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 .
Status of the Application
The status of the claims stands as follows:
Canceled claims: 13
Claims currently under consideration: 1-12 and 14
Currently rejected claims: 1-12 and 14
Allowed claims: None
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because exceeds 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 2, 4, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van der Eerden et al. (U.S. 2005/0220932 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Van der Eerden et al. discloses a process ([0112]) for the production of a structured protein product ([0001]) using an apparatus (Fig. 5), the apparatus comprising a nozzle element (mass feed member 18) and a forming element (mould cavity 60, mould drum 16) wherein: (i) the nozzle element comprises an opening; (ii) the forming element comprises one or more cavities recessed relative to the forming element surface; and (iii) the nozzle element and forming element are moveable relative to each other such that in a closed configuration, the opening is blocked by the surface and in an open configuration, the opening is at least partially aligned with a cavity ([0112], Fig. 5); the process comprising the steps of: (a) moving the nozzle element and forming element relative to each other such that the opening comes into at least partial alignment with the one or more cavities thereby to configure the opening in the open configuration (i.e., mould cavity 60 is moved into a filling position, [0112]); (b) pumping a protein-containing-material into the cavity via the opening to form the structured protein product within the cavity (i.e., “[t]he mass which is to be moulded is forced into the mould cavity 60, [0112]); (c) moving the nozzle element and forming element relative to each other such that the opening comes into alignment with the surface of the forming element thereby to configure the opening in the closed configuration ([0112], where further rotation of the drum causes the opening to close); and then removing the structured protein product from the cavity ([0112], “a moulded product 78, under the force of gravity, drops out of the mould cavity 60).
As for claim 2, Van der Eerden et al. discloses the opening has an aspect ratio of from 1:100 to 100:1 (Fig. 5).
As for claim 4, Van der Eerden et al. discloses the nozzle element as comprising a sealing element (Fig. 5, mass feed member 18).
As for claim 5, Van der Eerden et al. discloses the forming element as being in the form of a cylinder with a horizontal axis of rotation having a plurality of cavities located on the outer face of the cylinder (Figs. 3 and 5).
As for claim 12, Van der Eerden et al. discloses the structured protein product directly obtain from the process ([0112], Fig. 5, moulded product 78).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 3, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Eerden et al. (U.S. 2005/0220932 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Van der Eerden et al. does not explicitly disclose the width of the opening as being at least 100% of the widest part of the cavity of the forming element in Figure 5 or elsewhere.
However, MPEP 2144.04 IV A indicates that changes in size/proportion are prima facie obvious so long as functionality is not unexpectedly affected. Any relative size between the opening and the cavity is considered obvious, since the functionality would still simply involve the extrusion of the material into the cavity. The claimed limitation requiring the width of the opening to be at least 100% of the widest part of the cavity of the forming element is thus considered obvious to a skilled practitioner.
As for claims 10 and 11, Van der Eerden et al. discloses “[t]his mould cavity 60 is filled during the rotation…of the moulding drum 16 past the filling position” ([0112]). The present specification indicates that “the nozzle element moves relative to the forming element” (p. 19, ll. 33-34) such that “the cavity rapidly fills with the protein-containing material (6), the fibres are aligned, and thereby the structured protein product (8) is formed within the cavity (4)” (p. 20, ll. 17-19). MPEP 2112.01 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.” Since the process of Van der Eerden et al. and that presently claimed involve substantially identical processes, the effects asserted as occurring in the claimed process would likewise inherently occur in the process of Van der Eerden et al. As such, the process of Van der Eerden et al. would inherently result in protein fibers forming the structured protein product that are contiguous to each other at least than approximately a 45 degree angle (claim 10) and at least 25% of the protein fibers being contiguous to each other (claim 11).
Claims 6-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van der Eerden et al. (U.S. 2005/0220932 A1) in view of Beekmans et al. (U.S. 2020/0337334 A1).
As for claim 6, Van der Eerden et al. discloses the process of claim 1.
Van der Eerden et al. does not disclose the protein-containing material as comprising from 1-65 wt.% protein.
However, Beekmans et al. discloses a composition for producing a shaped vegetarian meat product comprising 2-25 wt.% protein (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the to use the composition of Beekmans et al. in the apparatus/process of Van der Eerden et al. Since Van der Eerden et al. discloses that the process is suited for “a mass of foodstuff starting materials which are suitable for consumption, in particular from a meat mass” ([0001]), a skilled practitioner would readily recognize that foodstuffs other than meat fall within the scope of the disclosure. A skilled practitioner would thus be motivated to consult Beekmans et al. for foodstuff material suitable for molding into a shaped food product. Since Beekmans et al. discloses a vegetarian meat product suitable for shaping (Abstract, [0096]) and indicates a preference in certain circumstances for vegetarian substitutes for meat ([0008]-[0009]), the incorporation of the material of Beekmans et al. into the process of Van der Eerden et al. would be obvious. Accordingly, shaping a product comprising from 1 to 65 wt.% protein material in the process of Van der Eerden et al. would be obvious to a skilled practitioner.
As for claim 7, Beekmans et al. discloses the protein-containing material as comprising no animal protein ([0056]), where incorporation of the material of Beekmans et al. into the process of Van der Eerden et al. would be obvious according to the rationale detailed previously in relation to claim 6.
As for claim 8, Beekmans et al. discloses the protein-containing material as comprising from 1-20 wt.% binder ([0053], 2-25 wt.% protein; [0076], where the protein is preferably soy protein; where the present specification indicates soy protein isolate functions as a binder, p. 14, l. 30), where incorporation of the material of Beekmans et al. into the process of Van der Eerden et al. would be obvious according to the rationale detailed previously in relation to claim 6.
As for claim 9, Beekmans et al. discloses the protein-containing material as comprising 0.5-15 wt.% fat/oil (Abstract), where incorporation of the material of Beekmans et al. into the process of Van der Eerden et al. would be obvious according to the rationale detailed previously in relation to claim 6.
As for claim 14, Van der Eerden et al. discloses a meat replacement product formed from the composition therein (Abstract), where incorporation of the material of Beekmans et al. into the process of Van der Eerden et al. would be obvious according to the rationale detailed previously in relation to claim 6 in order to produce a meat replacement product comprised of the material disclosed in Beekmans et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG whose telephone number is (571)270-5272. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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.
/JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights