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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1,3,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is vague and indefinite. The claim recites “ HSP distance between the polymer and the hydrophilic moiety of the surfactant. But, it is unclear what this limitation intends because it is not clear how the polymer is functionally or structurally related to the surfactant in the lump composition.
Claim 3 is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what is intended. It’s unclear what properties are being claimed or what the functional limitations mean. It not clear what is being “ pressurized from a surface “ mean. Line 2 recites “ heated for 5 minutes on a hot plate at 90 degrees C but line 3 recites “ after heating at a pressure of 300g/cm2 for 1 minute. Then the claim states “ in case where the fat lump composition after heating is pressurized”. It’s unclear how this limitation ties in with the claim and exactly what is being claimed.
In claim 11, the limitation “ meat-like portion” is vague and indefinite because it is unclear what would be considered as meat-like portion. It is unclear what “ meat-like” encompasses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kugitani ( 2015/0099053) in view of Angulo ( 2020/0093164).
For claims 1,9,10. Kugitani discloses a solid fat composition in a form of a gel comprising plurality granular bodies containing fat/oil in form of oil droplets having a particle diameter of 50-800 micron and a cross-linkable polymer crosslinked with a cation. The polymer includes pectin, alginic acid. The fat has a melting point of 30 degrees C or lower, more preferably 20 degrees C or lower, most preferably 10 degrees C or lower. A gel is considered a lump because it is solid. The claim does not have any parameter defining a lump. Furthermore, claim 2 recites fat lump composition contains a gel. For claim 5, the oil/fat has a melting point of 30 degrees C or lower, more preferably 20 degrees C or lower, most preferably 10 degrees C or lower. For claim 6, Kugitani discloses the oil/fat includes olive oil, palm oil, coconut oil etc.. For claim 7, Kugitani discloses granular bodies as emulsion which comprises water. ( see paragraphs 0014-0017, 0034,0038,0042,0044,0052,0059
Kugitani does not disclose adding a surfactant and the Hansen solubility parameter as in claim 1, the volume as in claim 2, the feature as in claim 3, the CV value as in claim 4, the sheet shape as in claim 8 and the surfactant as in claims 9-10.
Jimenez Angulo discloses stabilizing system including emulsifiers to stabilize emulsion. The emulsifiers includes sucrose esters of fatty acids, polyglycerol ester of fatty acids ec.. ( see paragraph 0023)
For claim 1, 9,10, surfactant and emulsifier are the same. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add a surfactant to stabilize the emulsion as taught in Jimenez Angulor. It would have been obvious to use well known emulsifier as disclosed in Angulor. The Hansen solubility parameter is an estimate to predict compatibility between material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form such determination to determine the compatibility of the surfactant with ingredients in the emulsion. Since Kugitani discloses cross-linked polymer within a gel system comprising the fat droplets, it’s obvious inherently the polymer is within the gaps between adjacent droplets. For claim 2, Kugitani discloses the emulsion gel contains 10-60% oil droplets. This suggests the remaining component is the gel portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the gel volume depending on the rigidity wanted. It is a variable that can readily be determined by one skilled in the art through routine experimentation. As to claim 3, the claim is indefinite as set forth in the 112 rejection. The claim is interpreted as how the liquid release is measured. How a property is measured does not determine the patentability of the product. It is unclear if the amount of liquid release is claimed. In any event, Kugitani discloses oil and fat oozes out during masticiation. The rate of liquid oozing out is in the range of 10-60% ( see paragraph 0055). For claim 4, Tthe CV is disclosed in the instant specification as the coefficient variable which is indicative of the uniformity of the particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form particles having small CV to give a uniform mixture. For claim 8, Kugitani discloses in paragraph 0052 that the gel has shape retaining property and a sample having a thickness smaller than 20mm is formed to have a thickness of 20mm by lamination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a sheet as and obvious matter choice if such a shape is desired.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kugitani ( 2015/0099053) in view of Angulo ( 2020/0093164) as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Poulichet ( 2023/0180780).
Kugitani does not disclose the food as in claim 11.
Poulichet discloses animal fat substitute in gel form. The gel is used in combination with proteinaceous composition to form animal meat substitute. ( see paragraphs 0167-0171)
Kugitani discloses in paragraph 0079 that the gel emulsion can be used in variety of food products including meat-type products. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the gel emulsion with proteinaceous composition taught in Poulichet to make meat substituted product.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
September 3, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights