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 .
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 24, 42 and 43 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 24 recites the limitation "the fat blend" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, from which claim 24 depends, is directed to a fat composition.
Regarding claims 42 and 43, the recitation “substantially free” renders the claims indefinite because it is not clear what quantity is encompassed by “substantially.” Is a composition that has, for example, 1% animal protein “substantially free” of animal protein?
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 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 15-19, 24, 26, 27, 38, 40-44, 47 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huppertz et al. (WO 2021099506 A1) in view of Lin et al. (“Evidence of health benefits of canola oil”, Nutrition Reviews, Vol. 71 (6), (2013), pp. 371-385).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 9, 10, 12, 16, 19, 38, 40 and 41, Huppertz et al. disclose a meat analog product comprising 10-60% by weight vegetable protein (i.e., non-animal protein), 5-40% by weight of a non-hydrogenated vegetable fat (i.e., fat composition); and 10-60% by weight water (Abstract, p. 1/Description). Huppertz et al. disclose the vegetable fat has a saturated fatty acid (SAFA) content of at least 40% and a solid fat content (SFC) at 20⁰C of at least 20% (p. 2-3/Description). Huppertz et al. disclose wherein the vegetable fat comprises at least 40% C18:0 fatty acids (i.e., stearic acid residues) and from 2.8 to 5.6% C18:2 fatty acids (i.e., linoleic acid residues – see p. 6/Example 1 wherein palm oil stearin comprising 5.6% of C18:2 fatty acids).
Huppertz et al. is silent with respect to 18:3 fatty acids (i.e., α-linoleic acid residues).
Huppertz et al. disclose an embodiment where the fat is shea stearin mixed with a liquid oil (p. /Description). Lin et al. teach the health benefits of canola oil. Lin et al. teach canola oil-based diets have been shown to reduce plasma cholesterol levels (Abstract). Lin et al. teach canola oil contains 11% alpha-linolenic acid which is considered a cardioprotective substance (p. 371/Introduction).
Huppertz et al. and Lin et al. are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely food ingredients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used canola oil as a liquid oil to standardize the shea stearin because it is known to be a healthful ingredient. Here, if for example, the vegetable fat composition comprised 80% shea stearin and 20% canola oil (i.e., rapeseed oil), the fat composition would comprise about 2.2% alpha-linolenic acid, overlapping the claimed range of 1 to 15% by weight.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Huppertz et al. disclose wherein the vegetable fat composition does not comprise palm oil (p. 5/Example 1, Fat B) and/or where the fat does not comprise coconut oil (p. 5/Example 1, Fat A and B).
Regarding claim 6, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Huppertz et al. disclose the sum of C16:0 and C18:0 is at least 40% (p. 4/Description). Huppertz et al. also disclose that the vegetable fat comprises at least 40% C18:0 fatty acids (p. 4/Description). However, given Huppertz et al. disclose the vegetable fat is shea stearin (p. 5/Example 1, Fat B), inherently the fat composition would comprise less than 20% C16:0 fatty acids.
Regarding claim 7, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Huppertz et al. disclose wherein the vegetable fat comprises less than 10% by weight C12:0 fatty acids (p. 4/Description).
Regarding claim 15, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Huppertz et al. disclose wherein the vegetable fat comprises less than 2% trans fatty acids (p. 4/Description).
Regarding claim 17, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Huppertz et al. disclose wherein the vegetable fat comprises interesterified fat (p. 5/Example 1 – interesterified palm stearin, claim 10).
Regarding claim 18, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Huppertz et al. disclose wherein the vegetable fat is not interesterified (p. 5/Example 1 – shea stearin, claim 13).
Regarding claim 19, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Regarding claim 24 and 25, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Huppertz et al. disclose a blend of fats, i.e., shea stearin and canola oil (i.e., rapeseed oil), identical to the claimed blends, inherently the vegetable fat would comprise StOSt and POSt triglycerides in the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 26, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
Regarding claim 27, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Huppertz et al. disclose wherein the vegetable protein can be proteins from plant sources (p. 2/Description).
Regarding claim 42, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Huppertz et al. disclose a meat analogue product wherein the protein component is vegetable protein (i.e., free of animal protein – Abstract, p. 1-2/Description, p. 7/Example 2-Meat dough product preparation).
Regarding claim 43, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Huppertz et al. disclose meat analogue products are free from animal derived products (see for example – p. 7/Example 2- Meat dough product preparation).
Regarding claim 44, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Huppertz et al. disclose making the meat analogue with broth (i.e., animal-derived product- p. 7/Example 2).
Regarding claim 47, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Huppertz et al. disclose processing the meat analogue (i.e., meat dough) into burgers (i.e., a food product comprising the meat analogue, p. 8/Example 3).
Regarding claim 58, modified Huppertz et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Huppertz et al. disclose a process of making the meat analogue wherein the process comprises the steps of: (a) providing vegetable protein, binding agent, water and non-hydrogenated vegetable fat; and (b) mixing the protein, binding agent, water and non-hydrogenated vegetable fat. Moreover, Huppertz et al. disclose the meat analogue product can be brought in a desired from such as a burger, a ball, a sausage or a skewer and subsequently cooked (i.e., forming the meat analogue composition into food products -p. 5/Description).
While Huppertz et al. disclose combining vegetable protein, water and non-hydrogenated vegetable fat in one step rather than in two separate steps (i.e., claimed steps (a) and (b)), selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP §2144.04 IV C).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights