DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of group I in the reply filed on 7/31/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 14-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1-13 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 a transport stage, high shear stage, and forming stage. However, it is not clear what actual (if any) processing steps are being performed in the claimed method. It is not clear if a “stage” is simply another way of saying “means”, “unit”, “step”, or some other meaning. The claim only appears to require “providing” the system, rather than definitively setting forth steps for producing the food product. Further, the transport stage and high shear stage both appear to occur in the container. It is not clear if they are the same step, or not.
The term “high” in claim 1-13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what degree or level of shear would be considered “high”.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milne et al [US 2009/0291188A1] in view of Jorgensen [US 2018/0206524A1].
Milne et al teach a method of making vegetable protein meat analog (title) comprising a base material with 15-90% protein (paragraph 0013), a transport stage wherein a blend of ingredients is moved into and through an extruder/container (paragraph 0025), a high shear stage in the extruder/container providing mixing and kneading (paragraph 0026), controlling the material temperature in the extruder to be 21-93C (paragraph 0029) wherein protein was commonly known to denature at a temperature of about 60C, controlling the SME within the extruder to be 0.001-0.050 kW/kg/hr or 1-50 Whr/kg (paragraph 0028), controlling the pressure within the extruder/container (paragraph 0030), a forming stage after the extruder wherein temperature is independently controlled to 48.9-107.2C (paragraph 0032), the product exiting the forming stage into a room at atmospheric pressure for subsequent cutting (paragraph 0033, 0037), laminar flow in the forming stage (paragraph 0032), additional ingredients added during the high shear stage of the extruder/container (paragraph 0025), and a preliminary mixing step wherein liquid such as soybean oil is mixed with dry ingredients (paragraph 0045, Table 1).
Milne et al do not explicitly recite a feeding pressure, discharge pressure, and discharge based upon the pressure difference (claim 1), perpendicular shear force (claim 6), the pressure difference providing at least 95% of the transport energy (claim 7).
Jorgensen teaches a meat analog extrusion method (abstract) comprising a preliminary mixing stage (Figure 1, #2-4), a transport stage using pressurized material from a pump to move the material through the subsequent extruder (Figure 1, #7; paragraph 0167), a high shear stage including an extruder/container with a scraping rotor providing perpendicular shear force (Figure 1, #8; Figure 2-3, #16-18), and the rotor rotating in a counter acting direction and thus providing 0% transport energy (paragraph 0178).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed pressure-based movement features and perpendicular shear into the invention of Milne et al, in view of Jorgensen, since both are directed to methods of making meat analog products, since Milne et al already included an extruder, since meat analog systems commonly included a transport stage using pressurized material from a pump to move the material through the subsequent extruder (Figure 1, #7; paragraph 0167), a high shear stage including an extruder/container with a scraping rotor providing perpendicular shear force (Figure 1, #8; Figure 2-3, #16-18), the rotor rotating in a counter acting direction and thus providing 0% motive force (paragraph 0178) as shown by Jorgensen, since the substitution of one known motive element (ie pump) for another (ie screw) would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, since using the pump for motive force would have permitted the operator to choose different rotation speeds and/or direction for the rotor and thus enabled greater flexibility in choosing optimum conditions such as residence time, shear force, and/or pressure in the combined system of Milne et al, in view of Jorgensen.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milne et al, in view of Jorgensen, as applied above, and further in view of Zhu et al [US 2021/0068420A1].
Milne et al and Jorgensen teach the above mentioned concepts. Milne et al do not explicitly recite dividing and recombining the material (claim 12). Zhu et al teach a system for making plant protein with meat-like texture (title) comprising an extruder (Figure 4, #404), a forming stage including a dividing plate forming strands (Figure 4, #406; Figure 5; paragraph 0069), and a recombining stage (Figure 4, #408, Figure 6; paragraph 0070). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed diving and recombining steps into the invention of Milne et al, in view of Jorgensen and Zhu et al, since all are directed to methods of making meat analog, since Mine et al already included a forming stage, since meat analog systems commonly included a forming stage including a dividing plate forming strands (Figure 4, #406; Figure 5; paragraph 0069) and a recombining stage (Figure 4, #408, Figure 6; paragraph 0070) as shown by Zhu et al, and since providing an array of compressed strands would have enabled a more realistic appearance and texture to the meat analog of Milne et al, in view of Zhu et al.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mudgal disclose a meat analog system with extrusion and forming, Lekner disclose a high shear kneading system with straight rotors, Cully disclose a meat analog system with pumps, Schreiber discloses a meat analog system with pumps, Hildebolt disclose protein texturization with a feed screw, Pibarot disclose a meat analog system with a pump, Forte disclose meat analog with an extruder using high SME, Se Heij disclose a system having a pump and subsequent heating tube, Poulsen disclose a food system including a pump and backpressure device, Wenger disclose a high SME extruder system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights