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 is in response to the application filed on September 2, 2024. The earliest effective filing date of the application is March 11, 2022.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), filed on March 11, 2022 and October 6, 2022.
Status of Application
The amendment filed August 5, 2026 with the Remarks has been entered. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1 – 8
Amended claims: 1 and 6
Withdrawn claims: 6 – 8
Claims currently under examination: 1 – 5
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hazell et al. (WO 2020037368 A1 – IDS Filed on September 24, 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Hazell teaches a method of making protein-carbohydrate composites for use as food ingredients and food products comprising said composites (Abstract). Hazell teaches the method comprises a step of passing a mixture of soy protein isolate and water through the screws of a twin screw extruder at temperatures of 40 – 140 °C and pressures of 1.6 – 12 MPa (i.e., pressurizing and heating a protein-containing mixture containing a vegetable protein and water in a biaxial extruder to knead the protein-containing mixture – [0083]; Table 3; Figure 1A and 1B); then extruding the mixture of pea protein isolate and water that passed through the screws through an extrusion die at the end of the screws of the twin-screw extruder (i.e., extruding the kneaded protein-containing mixture from a jetting die provided in the biaxial extruder – [0083]; Table 3; Figure 1A and 1B).
With respect to the temperature of the extrusion die (i.e., the jetting die), the instant specification identifies 20 of Figure 1A (the portion past the end of the screw) as the jetting die (Figure 1A; [0021]):
PNG
media_image1.png
438
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Similarly, the end of the screw, the extrusion die of the disclosure of Hazell is the extrusion die (i.e., the jetting die). Figure 1B shows T4, at the end of the screw, and at the extrusion die entry (i.e., jetting die) is 120 °C (Figure 1A; [0083]):
PNG
media_image2.png
582
830
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Hazell teaches the temperature of the extrusion die (i.e., jetting die) is 90 °C or higher and 120 °C or lower.
With respect to the length of the extrusion die (i.e., jetting die), Hazell teaches the extrusion die (i.e., jetting die) is, for example, 400 mm, or 160mm (Table 3).
Regarding whether the protein food material has a proportion of a number of voids having a cross-sectional area of 0.1 mm2 or less, in a cross section parallel to a direction orthogonal to the fiber direction, is 60% or more with respect to a total number of voids present in the cross section (i.e., void distribution), while Hazell does not explicitly state the method of making protein-carbohydrate composites results in protein-carbohydrate composites with the precisely claimed void distribution, the instant specification states in a case where the protein-containing mixture 18 immediately after the kneading is extruded under atmospheric pressure, the protein-containing mixture 18 is expanded (that is, formed into porous) by vaporization of moisture, and the protein food material has a porous structure ([0031]). The instant specification further states since the temperature of the jetting die 20 is 95°C or higher and 120°C or lower, voids having a smaller size (for example, a cross-sectional area in a direction perpendicular to the fiber; 0.1 mm2 or less) are likely to be generated ([0031]; Fig. 1B). The instant specification states the jetting die is preferably a cooling die ([0024]).
Therefore, because the modified method of Hazell extrudes the protein-carbohydrate composites comprising soy protein isolate and water through an extrusion die (i.e., jetting die) at 95°C or higher and 120°C or lower after kneading under pressure ([0083]), as in the method of the instant application, the modified method of Hazell inherently produces a protein-carbohydrate composite with the precisely claimed void distribution. MPEP § 2112.01.I states where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In this case, the protein-carbohydrate composite of Hazell and the protein food material of the instant invention are produced by substantially identical processes, therefore they inherently have the same properties, including the precisely claimed void distribution.
Furthermore, MPEP § 2112.I states “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer”. In this case, the fact that Hazell is silent with respect to the void distribution in the protein-carbohydrate composition does not render novel the previously unappreciated precisely claimed void distribution.
Regarding claim 2, Hazell teaches the bore (i.e., flow passage) of the extrusion die (i.e., jetting die) may be any suitable shape, for example, circle, oval, square, or rectangular ([0069]). Given ovals and rectangles have a longer length than width, or vice versa, they are considered “slit shaped”. Therefore, Hazell teaches bores (i.e., flow passages) of extrusion dies (i.e., jetting dies) with slit shapes.
Regarding claim 3, Hazell teaches the extrusion die (i.e., jetting die) is, for example, 400 mm, or 160mm (Table 3).
Regarding claim 5, Hazell teaches colouring agents (i.e., colorants) may be added to the extruder barrel together with the protein and carbohydrate sources and aqueous phases (i.e., the protein-containing mixture further contains a colorant – [0052]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hazell et al. (WO 2020037368 A1 – IDS Filed on September 24, 2025) as evidenced by USSEC (Soy Product Fact Sheet. U.S. Soybean Export Council (USSEC). (n.d.) Retrieved from: https://ussec.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/SPI-Fact-Sheet-0815.pdf).
As evidenced by USSEC, soybean protein isolate is a defatted soybean protein (p. 1, Overview).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Hazell does not disclose the claimed proportion of the number of voids in the protein food material (p. 8, paragraph 1).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. The fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues Hazell does not disclose the resulting effect of excellent meaty appearance of the protein food material (p. 8, paragraph 1).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., excellent meaty appearance) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the precisely claimed proportion of the number of voids in the protein food material is not inherent in Hazell (p. 8, paragraph 1).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. As expounded upon in the rejection of claim 1 above, the instant specification provides evidence that extruding at a temperature of 95°C or higher and 120°C or lower after kneading under pressure inherently results in protein food materials with the precisely claimed void distribution ([0031]; Fig. 1B; Table 1, Examples 2, 4, and 5). While Hazell does not explicitly state the method of making protein-carbohydrate composites results in the precisely claimed void distribution, such an effect is a natural result of the method of Hazell.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARK JULIA MORENO whose telephone number is (571)272-2337. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 - 4:30 M - F.
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.
/L.J.M./EXAMINER, ART UNIT 1793
