DETAILED ACTION
Background
Claims 1-6 as filed with the instant application on July 18, 2024 have been examined. No amendments have been filed.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 4 includes a stray numeral “6802057.1” below the figure on the page. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The instant specification fails to make reference to reference numeral 2’ in FIGS. 2(E) and 2(F). 37 CFR 1.74.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, at line 6 before “has a different viscosity” insert --which --, and,
at line 8, after “inserting a blade from” replace [[the above of]] with --above--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-6 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 recites the limitation "the first thickener" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No part of claim 1 introduces a first thickener. Further, a first thickener is not inherent in a seafood imitating product or a dietary fiber.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the second thickener" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. No part of claim 1 introduces a second thickener. Further, a second thickener is not inherent in a seafood imitating product or a tendon solution.
Claims 2-6 are rejected as depending from a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2023/275304 A1 to Breton et al. (Breton) in view of WO2023/124796 A1 to Li et al. (Li).
Unless otherwise indicated, all references to Li refer to its Clarivate machine translation, a copy of which is included with this Office action.
The Office interprets the claimed method broadly as including methods wherein the solidifying of the flesh solution and the tendon solution can take place at any point so long as some solidifying is does at the end of the method.
Regarding instant claim 1, Breton at Example 5 at page 26, 1st and 2nd full paragraphs and the accompanying Table discloses a method of or for producing a salmon fillet analog (“seafood imitating product”) comprising extruding (“mixing a first thickener in water in water to prepare a flesh solution”) through a conic coat hanger cooling die (see FIG. 9) an orange colored dough to form an extrudate slab or layer (“forming a layer of the flesh solution”). In Example 5 at page 27, 1st full paragraph, Breton further discloses dosing a binder of a connective tissue analog between the extrudate layers (“preparing a tendon solution which includes a second thickener”) comprising seaweed flour with carrageenan (“second thickener”) and konjac glucomannan (“second thickener”) to form a layer of the tendon solution on the layer of the flesh solution. Further, at page 26, 1st full paragraph Breton discloses cooling its assembled analog (“solidifying the flesh solution and the tendon solution”).
The Office considers the claimed preparing a tendon solution that has different viscosity from the flesh solution as including the preparing of the binder as a tendon solution in Example 5 of Breton because flesh solution is a substantial layer and the tendon solution as more fluid so it may bind the layer of the flesh solution or dough of Breton.
Further at page 16, lines 13-23 and FIG. 9 Breton its extruder flow path as having periodic grooves in its cooling die to penetrate into the dough (“inserting a blade and making a cut in the layer of the flesh solution by the blade; pulling up the blade and putting the tendon solution into the cut of the layer of the flesh solution”) to help with fiber formation. The Office considers the claimed pulling up the blade and putting the tendon solution into the cut of the layer of the flesh solution to include forming of the grooves in the cooling die and dosing the tendon solution thereon as disclosed in Breton. However, Breton does not disclose inserting a blade from above the layer of the tendon solution and making a cut through the layer of the tendon solution.
The Office considers the claimed forming a layer of the tendon solution on the layer of the flesh solution to include the dosing of the tendon solution on the layer of the orange dough of the salmon imitating product of Example 5 as disclosed at page 27, 1st full paragraph of Breton.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Breton to insert a pull and blade its groove into its flesh solution downstream from introduction of the tendon solution by dosing the tendon solution in the cooling die, including at any point before it exits the cooling die to control the shape of the layer bind the layers together and to produce the layers of the seafood imitating product in or at the end of the cooling die. The Office considers the claimed inserting a blade from above layer of the tendon solution and making a cut in the layer of the flesh solution by the blade through the layer of the tendon solution; and then pulling up the blade and putting the tendon solution into the cut of the layer of the flesh solution as including forming a groove in the dough of Breton and contacting it with a layer of the tendon solution or connective tissue analog by dosing the tendon solution in the cooling die as at page 16, lines 13-23 and Example 5 of Breton.
Still further, Breton does not disclose an Example of mixing dietary fiber in water to prepare a flesh solution; and, further, Breton does not disclose preparing a tendon solution which includes titanium dioxide and/or calcium carbonate. However, at page 21, line 18 and lines 36-38, Breton discloses its dough or flesh solution as comprising raw materials comprising a legume flour, pea flour or soybean flour. The Office considers the claimed dietary fiber as including any of the legume flours disclosed in Breton. The ordinary skilled artisan in Breton would have found it obvious to include dietary fiber as a flour in the flesh solution of Breton to enhance its ability to form fibrous structures as at page 16, lines 13-23 of Breton.
Li at Abstract on page 1 discloses a vegetable salmon and a preparation method therefor. In order to simulate the strips of salmon flesh, the vegetable salmon is prepared from two different slurries, wherein the raw materials of slurry A comprise water, carrageenan, locust bean gum, starch acetate, soybean isolate protein, β-carotene and monascus color; and the raw materials of slurry B comprise water, carrageenan, locust bean gum, starch acetate and titanium dioxide as a white layer. Figure 1 on page 1 of the WO publication of Li shows the alternating white and colored layers of the vegetable salmon. Further, Li discloses at page 3, at 2. after “The beneficial effect of the present invention” a seafood imitating product that comprises alternating white layers and orange layers that do not separate from each other when pulled. Still further, Li at Example 1 on page 4 discloses pouring slurry A into a mold, heating it and cooling it; and then pouring slurry B on top of slurry A and heating and cooling it, then repeating as needed to form the salmon analog.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Li for Breton to include in its flesh solution a locust bean gum as dietary fiber and to include in its tendon solution titanium dioxide as color. Both references disclose making a layered seafood imitating product from layers of two alternative aqueous thickener mixtures by heating and cooling the layers.
The ordinary skilled artisan in Breton would have desired to include titanium dioxide in its tendon solution as connective tissue analogue layer to enhance the white color of that layer and better mimic the appearance of salmon connective tissue. Further, the ordinary skilled artisan in Breton would have desired to include a gum as a dietary fiber in its flesh solution as in Li to enhance ability to bind to the tendon solution.
Regarding instant claim 2, Breton at page 9, lines 16-27 discloses tapioca starch (“tapioca flour”) and other starch sources in its binder or tendon solution. The Office considers the claimed tapioca powder to include the tapioca starch of Breton. Breton does not disclose preparing its flesh solution by further mixing with tapioca powder and/or lycopene. However, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Breton to include a binder including tapioca powder in its flesh solution to enhance cohesion in that colored layer because Breton discloses tapioca powder as a desirable starch binder and further, at page 21 lines 32-38 discloses that it is desirable in include a starch in its flesh solution dough material.
Regarding instant claim 3, Breton does not disclose an example of freezing its salmon but does disclose in Example 6 breading and freezing its fish or seafood imitating product after solidifying the flesh solution and the tendon solution. The ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in Breton to freeze the seafood imitating product of Example 5 to enhance its shelf life.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2023/275304 A1 to Breton et al. (Breton) in view of WO2023/124796 A1 to Li et al. (Li) as applied to claims 1, 2 and 3 above, and further in view of WO2022/157313 A1 to Wang et al. (Wang).
As applied to claims 1, 2 and 3, Breton at Example 5, Fig. 9, page 16, lines 13-23, page 21, line 18 and lines 32-38 as modified by Li at Abstract on page 1 and Figure 1 discloses a method for producing a seafood imitating product comprising mixing dietary fiber and a first thickener in water to prepare a flesh solution; forming a layer of the flesh solution; preparing a tendon solution which includes titanium dioxide and/or lycopene and a second thickener and which has different viscosity from the flesh solution; forming a layer of the tendon solution on the layer of the flesh solution; inserting a blade from above the layer of the tendon solution and making a cut in the layer of the flesh solution by the blade through the layer of the tendon solution; pulling up the blade and putting the tendon solution into the cut of the layer of the flesh solution; and solidifying the flesh solution and the tendon solution, wherein the flesh solution is prepared by further mixing with tapioca powder and/or lycopene and, wherein the method further comprises freezing the solidified body.
Breton as modified by Li does not disclose a flesh solution that is prepared by further mixing with vegetable soup.
Wang at Abstract discloses method of making a seafood analogue, wherein at Example 16 on page 25, Wang discloses enhancing the flavor of its product by extracting seaweed. Wang discloses extracting by shredding the seaweed, steeping it in boiling water and sieving to make the extract as flavoring. The Office considers the claimed vegetable soup as including the seaweed extract of Example 16 of Wang.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Wang for Breton as modified by Li to further mix its flesh solution with a vegetable soup. All cited references disclose seafood imitating products made from gelled solutions or slurries in water. The ordinary skilled artisan in Breton as modified by Li would have desired to prepare its flesh solution by further mixing it with vegetable soup as in Example 16 of Wang to enhance the flavor of the resulting seafood imitating product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO2024/099861 A1 to Van Der Heijden (Van Der Heijden) at page 2, lines 20-36 discloses a method for making a raw fish tissue analog comprising providing slices of a gelled muscle tissue analogue composition M, providing slices of a gelled connective tissue analogue composition C and making a layered stack of them. At page 5, lines 27 to page 6, line 10 discloses both its compositions M and C as comprising konjac glucomannan gel, carrageenan gel, non-animal protein and starch.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW E MERRIAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0082. The examiner can normally be reached M-H 8:00A-5:30P and alternate Fridays 8:30A-5P.
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 H 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.
/ANDREW E MERRIAM/Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights