46: Li discloses a method of a method of making food compositions containing cultivated animal cells [abstract]. Li discloses products with a higher moisture content made by wet extrusion. Li discloses cultivating animal cells (non-human metazoan cell lines) in a bioreactor [0084; 0088; 0110-0112]. Li discloses treating the cultivated cells to produce a cell paste by centrifugation, lyophilization, or heating [0050]. Li discloses including gums, starches, humectants and hydrocolloids which create fibrous structures in the extruded product [0065; 0139]; which the Examiner has determined to be synonymous with solidifying agents as they provide structure to the product. Although Li does not explicitly disclose that the solidifying agent is added in an amount of 0.01 to 15% of the paste, Li does disclose that the cell paste/dough/extrudate comprises at least one other ingredient in an amount between 0.1% to 0.2%, between 0.2% to 0.3%, between 0.3% to 0.4%, between 0.4% to 0.5%, between 0.5% to 0.6%, between 0.6% to 0.7%, between 0.7% to 0.8%, between 0.8% to 0.9%, between 0.9% to 1%, between 1% to 2%, between 2% to 3%, between 3% to 4%, between 4% to 5%, between 5% to 7.5%, between 7.5% to 10%, between 10% to 12.5%, or between 12.5% to 15% [0127]. Since the solidifying agents: gums, humectants and hydrocolloids are additional ingredients, it would have been obvious to include them in amounts as provided for in Li as desired and as deemed operable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Li discloses making a dough/cell mixture by combining the cell paste with additional ingredients and then extruding the dough/cell mixture with additional ingredients through a die [0018; 0145]. Li discloses that the extruded product can be further dried in conventional or convection ovens or using other drying methods to reach a desired moisture content whether a wet or dry extrusion process was used [0255; 0258].
Li discloses a wet extrusion formula where water is added so that the ingredients enter the extrusion mechanism with a moisture content of 40-95% and where the composition is optionally further dried to a desired moisture content [0253-0255; Table7]. Although Li does not disclose the moisture content of the end product, since the starting moisture content was 40 to 95% and at this moisture content the composition can be optionally further dried, it would have been obvious that Li rendered obvious dried compositions having a moisture content above 14%.
Although Li does not explicitly disclose pet food, Li discloses that the food product of its invention is food safe for humans and that it should also be considered to be suitable for consumption by animals and that such an embodiment is within the scope of Li [0054]. Therefore, the cultivated meat of Li would have been considered suitable for pets and therefore would have been considered to be pet food.
Li does not explicitly disclose that the thermal step is performed at a temperature in the range of 80 °C to 150 °C for 30 seconds to 600 seconds to provide a thermally inactivated cultivated cell biomass.
Li does not explicitly disclose cutting the extrudate into pieces of uniform size.
March discloses a method of making a meat substitute with animal cells (non-human metazoan) [abstract; col. 23, lines 30-58]. March discloses cultivating the cells and biomass in the presence of collagen, hydrogel or soft agar [col. 42, lines 18-22, 36-45; col. 43, lines 14-30]. March discloses that the animal cells can undergo one or more food processing steps including heating and that the heating steps are such that viability, survival, expansion, and or differentiation of the cells would not be supported/possible [col. 52; lines 27-31, 45-50]. March discloses heating the cells from 100°F (37°C) to 600°F (315°C) for at least 30 seconds, at least 5 minutes, at least 10 minutes and is also inclusive of ranges within the time periods [col. 52, lines 50-67; col. 52, lines 1-3].
Cheison discloses a method of making wet/moist pet food by mixing animal protein with hydrocolloids/thickeners/gelling (solidifying agents), fats, and saccharides [abstract; 0012; 0093; 0108; 0109]. Cheison discloses extruding the mixture [0059; 0083]. Cheison discloses extruding the mixture through a die component and cutting to obtain a smaller segment [0085; 0126]. Cheison discloses filling into packaging [0012; 0106]. Cheison discloses the wet/moist pet food in the form of chunks, chunks in gravy, paté [0013]. Cheison discloses sterilizing the wet pet food [0012-0014; 0035].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Li to treat the cells to an inactivation step as in March in order to arrest cell division and to prepare the cells for subsequent use in a food product.
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Li to include cutting the extrudate into uniform pieces as in Cheison in order to provide the extrudate in kibble sized pieces for pets.
Regarding the increase in dynamic viscosity to obtain a primary component, this is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention and in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the recitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. MPEP 2103 states that intended use language "does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim". The above mentioned phrase does not limit the claim to any particular structure, so it is not interpreted to limit the scope of the claims. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding the order of adding ingredients, Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F. 2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F. 2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 50: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 46. Li discloses the storage modulus of wet cell paste (concentrated paste) at 5 to 10 Pa [0090]. Li acknowledges a loss modulus but does not disclose a range [0263]. Although Li as modified does not disclose wherein a dynamic viscosity of the thermally inactivated cultivated cell biomass in the form of a concentrated paste is in the range of 500 mPa:s to 3000 mPa:s, and wherein the loss modulus of the concentrated paste is in the range of 0.1 Pa to 7 Pa, “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding the storage modulus, although Li does not explicitly disclose .5 Pa to 10 Pa one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Li overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 51: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 46. Li discloses removing water from the cultured cells to produce a cell paste having 10% to 99% water [0050]. Although modified Li does not disclose that the cell biomass has water removed at 5 to 90%, it would have been obvious that Li would have removed water within the range since the cell paste produced has a water content of 10% to 90% and Li discloses that the water content of animal meats is typically about 75% [0050].
Although Li does not explicitly disclose that the cell biomass has water removed at 5 to 90% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Li overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 52: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 46. Li discloses the meat containing, protein with binders (solidifying agents), fats, color and sugar/saccharides [0139; 0141; 0144].
Regarding Claim 52: Cheison discloses as discussed above in claim 46. Cheison discloses xanthan gum, cellulose, guar gums, starch, [0108]. Cheison discloses wherein the secondary component comprises at least one source of fats selected from vegetable oils [0093].
Regarding Claim 53: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 46. Li discloses that dough is heated in an extruder and that the extruder can be a single or twin screw extruder [0146; 0147; 0152; 0153];
Li does not explicitly disclose the extruder reaching 80-85°C, 90C-95°C, 100C-105°C.
Cheison discloses that the extrusion temperature is at about at least 80°C, 90 to 120°C [0061]. Cheison discloses cooling the extruded product [0062].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Li to include extruding at temperatures as in Cheison in order to allow the dough to soften so that it will be easily shaped and to cook the dough. Further it would have been obvious to cool after drying in order to more quickly prepare the food for packaging.
Although Cheison does not explicitly disclose the temperature range as recited, one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Cheison overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 54: Li discloses a method of making food compositions containing cultivated animal cells [abstract]. Li discloses products with a higher moisture content made by wet extrusion. Li discloses cultivating animal cells (non-human metazoan cell lines) in a bioreactor [0084; 0088; 0110-0112]. Li discloses treating the cultivated cells to produce a cell paste by centrifugation, lyophilization, or heating [0050]. Li discloses including gums, starches, humectants and hydrocolloids which create fibrous structures in the extruded product [0065; 0139]; which the Examiner has determined to be synonymous with solidifying agents as they provide structure to the product. Although Li does not explicitly disclose that the solidifying agent is added in an amount of 0.01 to 15% of the paste, Li does disclose that the cell paste/dough/extrudate comprises at least one other ingredient in an amount between 0.1% to 0.2%, between 0.2% to 0.3%, between 0.3% to 0.4%, between 0.4% to 0.5%, between 0.5% to 0.6%, between 0.6% to 0.7%, between 0.7% to 0.8%, between 0.8% to 0.9%, between 0.9% to 1%, between 1% to 2%, between 2% to 3%, between 3% to 4%, between 4% to 5%, between 5% to 7.5%, between 7.5% to 10%, between 10% to 12.5%, or between 12.5% to 15% [0127]. Since the solidifying agents: gums, humectants and hydrocolloids are additional ingredients, it would have been obvious to include them in amounts provided for in Li as desired and as deemed operable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Li discloses making a dough/cell mixture by combining the cell paste with additional ingredients and then extruding the dough/cell mixture with additional ingredients through a die [0018; 0145]. Li discloses that the extruded product can be further dried in conventional or convection ovens or using other drying methods to reach a desired moisture content whether a wet or dry extrusion process was used [0255; 0258].
Li discloses a wet extrusion formula where water is added so that the ingredients enter the extrusion mechanism with a moisture content of 40-95% and where the composition is optionally further dried to a desired moisture content [0253-0255; Table7]. Although Li does not disclose the moisture content of the end product, since the starting moisture content was 40 to 95% and at this moisture content the composition can be optionally further dried, it would have been obvious that Li rendered obvious dried compositions having a moisture content above 14%.
Although Li does not explicitly disclose pet food, Li discloses that the food product of its invention is food safe for humans and that it should also be considered to be suitable for consumption by animals and that such an embodiment is within the scope of Li [0054]. Therefore, the cultivated meat of Li would have been considered suitable for pets and therefore would have been considered to be pet food.
Li does not explicitly disclose that the thermal step is performed at a temperature in the range of 80 °C to 150 °C for 30 seconds to 600 seconds to provide a thermally inactivated cultivated cell biomass.
Li does not explicitly disclose cutting the extrudate into pieces of uniform size.
March discloses a method of making a meat substitute with animal cells (non-human metazoan) [abstract; col. 23, lines 30-58]. March discloses cultivating the cells and biomass in the presence of collagen, hydrogel or soft agar [col. 42, lines 18-22, 36-45; col. 43, lines 14-30]. March discloses that the animal cells can undergo one or more food processing steps including heating and that the heating steps are such that viability, survival, expansion, and or differentiation of the cells would not be supported/possible [col. 52; lines 27-31, 45-50]. March discloses heating the cells from 100°F (37°C) to 600°F (315°C) for at least 30 seconds, at least 5 minutes, at least 10 minutes and is also inclusive of ranges within the time periods [col. 52, lines 50-67; col. 52, lines 1-3].
Cheison discloses a wet/moist pet food containing animal protein with hydrocolloids/thickeners/gelling (solidifying agents), fats, and saccharides [abstract; 0012; 0093; 0108; 0109]. Cheison discloses a total water content 20 to 50% or greater than 50% [0007-0010; 0028; 0114]. Cheison discloses extruding the mixture [0059; 0083]. Cheison discloses extruding the mixture through a die component and cutting to obtain a smaller segment [0085; 0126]. Cheison discloses filling into packaging [0012; 0106]. Cheison discloses the wet/moist pet food in the form of chunks, chunks in gravy, paté [0013]. Cheison discloses sterilizing the wet pet food [0012-0014; 0035]. Cheison does not disclose the inclusion of antibiotics, hormones, growth promoters, and sharp residues.
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Li to treat the cells to an inactivation step as in March in order to arrest cell division and to prepare the cells for subsequent use in a food product.
Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Li to include cutting the extrudate into uniform pieces as in Cheison in order to provide the extrudate in kibble sized pieces for pets.
Regarding the increase in dynamic viscosity to obtain a primary component, this is a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention and in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art, the recitation must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. MPEP 2103 states that intended use language "does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim". The above mentioned phrase does not limit the claim to any particular structure, so it is not interpreted to limit the scope of the claims. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding the order of adding ingredients, Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans, 154 F. 2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson, 39 F. 2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.
Regarding Claim 57: Li discloses as discussed above in claim 54. Li does not disclose wherein the thermally inactivated cultivated cell biomass contains antibiotics, hormones, growth promoters and sharp residues and therefore discloses that it is free of antibiotics, hormones, growth promoters and sharp residues.
18. Claims 47, 49, and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0079194) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) and Cheison (US 2020/0205441) as applied to claims 46 and 54 above and in further view of view of Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023.
Regarding Claim 47: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 46. Li does not disclose that the cell line is derived from the CHO cell line.
However, Romero discloses using CHO cell lines as an alternative to livestock meat [abstract]. Romero discloses cultivated meat and using CHO cell biomass production [abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the non-human metazoan cells of modified Li for the CHO cells of Romero in order to further utilize meat that economically sustainable [Romero, abstract].
Regarding Claim 49: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 47. Li discloses that the cells are cultured in suspension culture [0077]. Li discloses that the culture medium contains amino acids [0092] and hydrolysates of protein containing compositions [0108].
Regarding Claim 55: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 54. Li does not disclose that the cell line is derived from CHO cell line.
However, Romero discloses using CHO cell lines as an alternative to livestock meat [abstract]. Romero discloses cultivated meat and using CHO cell biomass production [abstract].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the non-human metazoan cells of modified Li for the CHO cells of Romero in order to further utilize meat that is economically sustainable [Romero, abstract].
19. Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0079194) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) and Cheison (US 2020/0205441) and Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 as applied to claim 47 above and in further view of JP 2023055867 Machine Translation April 2023.
Regarding Claim 48: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 47. Although Li as modified does not disclose wherein the cultivated cell biomass is characterized by a cell density in the range of 106 to 1013 cells per 1 g of the cultivated cell biomass since Li as modified discloses a biomass it would have been obvious that the biomass would have contained cells within the claimed range.
However, JP’ 867 discloses culturing mammalian cells for making cultivated or cultured meat [047; 060; 061; 070; 071]. JP’867 discloses the density of the cells in the cultivated product as 100x106 cells/g; 500x106 cells/g (1x108 cells/g; 5x108 cells/g) [068].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Li to cultivate the cells to a density of 100x106 cells/g; 500x106 cells/g (1x108 cells/g; 5x108 cells/g) as in JP’867 as this would provide an appropriate density for cultivated/cultured meat as described by JP’867.
20. Claims 56, and 58-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 2022/0079194) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) and Cheison (US 2020/0205441) as applied to claim 54 above and in further view of Taftoe et al. (GB 2385767).
Regarding Claim 56: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 54. Li discloses the extruded composition containing cultivated cells as having a fat content of 10 to 20% [0126; 0132].
Li does not disclose wherein the thermally inactivated cultivated cell biomass comprises proteins in the range of 40 g to 70 g per 100 g of dry matter.
Taftoe discloses a biomass produced by fermentation that contains 60 to 80% crude protein, 5 to 20% crude fat, 3 to 10% crude ash, crude fiber 1% [pg. 9, lines 22-25; pg. 19, lines 23-30]. Taftoe discloses including the biomass in pet food for the improvement of palatability and increasing the nutritional value of pet food [abstract; pg. 2, lines 2-7; claim 1].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dry pet food of Li to include the protein at amounts as in Taftoe in order to provide improved palatability and nutritional value.
Regarding Claim 58: Li discloses as discussed above in claim 54. Li does not disclose wherein the dry pet food product comprises crude fiber in an amount in the range of 1 wt. % to 10 wt. %, crude fat in an amount in the range of 5 wt. % to 25 wt. %, crude protein in an amount in the range of 20 wt. % to 80 wt. %, and crude ash in an amount in the range of 0.01 wt. % to 10 wt. %.
Taftoe discloses a biomass produced by fermentation that contains 60 to 80% crude protein, 5 to 20% crude fat, 3 to 10% crude ash, crude fiber 1% [pg. 9, lines 22-25; pg. 19, lines 23-30]. Taftoe discloses including the biomass in pet food for the improvement of palatability and increasing the nutritional value of pet food [abstract; pg. 2, lines 2-7; claim 1].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dry pet food of Li to include the crude fiber and crude ash at amounts as in Taftoe in order to provide improved palatability and nutritional value.
Regarding Claim 59-60: Li as modified discloses as discussed above in claim 54. Li discloses protein (primary), plant portion/fiber/starch (secondary) [0059; 0060; Table 7], fat (tertiary) of at least 5% [0030; 0067; 0082].
Cheison discloses wet pet food having animal protein (primary component) in an amount of 50 to 90% [claim 32]. Cheison discloses wet pet food having fat and carbohydrate(secondary) in an amount of no more than 15% and no more than 20% respectively [0112; 0095]. Cheison discloses wet pet food having fat and carbohydrate (secondary) in an amount of no more than 15% and no more than 20% respectively [0112; 0095]. Cheison discloses further adding other ingredients including vitamins, minerals, flavoring agents (palatants), antioxidants, colorants and/or preservatives [0074, 0109]. Cheison discloses the wet/moist pet food in the form of chunks, chunks in gravy, paté [0013].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the pet food of modified Li to include the primary and secondary ingredients at amounts as disclosed in Cheison in order to provide a nutritionally balanced food product.
Although Cheison does not explicitly disclose a primary component at % to 85% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Cheison overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Although Cheison does not explicitly disclose a total water content at 5 to 65% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Cheison overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Although Cheison does not explicitly disclose a secondary component at 5% to 60% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Cheison overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Although Cheison does not explicitly disclose a secondary component at 0.1% to 75% one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Cheison overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Response to Arguments
21. The 103(a) rejections of claims 31, 35-38, and 39 over Corrigan et al. (WO 2012/099786) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830), Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) have been withdrawn due to the amendments to the claims.
22. The 103(a) rejections of claims 32, 40, and 42-45 over Corrigan et al. (WO 2012/099786) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830) and Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) as applied to claim 31 above and in further view of Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 have been withdrawn.
23. The 103(a) rejection of claim 33 over Corrigan et al. (WO 2012/099786) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830), Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854), and Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 as applied to claim 32 and in further view of Van Gorp et al. (US 5,607,840) have been withdrawn.
24. The 103(a) rejections of claims 46, 50-54, and 57 over Cheison (US 2020/0205441) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830) and Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) have been withdrawn due to the amendment to the claims.
25. The 103(a) rejections of claims 47 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheison (US 2020/0205441) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830) and Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) as applied to claims 46 and 54 above and in further view of view of Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 have been withdrawn.
26. The 103(a) rejection of claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheison (US 2020/0205441) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830) and Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) as applied to claims 46 and 54 above and in further view of view of Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 as applied to claim 47 above and in further view of JP 2023055867 Machine Translation April 2023 has been withdrawn.
27. The 103(a) rejection of claim 49 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheison (US 2020/0205441) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830) and Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) and Romero et al. “Systems biology and metabolic modeling for cultivated meat: A promising approach for cell culture media optimization and cost reduction” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety vol. 4 July 2023 as applied to claim 47 above and in further view of Van Gorp et al. (US 5,607,840) has been withdrawn.
28. The 103(a) rejections of claims 56, and 58-60 over Cheison (US 2020/0205441) in view of March et al. (US 11,771,112) Genovese et al. (US 2016/0227830) and Prahl et al. (US 5,607,854) as applied to claim 54 above and in further view of Taftoe et al. (GB 2385767) have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
29. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
30. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA C TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-4:00 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.
/Felicia C Turner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793