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 with traverse of Group I: Claims 1-26, 37, 42, 44, 50, and 52-57 in the reply filed on July 29, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would not be a serious burden on the Office to search and examine all of the claims together. Applicant points to MPEP 803 which explains that to make a proper restriction requirement between allegedly patentably distinct inventions the Office must show that there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. This is not found persuasive because the serious search burden standard pointed out by applicant applies to restrictions based on US restriction practice. The instant application was restricted based on the Unity of Invention standard in which Examiner previously pointed out in the restriction requirement mailed June 5, 2026 that the groups of distinct inventions require the same technical feature taught by Lundgerg et al. US 2021/0161173. The analysis used to determine whether the Office may require restriction differs in national stage applications submitted under 35 USC 371 (unity of invention analysis) as compared to national applications filed under 35 USC 111(a) (independent and distinct analysis) (MPEP § 823).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 58 and 85 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
An action on the merits of elected Claims 1-26, 37, 42, 44, 50, and 52-57 are provided below.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites the limitation “peas fibers” in lines 2-3, i.e. the plural version of peas. It appears the claim should instead recite “pea (singular) fibers” for grammatical purposes.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 56-57 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 56 recites the limitation “the meat analogue composition is substantially free of emulsions” in lines 2-3. Pibarot et al. WO 2020/208104 discloses that the term “meat analogue” is an emulsion product (‘104, Paragraph [0045]). It is unclear how a meat analogue composition can be substantially free of emulsions since Pibarot et al. teaches that meat analogue compositions are known in the food art to be a type of emulsion and would necessarily contain an emulsion.
Claim 57 recites the limitation “wherein the meat analogue composition is not in a form of an emulsion” in lines 2-3. Pibarot et al. WO 2020/208104 discloses that the term “meat analogue” is an emulsion product (‘104, Paragraph [0045]). It is unclear how a meat analogue composition can be substantially free of emulsions since Pibarot et al. teaches that meat analogue compositions are known in the food art to be a type of emulsion.
Clarification is required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 37, 52, and 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lundberg et al. US 2021/0161173 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed September 3, 2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Lundberg et al. discloses a meat analogue composition (‘173, Paragraph [0020]) comprising a fat composition in solid form (‘173, Paragraphs [0035] and [0051]) wherein the fat composition comprises a vegetable fat (edible vegan oil) and non-animal insoluble fibers (cellulose fibers) wherein the vegetable fat (edible vegan oil) and the non-animal insoluble fibers (cellulose fibers) are intermixed (‘173, Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lundberg et al. discloses the non-animal insoluble fibers being vegetable fibers (cellulose fibers) (‘173, Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 3, Lundberg et al. discloses the non-animal insoluble fibers being cellulose fibers (‘173, Paragraph [0040]).
Regarding Claim 37, Lundberg et al. discloses the meat analogue composition comprising a non-animal protein (pea protein) and water (‘173, Paragraphs [0174]-[0176]).
Regarding Claim 52, Lundberg et al. discloses the meat analogue composition being free of palm and palm kernel oils (‘173, Example 3) (‘173, Paragraph [0052]).
Regarding Claims 54-55, Lundberg et al. discloses the meat analogue composition being substantially free of animal protein and/or animal fats and also substantially free of animal derived products (vegan meat) (‘173, Paragraphs [0029] and [0041]).
Claims 1-2, 8, 37, 42, 44, 50, and 54-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bom et al. WO 2021/078722 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed September 3, 2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Bom et al. discloses a meat analogue composition (minced meat analogue that is a vegan product that does not contain any animal products) (‘722, Page 6, lines 9-11) comprising a fat composition in solid form (patty or ball) (‘722, Page 17, lines 9-15) wherein the fat composition comprises a vegetable fat (texturized vegetable protein TVP fat) and non-animal soluble fibers (TVP microfibers) (‘722, Page 11, lines 25-29) wherein the vegetable fat and non-animal insoluble fibers are intermixed (‘722, Page 11, lines 11-19).
Regarding Claim 2, Bom et al. discloses the non-animal insoluble fibers being plant fibers (‘722, Page 14, lines 24-27).
Regarding Claim 8, Bom et al. discloses the vegetable fat being oleic fat (‘722, Page 7, lines 11-18) or sunflower fat (‘722, Page 19, lines 13-16).
Regarding Claim 37, Bom et al. discloses the meat analogue composition comprising a non-animal protein (vegetable protein) and water (‘722, Page 6, lines 26-34) (‘722, Page 8, lines 15-20).
Regarding Claim 42, Bom et al. discloses the non-animal protein (vegetable protein) being present in the meat analogue composition being in an amount of 80% vegetable protein x 10-20% protein (‘722, Page 6, lines 29-34), which equates to 8-16% by weight of non-animal protein in the form of vegetable protein of the meat analogue composition, which falls within the claimed amount of non-animal protein being present in the meat analogue composition in an amount of from 5 to 30% by weight of the meat analogue composition. When, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art in view of Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (MPEP § 2131.03.I.).
Regarding Claim 44, Bom et al. discloses water being present in the meat analogue composition in an amount of from 50-70% by weight of the meat analogue composition (‘722, Page 6, lines 26-27). When, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art in view of Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (MPEP § 2131.03.I.).
Regarding Claim 50, Bom et al. discloses the fat composition being present in the meat analogue composition in an amount of 8-22% by weight of the meat analogue composition (‘722, Page 7, lines 8-9).
Regarding Claims 54-55, Bom et al. discloses the meat analogue composition being substantially free of animal protein and/or animal fats and also substantially free of animal derived products, i.e. the meat analogue composition is vegan (‘722, Page 6, lines 10-11).
Claims 1-3, 5, 20-21, and 52-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Snyder “Pea Protein vs. Whey Protein: Which Is Better?” <https://web.archive.org/web/20210316211352/https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/pea-protein-vs-whey> (archived March 16, 2021) (herein referred to as “Snyder”) as further evidenced by Valley Natural “Protein Powder Guide” <https://www.valleynaturalfoods.com/healthy/shake-diet-2015/> (published January 6, 2015) (herein referred to as “Valley Natural”).
Examiner notes that normally, only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 USC 102. However, a 35 USC 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent. To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in view of Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (MPEP § 2131.01.III.).
Regarding Claim 1, Snyder discloses a meat analogue composition (pea protein powder) (Snyder, Page 2) comprising a fat composition in solid form (powder) wherein the fat composition comprises a vegetable fat (fat naturally present in peas) and non-animal insoluble fibers (fibers naturally present in peas) wherein the vegetable fat (fat naturally present in peas) and non-animal insoluble fibers (fibers naturally present in peas) are intermixed (in the pea protein powder) (Snyder, Page 4). Although Snyder does not specify the fibers present in the pea protein powder (Snyder, Page 4) to be insoluble fibers in particular, Valley Natural provides evidence that it was known in the food and beverage art that plant based protein powders naturally contains both soluble and insoluble fiber derived from grains, seeds, legumes, and fruits (Valley Natural, Page 1).
Regarding Claim 2, Snyder discloses the non-animal insoluble fibers being plant fibers (pea fibers) (Snyder, Page 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Snyder discloses the non-animal insoluble fibers being pea fibers (Snyder, Page 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Snyder discloses only the vegetable fat (fat naturally present in peas) and non-animal insoluble fibers (fibers naturally present in peas) being intermixed together (Snyder, Page 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Snyder discloses the fat composition (fat naturally present in peas) being in the form of discrete fat pieces (powder) in the meat analogue composition (pea protein powder) (Snyder, Page 4).
Regarding Claim 21, Snyder discloses the fat composition being in the form of granulates (powder) (Snyder, Page 2).
Regarding Claims 52-53, Snyder does not disclose the pea protein powder to contain any oils. Therefore, the pea protein powder disclosed by Snyder reads on the meat analogue composition being free of palm and palm kernel oils and also being free of hydrogenated oils.
Regarding Claims 54-55, Snyder does not disclose or suggest adding any animal derived products. Therefore, the pea protein powder disclosed by Snyder reads on the meat analogue composition (pea protein powder) being substantially free of animal protein and/or animal fats and also being substantially free of animal derived products.
Claims 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Snyder “Pea Protein vs. Whey Protein: Which Is Better?” <https://web.archive.org/web/20210316211352/https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/pea-protein-vs-whey> (archived March 16, 2021) (herein referred to as “Snyder”) as further evidenced by Valley Natural “Protein Powder Guide” <https://www.valleynaturalfoods.com/healthy/shake-diet-2015/> (published January 6, 2015) (herein referred to as “Valley Natural”) as applied to claim 1 above as further evidenced by Institute of Food Science and Technology “Fats and oils: emulsification” <https://web.archive.org/web/20190922170603/https://www.ifst.org/lovefoodlovescience/resources/fats-and-oils-emulsification> (archived September 22, 2019) (herein referred to as “Institute of Food Science and Technology”).
Examiner notes that normally, only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 USC 102. However, a 35 USC 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent. To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in view of Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (MPEP § 2131.01.III.).
Regarding Claims 56-57, Snyder discloses pea protein powder (Snyder, Page 4). Institute of Food Science and Technology provides evidence that an emulsion is defined as a mixture of oily and water liquids (Institute of Food Science and Technology, Page 1). Since powders are substantially devoid of watery liquids, the pea protein powder disclosed by Snyder is necessarily substantially free of emulsions and is not in the form of an emulsion but rather a powder.
Claims 1-3, 8, 16, 18, 21, 37, 44, and 52-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al. US 2020/0060310.
Regarding Claim 1, Schmidt et al. discloses a meat analogue composition (textured plant protein used in making meat structured plant protein meat analog) (‘310, Paragraph [0009]) comprising a fat composition in solid form (coconut fat and coconut oil) (‘310, Paragraph [0280]) wherein the fat composition comprises a vegetable fat (coconut fat and coconut oil) and non-animal insoluble fibers (‘310, Paragraphs [0032] and [0042]) wherein the vegetable fat and non-animal insoluble fibers are intermixed (‘310, Paragraphs [0042] and [0044]).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Schmidt et al. discloses the non-animal insoluble fibers being plant fibers of citrus fibers, pea fibers, bamboo fibers, oat fibers, wheat fibers, and/or cellulose fibers (‘310, Paragraph [0032]).
Regarding Claim 8, Schmidt et al. discloses the vegetable fat to be coconut fat (‘310, Paragraph [0280]) or soybean fat, rapeseed fat, or cottonseed fat (‘310, Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 16, Schmidt et al. discloses the vegetable fat comprising a hydrogenated blend of rapeseed fat and coconut fat (‘310, Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claim 18, Schmidt et al. discloses the vegetable fat comprising a hydrogenated blend of sunflower fat and coconut fat (‘310, Paragraphs [0042]-[0043]).
Regarding Claim 21, Schmidt et al. discloses the fat composition being in the form of flakes (‘310, Paragraph [0088]).
Regarding Claims 37 and 44, Schmidt et al. discloses the meat analogue composition comprising a non-animal protein (texturized plant protein) (‘310, Paragraph [0055]) and water wherein water is present in the meat analogue composition in an amount of at least about 50% by weight of the meat analogue composition (‘310, Paragraph [0045]), which overlaps the claimed amount of water present in the meat analogue composition of from 20 to 70% by weight of the meat analogue composition. Schmidt et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the water/moisture content of the meat analogue composition (textured plant based protein product) being from about 40% to about 65% by weight (‘310, Paragraph [0045]), which falls within the broader claimed water concentration range of from 20 to 70% by weight of the meat analogue composition. When, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art in view of Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (MPEP § 2131.03.I.).
Regarding Claim 52, Schmidt et al. generally discloses employing nearly any edible lipid material including natural and synthetic oils (‘310, Paragraph [0044]). Schmidt et al. also discloses a specific example wherein the only oil used in the meat analogue composition is coconut oil (‘310, Paragraph [0274]). Therefore, Schmidt et al. teaches an example wherein the meat analogue composition is free of palm and palm kernel oils.
Regarding Claim 53, Schmidt et al. discloses the meat analogue composition being free of hydrogenated oils (non-hydrogenated oils) (‘310, Paragraph [0044]).
Regarding Claims 54-55, Schmidt et al. discloses an embodiment of the meat analogue composition being vegan (vegan sausage type product) (‘310, Paragraph [0046]). The disclosure of a vegan sausage type product reads on the claimed meat analogue composition being substantially free of animal protein and/or animal fats and being substantially free of animal derived products.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al. US 2020/0060310 as applied to claim 1 above as further evidenced by McMindes et al. US 2007/0269583.
Examiner notes that normally, only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 USC 102. However, a 35 USC 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent. To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in view of Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (MPEP § 2131.01.III.).
Regarding Claim 4, Schmidt et al. discloses the non-animal insoluble fibers being soy fibers or wood cellulose fibers (‘310, Paragraph [0032]). McMindes et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food art that vegetable fibers such as soy cotyledon fiber and other cellulosic fibers typically contains some minor amount of soy protein but may also be 100% fiber (‘583, Paragraph [0036]). Therefore, the disclosure of Schmidt et al. of using soy or wood cellulose fibers necessarily reads on the claimed non-animal insoluble fibers comprising less than 30% by weight or protein as evidenced by McMindes et al. that vegetable fibers contain some minor amount or may also be 100% fiber.
Claims 56-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al. US 2020/0060310 as applied to claim 1 above as further evidenced by Institute of Food Science and Technology “Fats and oils: emulsification” <https://web.archive.org/web/20190922170603/https://www.ifst.org/lovefoodlovescience/resources/fats-and-oils-emulsification> (archived September 22, 2019) (herein referred to as “Institute of Food Science and Technology”).
Examiner notes that normally, only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 USC 102. However, a 35 USC 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent. To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in view of Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (MPEP § 2131.01.III.).
Regarding Claims 56-57, Schmidt et al. discloses an embodiment wherein the meat analogue composition is dried (‘310, Paragraph [0045]). Institute of Food Science and Technology provides evidence that an emulsion is defined as a mixture of oily and water liquids (Institute of Food Science and Technology, Page 1). Since dried textured plant based protein products are substantially devoid of watery liquids, the dried meat analogue composition in the form of a dried textured plant based protein product disclosed by Schmidt et al. reads on the claimed meat analogue composition being substantially free of emulsions and not being in the form of emulsions.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, 14, 16, 18, 20-21, 37, 42, 44, 50, and 53-55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ajami et al. US 2018/0310599.
Regarding Claim 1, Ajami et al. discloses a meat analogue composition (meat like food product) comprising a fat composition in solid form (oils that are solid at ambient temperature like butter fat) (‘599, Paragraph [0106]) wherein the fat composition comprises a vegetable fat (vegetable fats and plant oil) (‘599, Paragraph [0106]) and non-animal insoluble fibers (insoluble dietary fibers of pea fiber and/or cellulose fiber) (‘599, Paragraph [0107]) wherein the vegetable fat and non-animal insoluble fibers (insoluble dietary fibers of pea fiber and/or cellulose fiber) are intermixed (‘599, Paragraphs [0106]-[0107] and [0202]).
Regarding Claims 2-3, Ajami et al. discloses the non-animal insoluble fibers being plant fibers of citrus fibers, pea fibers, bamboo fibers, oat fibers, wheat fibers, and/or cellulose fibers (‘599, Paragraph [0107]).
Regarding Claim 5, Ajami et al. discloses only the vegetable fat and non-animal insoluble fibers being intermixed together (‘599, Paragraph [0202]).
Regarding Claim 8, Ajami et al. discloses the vegetable fat being palm fat, coconut fat, rapeseed fat, shea butter, and/or cocoa butter (‘599, Paragraph [0106]).
Regarding Claims 9-10, Ajami et al. discloses the vegetable fat comprising an interesterified fat blend of shea butter and coconut oil (‘599, Paragraph [0106]).
Regarding Claim 14, Ajami et al. discloses the vegetable fat comprising a hydrogenated blend of soybean fat and coconut fat (‘599, Paragraphs [0106] and [0122]).
Regarding Claim 16, Ajami et al. discloses the vegetable fat comprising a hydrogenated blend of rapeseed fat (rapeseed fat) and coconut fat (coconut oil) (‘599, Paragraph [0106]).
Regarding Claim 18, Ajami et al. discloses the vegetable fat comprising a hydrogenated blend of sunflower fat (sunflower oil) and coconut fat (coconut oil) (‘599, Paragraph [0106]).
Regarding Claim 20, Ajami et al. discloses the fat composition being in the form of discrete fat pieces in the meat analogue composition (meat like food product) (‘599, Paragraphs [0304]-[0305]).
Regarding Claim 21, Ajami et al. discloses the meat analogue composition having a fat composition being in the form of granulates having a particle size distribution (‘599, Paragraph [0113]).
Regarding Claim 37, Ajami et al. discloses the meat analogue composition comprising a non-animal protein (vegetable protein) and water (‘599, Paragraphs [0162]-[0163]).
Regarding Claim 42, Ajami et al. discloses the protein being present in the meat analogue composition (meat like food product) in an amount of from about 10% to about 25% (‘599, Paragraph [0108]), which falls within the claimed protein amount of from 5 to 30% by weight of the meat analogue composition. Ajami et al. also discloses embodiments wherein the meat analogue composition (meat like food product) is vegan (‘599, Paragraph [0100]), which means that all proteins of the meat analogue composition (meat like food product) are non-animal proteins. When, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art in view of Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (MPEP § 2131.03.I.).
Regarding Claim 44, Ajami et al. discloses water being present in the meat analogue composition (meat like food products) in an amount of from about 30% and about 70% by weight of the meat analogue composition (meat like food product) (‘599, Paragraph [0109]), which falls within the claimed water amount of from 20 to 70% by weight of the meat analogue composition. When, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art in view of Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (MPEP § 2131.03.I.).
Regarding Claim 50, Ajami et al. discloses the fat composition (lipid) being present in the meat analogue composition (meat like food product) in an amount of from about 5% and about 30% by weight (‘599, Paragraph [0108]), which falls within the claimed fat composition in the meat analogue composition in an amount of from 5% to 40% by weight of the meat analogue composition. When, as by a recitation of ranges or otherwise, a claim covers several compositions, the claim is anticipated if one of them is in the prior art in view of Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citing In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682, 133 USPQ 275, 280 (CCPA 1962)) (MPEP § 2131.03.I.).
Regarding Claim 53, Ajami et al. discloses an embodiment wherein the meat analogue composition is free of hydrogenated oils (uses non-hydrogenated oils) (‘599, Paragraph [0106]).
Regarding Claims 54-55, Ajami et al. discloses the meat analogue composition (meat like food products) being vegan (‘599, Paragraph [0100]), which by definition means the meat analogue composition is substantially free of animal protein and/or animal fat and also substantially free of animal derived products.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ajami et al. US 2018/0310599 as applied to claim 1 above as further evidenced by McMindes et al. US 2007/0269583.
Examiner notes that normally, only one reference should be used in making a rejection under 35 USC 102. However, a 35 USC 102 rejection over multiple references has been held to be proper when the extra references are cited to show that a characteristic not disclosed in the reference is inherent. To serve as an anticipation when the reference is silent about the asserted inherent characteristic, such gap in the reference may be filled with recourse to extrinsic evidence. Such evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill in view of Continental Can Co. USA v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20 USPQ2d 1746, 1749-50 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (MPEP § 2131.01.III.).
Regarding Claim 4, Ajami et al. discloses the non-animal insoluble fibers being soy fiber or wood pulp cellulose (‘599, Paragraph [0107]). McMindes et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food art that vegetable fibers such as soy cotyledon fiber and other cellulosic fibers typically contains some minor amount of soy protein but may also be 100% fiber (‘583, Paragraph [0036]). Therefore, the disclosure of Ajami et al. of using soy or wood cellulose fibers necessarily reads on the claimed non-animal insoluble fibers comprising less than 30% by weight or protein as evidenced by McMindes et al. that vegetable fibers contain some minor amount or may also be 100% fiber.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. US 2018/0310599 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Brackenridge et al. US 2014/0161958 and Richardson US 4,156,021.
Regarding Claims 6-7, Ajami et al. discloses the meat analogue composition (vegan meat like food products) (‘599, Paragraph [0100]) comprising vegetable fat (vegetable oil) (‘599, Paragraph [0106]) mixed with insoluble fibers (‘599, Paragraph [0107]). However, Ajami et al. is silent regarding the fat composition comprising from 5 to 35% or 10 to 30% by weight of non-animal insoluble fibers and from 65 to 95% or 70 to 90% by weight of the vegetable fat.
Brackenridge et al. discloses a meat analogue composition (meat substitute product) comprising a fat composition (vegan fat mimetic) in solid form (vegetable shortening) wherein the fat composition comprises a vegetable fat (vegetable shortening) (‘958, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the fat composition (vegan fat mimetic) comprises a majority vegetable shortening on a dry weight basis (‘958, Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]). Richardson discloses a meat analogue composition (simulated meat products) (‘021, Column 2, lines 28-52) comprising a fat composition comprising a vegetable fat mixed with non-animal insoluble fibers (base product consisting essentially of vegetable oil and fibrous cellulose particles) (‘021, Column 4, lines 6-19) wherein a high proportion of cellulose fibers are low in calories due to the substantial water absorption capabilities of cellulose fiber (‘021, Column 2, lines 14-27).
Ajami et al., Brackenridge et al., and Richardson are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of meat analogue compositions. The meat analogue compositions of Ajami et al., Brackenridge et al., and Richardson all contain a fat composition comprising vegetable fat. Although Brackenridge et al. and Richardson does not explicitly disclose the claimed concentration of non-animal insoluble fibers or the claimed concentration of vegetable fat within the fat composition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the meat analogue composition of Ajami et al. and adjust the fat composition to have a majority vegetable fat and a smaller amount of non-animal insoluble fibers since differences in the concentration of non-animal insoluble fibers and/or the concentration of vegetable fat within the fat composition will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of non-animal insoluble fibers and/or concentration of vegetable fat within the fat composition is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Brackenridge et al. already establishes a fat composition in the form of a vegan fat mimetic being a majority vegetable fat in the form of vegetable shortening on a dry weight basis of the vegan fat mimetic. Furthermore, Richardson discloses insoluble cellulose fibers are low in calories and are useful in making meat analogue compositions in the form of simulated meat products. One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of non-animal insoluble fibers within the fat composition based upon the desired calorie reduction of the fat composition imparted by the varying concentration of non-animal insoluble fibers in the form of cellulose fibers.
Claims 13, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. US 2020/0060310.
Regarding Claim 13, Schmidt et al. discloses the vegetable fat used to make the textured plant based protein product used to make the meat analogue product to be any edible lipid material in hydrogenated form (‘310, Paragraph [0044]). Schmidt et al. also discloses an embodiment wherein fully hydrogenated vegetable fat in the form of palm oil is used to make high protein bread (‘310, Paragraph [0294]). Although Schmidt et al. does not explicitly disclose the use of fully hydrogenated vegetable fat in the form of palm oil in the embodiments pertaining to a meat analogue composition, Schmidt et al. already suggests using any edible lipid material in hydrogenated form to be used in making a meat analogue product (‘310, Paragraph [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use fully hydrogenated vegetable fat in the form of palm oil in the embodiment of Schmidt et al. that already suggests using any edible lipid material in hydrogenated form in a meat analogue composition since the selection of a known material (fully hydrogenated fats/oils) based on its suitability for its intended use (as an ingredient in making meat analogue compositions) supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 15, Schmidt et al. discloses the vegetable fat comprising a hydrogenated blend of soybean fat (soy lecithin or soybean oil) and coconut oil (‘310, Paragraphs [0042] and [0044]). Although Schmidt et al. does not explicitly disclose the hydrogenated blend of vegetable fat containing from 1% to 30% by weight of the soybean fat and from 70% to 99% by weight of the coconut oil, differences in the concentration of soybean fat and coconut oil in the vegetable fat will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of soybean fat and coconut oil in the vegetable fat is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of coconut oil in the vegetable fat blend to be high based upon the desired high degree of coconut flavor of the meat analogue composition. Similarity, one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of soybean fat based upon the desired flavor profile of the meat analogue composition.
Regarding Claim 17, Schmidt et al. discloses the vegetable fat comprising a hydrogenated blend of rapeseed fat (rapeseed oil) and coconut oil (‘310, Paragraphs [0042] and [0044]). Although Schmidt et al. does not explicitly disclose the hydrogenated blend of vegetable fat containing from 1% to 30% by weight of the rapeseed fat and from 70% to 99% by weight of the coconut oil, differences in the concentration of rapeseed fat and coconut oil in the vegetable fat will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of rapeseed fat and coconut oil in the vegetable fat is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of coconut oil in the vegetable fat blend to be high based upon the desired high degree of coconut flavor of the meat analogue composition. Similarity, one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of rapeseed fat based upon the desired flavor profile of the meat analogue composition.
Regarding Claim 19, Schmidt et al. discloses the vegetable fat comprising a hydrogenated blend of sunflower fat (sunflower oil) and coconut oil (‘310, Paragraphs [0042] and [0044]). Although Schmidt et al. does not explicitly disclose the hydrogenated blend of vegetable fat containing from 1% to 30% by weight of the sunflower fat and from 70% to 99% by weight of the coconut oil, differences in the concentration of sunflower fat and coconut oil in the vegetable fat will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of sunflower fat and coconut oil in the vegetable fat is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of coconut oil in the vegetable fat blend to be high based upon the desired high degree of coconut flavor of the meat analogue composition. Similarity, one of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of sunflower fat based upon the desired flavor profile of the meat analogue composition.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. US 2018/0310599.
Regarding Claim 11, Ajami et al. discloses the vegetable fat comprising an interesterified blend of shea butter and coconut oil (‘599, Paragraph [0106]). Although Ajami et al. does not explicitly disclose the interesterified blend having a concentration of from 20% to 80% by weight of shea butter and from 20% to 80% by weight of coconut oil, differences in the concentration of shea butter and coconut oil in the vegetable fat will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of shea butter and coconut oil in the vegetable fat is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of shea butter and coconut oil based upon the desired flavor intensity of shea and coconut.
Regarding Claim 22, Ajami et al. discloses the meat analogue composition being in the form of granulates having a particle size distribution of less than about 3.125 mm (‘599, Paragraph [0113]), which overlaps the claimed particle size distribution of between 1 mm and 7 mm. Where the claimed particle size distribution size ranges overlaps particle size distribution ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. US 2018/0310599 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Felke et al. US 2024/0016184.
Regarding Claim 12, Ajami et al. discloses the vegetable fat comprising an interesterified blend of shea butter and coconut oil (‘599, Paragraph [0106]). Ajami et al. is silent regarding the shea butter being shea stearin.
Felke et al. discloses a meat analogue composition (meat substitute product) comprising a fat composition (interesterified triglyceride) (‘184, Paragraph [0002]) and non-animal insoluble fibers (citrus fibers) (‘184, Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]) wherein the vegetable fat (interesterified triglyceride) is sourced from triglycerides such as shea butter or shea stearin combined with coconut oil (‘184, Paragraph [0028]).
Both Ajami et al. and Felke et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of meat analogue compositions. Both meat analogue compositions of Ajami et al. and Felke et al. contain a fat composition in the form of a vegetable fat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vegetable fat that can be any edible oil such as shea butter and coconut oil disclosed by Ajami et al. (‘599, Paragraph [0106]) and replace the shea butter with shea stearin as taught by Felke et al. since the selection of a known material (shea stearin) based on its suitability for its intended use (as an ingredient in vegetable fats used for making meat analogue compositions) supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Felke et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food art to use shea stearin as an ingredient in vegetable fats used to make meat analogue compositions.
Further regarding Claim 12, although Ajami et al. modified with Felke et al. does not explicitly disclose the interesterified blend having a concentration of from 20% to 80% by weight of shea stearin and from 20% to 80% by weight of coconut oil, differences in the concentration of shea butter and coconut oil in the vegetable fat will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of shea butter and coconut oil in the vegetable fat is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of shea stearin and coconut oil based upon the desired flavor intensity of shea and coconut.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ajami et al. US 2018/0310599 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Verkujl et al. WO 2021/098966 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed September 3, 2024).
Regarding Claim 12, Ajami et al. discloses the vegetable fat comprising an interesterified blend of shea butter and coconut oil (‘599, Paragraph [0106]). Ajami et al. is silent regarding the shea butter being shea stearin.
Verkuijl et al. discloses a meat analogue composition (meat analogue product) comprising a fat composition in solid form comprising a vegetable fat wherein the vegetable fat comprises a blend of shea stearin and coconut oil (‘966, Page 4, lines 10-17 and 30-37).
Both Ajami et al. and Verkuijl et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of meat analogue compositions. Both meat analogue compositions of Ajami et al. and Verkuijl et al. contain a fat composition in the form of a vegetable fat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vegetable fat that can be any edible oil such as shea butter and coconut oil disclosed by Ajami et al. (‘599, Paragraph [0106]) and replace the shea butter with shea stearin as taught by Verkuijl et al. since the selection of a known material (shea stearin) based on its suitability for its intended use (as an ingredient in vegetable fats used for making meat analogue compositions) supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Verkuijl et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food art to use shea stearin as an ingredient in vegetable fats used to make meat analogue compositions.
Further regarding Claim 12, although Ajami et al. modified with Verkuijl et al. does not explicitly disclose the interesterified blend having a concentration of from 20% to 80% by weight of shea stearin and from 20% to 80% by weight of coconut oil, differences in the concentration of shea butter and coconut oil in the vegetable fat will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of shea butter and coconut oil in the vegetable fat is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of shea stearin and coconut oil based upon the desired flavor intensity of shea and coconut.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. US 2020/0060310 as applied to claim 21 above in view of Ingoglia et al. US 2019/0274340.
Regarding Claim 23-25, Schmidt et al. is silent regarding the flakes having a thickness of between 0.2 mm and 1.5 mm, between 0.3 mm and 0.9 mm, or between 0.9 mm and 1.3 mm.
Ingoglia et al. discloses a meat analogue composition (meat analog) comprising an insoluble fiber (pea fiber) wherein the meat analogue composition (meat analog) comprises thin flakes with a thickness of from about 0.5 mm to about 2.5 mm (‘340, Paragraph [0018]), which overlaps the claimed flake thicknesses of between 0.2 mm and 1.5 mm, between 0.3 mm and 0.9 mm and encompasses the claimed flake thicknesses of between 0.9 mm and 1.3 mm.
Both Schmidt et al. and Ingoglia et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of meat analogue compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flake thickness of Schmidt et al. to fall within the claimed flake thickness as taught by Ingoglia et al. since where the claimed flake thickness ranges overlaps flake thickness ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al. US 2020/0060310 as applied to claim 21 above in view of Howse et al. US 2005/0008758.
Regarding 26, Schmidt et al. is silent regarding the flakes having a diameter between 1 and 52 mm.
Howse et al. discloses a meat analogue (‘758, Paragraph [0001]) comprising textured wheat protein in the form of flakes having a 1-2 cm diameter (‘758, Table 2) (‘758, Paragraph [0032]), which converts to a flake diameter of 10-20 mm, which falls within the claimed flake diameter of between 1 and 52 mm.
Both Schmidt et al. and Howse et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of meat analogues compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the flake diameter of Schmidt et al. to fall within the claimed flake diameter as taught by Howse et al. since where the claimed flake diameter ranges overlaps flake diameter ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elevate Nutrition “Why Plant Based Hemp and Pea Protein Is Better Than Whey Protein” <https://web.archive.org/web/20201024064200/https://www.elevatenutrition.com/why-plant-based-hemp-pea-protein-is-better-than-whey-protein/> (archived October 24, 2020) discloses plant based hemp and pea protein naturally contain healthy fats (Elevate Nutrition, Page 2).
Varney “FODMAP Blog” <https://www.monashfodmap.com/blog/dietary-fibre-series-insoluble-fibre/> (published November 8, 2016) discloses insoluble fiber types include cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin and that good sources of insoluble fiber includes wheat bran, rice bran, fruit and vegetable skins, nuts, seeds, legumes, and wholegrains (Varney, Page 1).
Spelbrink et al. US 2023/0225360 discloses a lipid containing food product comprising native patatin binder (‘360, Paragraph [0009]) comprising one or more lipids which optionally have been hydrogenated (‘360, Paragraph [0095]).
Benjamins et al. US 2002/0155208 discloses a food product comprising oil fats that are optionally partly or fully hydrogenated (‘208, Paragraph [0029]).
Hartman US 3,320,070 discloses a method of making a vegetable base high protein food product closely resembling a natural meat product in taste, texture, and appearance (‘070, Column 1, lines 10-14).
Muller et al. US 2011/0076382 discloses an aqueous plant protein preparation (‘382, Paragraph [0001]) comprising insoluble fiber in an amount of less than 10% by weight relative to the solid material mass.
Dionisi et al. US 2022/0039417 discloses a vegan food composition comprising at least 30 wt% legume and at least 20 wt% non-legume seeds or non-legume nuts on a dry basis (‘417, Paragraph [0013]) wherein the vegan food composition is a powder (‘417, Paragraph [0015]) wherein the D90 particle size is reduced to less than 1000 microns by milling (‘417, Paragraph [0030]) wherein the vegan food composition is a solid, e.g. a powder, or a liquid, e.g. a milk analogue that can be added to a food product (‘417, Paragraph [0053]) wherein the legume is chickpeas, beans, or peas (‘417, Paragraph [0056]).
Kozbul et al. US 2019/0059431 discloses a meat analogue composition (meat substitute/meat alternative) (‘431, Paragraphs [0022] and [0123]) comprising a fat composition (‘431, Paragraph [0095]) wherein the fat composition has a particle size distribution of 90% of the particles having a length size less than 1.5 mm (‘431, Paragraph [0092]).
Boursier et al. US 2011/0311599 discloses a granulated powder containing vegetable proteins and fibers (‘599, Paragraph [0001]).
Orcutt et al. US 2008/0260913 discloses a meat analogue composition (vegan simulated animal meat composition) (‘913, Paragraph [0022]) comprising a vegetable fat wherein the total fat concentration of the simulated animal meat composition is from about 1% to about 40% by weight wherein the amount of fat source added varies depending on the ingredients utilized wherein the fat source is a plant derived oil (‘913, Paragraph [0134]) wherein dietary fibers are mixed with structured protein products (‘913, Paragraph [0052]) wherein a dried extrudate containing protein and the fat composition is dried to an average particle size of from about 5 mm to about 30 mm (‘913, Paragraphs [0113]-[0114]).
Felke et al. US 2024/0008507 discloses a meat analogue composition (meat substitute product) (‘507, Paragraph [0013]) comprising a fat composition comprising a vegetable fat in solid form wherein the fat composition comprises a vegetable fat comprising an interesterified blend (‘507, Paragraphs [0064]-[0065]) of shea butter or shea stearin (‘507, Paragraph [0029]) and coconut oil (‘507, Paragraph [0085]).
Nettleton et al. US 2025/0098696 discloses a solid vegetable fat granulate or composition thereof mimicking the properties of granules of animal fat and useful in the preparation of plant based food products having organoleptic properties similar to meat based food products (‘696, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the vegetable fat is processed into granulate of a desired particle size distribution which mimics that of animal fat granulate dispersed in ground or minced meat products (‘696, Paragraph [0027]) wherein the vegetable fat comprises or consists of a base oil of shea butter and its fractions such as shea stearin and coconut oil as well as hydrogenated or interesterified versions thereof (‘696, Paragraph [0035]) wherein the vegetable fat granulate is used in a meat analogue composition comprising the vegetable fat granulate (‘696, Paragraph [0108]) wherein the meat analogue composition further comprises fibers in addition to plant proteins (‘696, Paragraph [0111]).
Guo et al. US 2025/0057178 discloses a meat analogue composition (vegan meat products) (‘178, Paragraph [0077]) comprising a fat composition in solid form wherein the fat composition comprises a vegetable fat and non-animal insoluble fibers.
Malmors et al. US 2024/0188586 discloses a meat analogue composition comprising an interesterified blend of vegetable oil and fully hydrogenated vegetable oil (18551290)
Franklin et al. US 2011/0293785 discloses a meat analogue composition (vegan food incorporating homogenized or micronized biomass as a slurry, flake, powder, or flour and algal oil) (‘785, Paragraph [0549]) comprising a fat composition comprising a vegetable fat (‘785, Paragraph [0534]) wherein the microalgal biomass comprises at least 30% insoluble fiber (‘785, Paragraph [0487]) wherein the oil is coconut oil or shea butter (‘785, Paragraphs [0024] and [0188]).
Dreher et al. US 2022/0248712 discloses a meat analogue composition (ground meat analogue product) (‘712, Paragraph [0017]) comprising a fat composition (fat mimetic) in solid form (‘712, Paragraph [0051]) wherein the fat composition (fat mimetic) comprises a vegetable fat (canola oil) (‘712, Paragraph [0051]).
Ito et al. US 2010/0015318 discloses a meat analogue composition (food composition having meat like texture which can be used as a substitute for meat) (‘318, Paragraph [0003]) comprising a fat composition comprising a vegetable fat and non-animal insoluble fibers wherein the vegetable fat and non-animal insoluble fibers are intermixed (‘318, Paragraph [0056]) wherein the use of insoluble fibers is important for imparting meat like physical properties to a composition wherein the insoluble fibers are cellulose, hemicellulose, water insoluble seaweed polysaccharides, water insoluble pectic substances, chitin, chitosan, and lignin wherein the water insoluble fibers are in the form of a powder (‘318, Paragraph [0052]).
Murphy et al. US 5,403,610 discloses insoluble fiber incorporated into a dough or batter composition in a hydrated state wherein the insoluble fiber is any edible fiber material including powdered cellulose of at least 95% insoluble fiber, fiber derived from oat, wheat, corn, or soy wherein oat fiber contains at least 85% of insoluble fiber.
Zhang et al. US 2020/0037646 discloses a flavor modifier for meat analog products produced from non-animal derived protein (‘646, Paragraph [0001]) wherein edible fiber including insoluble dietary fiber is an advantageous carbohydrate to includes in an extrusion mixture because fiber tends to bind water when the mixture is extruded (‘646, Paragraph [0090]).
Rhee US 2019/0017194 discloses the property of a fiber is determined based on whether a compound included in the fiber is cellulose based or protein based rather than whether the origin of the fiber is a vegetable or an animal (‘194, Paragraph [0006]).
Rozenszain et al. US 2012/0252065 discloses cellulose is not a protein entity (‘065, Paragraph [0102]).
Marchal et al. US 2004/0175481 discloses the presence of fibers in a protein product may improve water and fat binding properties of the protein product (‘481, Paragraph [0022]).
Akashe et al. US 2004/0161513 discloses 1/8 to ¼ inch soy flakes for use in meat analog products (‘513, Paragraph [0091]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights