DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-15, 18, 25, and 26 in the reply filed on November 19, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 19 and 24 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 (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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Notes: “Extract” is defined in the instant specification paragraph 32 as any constituent of the plant which may be isolated from the whole plant.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 9, 11-15, 25, and 26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hartmut (DE102009037055 machine translation) in view Tang et al (“Effects of added tea catechins on colour stability and lipid oxidation in minced beef patties held under aerobic and modified atmosphere packaging conditions” Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) pages 248-253) and Hopkins et al (US 3,597236) and Suter et al (“Lyoner Sausages Production with no E-number additives and with reduced salt content” Viandes Prod Carnes Vol 26(6) pages 189-192).
Hartmut teaches of the preservation of sausage products, including raw sausages with table salt and plant products selected from the group including: citrus fruits, acerola cherry, green tea, catechin, gallocaechin, epicatechin, and epigallocatechin gallate (abstract, paragraph 1, and claims 1, 3, and 6).
Regarding the product as a meat mixture wherein the meat was uncooked meat and selected from pork, beef, lamb, chicken, turkey, veal, rabbit, venison, horse, goat and fish as recited in claim 1, preferably as mined beef as recited in claim 5, as Hartmut teaches of raw sausage *abstract, paragraph 1, and claims 1, 3, and 6), and sausage is defined as minced pork, beef or other meat, often combined together with various added ingredients and seasonings, the teachings of Hartmut would encompass or at least make obvious the limitations as claimed.
Regarding the meat product mixture as comprising a buffer having a pH of about 5.0-7.0 as recited in claim 1, it is noted that the claimed limitation of adding a component with a specific pH to the final product is a product by process claim and thus is considered in as much as it affects the final product. In this case, since no amount of buffer was claimed, and no total pH was claimed, the instant limitation only imparts the inclusion of the component to the product. As Hartmut teaches the product contains table salt, which was known to have a pH of about 7, the teachings of Hartmut encompass a product as comprising a buffer as claimed.
Regarding the meat product mixture as specifically comprising green tea or green tea extract as recited in claim 1, wherein the green tea or tea extract is preferably a tea polyphenol as recited in claim 13, or a catechin extract as recited in claim 14m or a specific catechin including EGCG, EC, and EGC as recited in claim 15, or the green tea extract as in an amount to provide catechins in an amount of at least 10ppm as recited in claim 11, or no greater than 300ppm as recited in claim 12, although Hartmut teaches the meat product mixture as comprising plant products selected from the group including: acerola cherry, green tea, catechin, gallocaechin, epicatechin, and epigallocatechin gallate (abstract, paragraph 1, and claims 1, 3, and 6), Hartmut is not explicit to the components as included together or to the amount of said components within the meat mixture.
Tang et al (Tang) teaches that meat color is the first criterion consumers use to judge quality and acceptability of meat (Introduction paragraph 1). Tang shows that levels of 200ppm tea catechins, including (-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), (-)-epigallocatechin (EGC), and (-)-epicatechin (EC) which encompass tea polyphenols, were effective in improving the oxidative stability of fresh minced beef patties, that the higher the concentration the darker the color, and that the addition of no more than 200mg/kg (ppm) should be recommended for beef red color stability (abstract, Section 2.1, Discussion and Conclusion, specification page 252 first paragraph of columns 1 and 2).
It would have been obvious for the meat mixture of Hartmut to specifically comprise up to 200ppm green tea (-)-epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), (-)-epigallocatechin (EGC), and (-)-epicatechin (EC) for color stability of the meat and consumer acceptability in view of Tang. It would have been further obvious to adjust the amount depending on the desired color impact as Tang teaches that the higher the concentration, the darker the color.
Regarding the meat product mixture as specifically comprising acerola berry or acerola beery extract as recited in claim 1, wherein the acerola berry or acerola berry extract is preferably added in an amount to provide at least 1ppm ascorbic acid as recited in claim 8, or not more than 300ppm ascorbic acid as recited in claim 9, or wherein the acerola berry or acerola berry extract comprises ascorbic acid as recited in claim 25, although Hartmut teaches the meat product mixture as comprising plant products selected from the group including: acerola cherry, green tea, catechin, gallocaechin, epicatechin, and epigallocatechin gallate (abstract, paragraph 1, and claims 1, 3, and 6), Hartmut is not explicit to the components as included together or to the amount of said components within the meat mixture.
Suter et al (Suter) teaches that E-number additives used in food often raise consumer disapproval and suspicion, and thus it is desirable to use natural additives (which are not required E-number additives) which contain the desired ingredients, such as ascorbic acid from acerola cherries to maintain meat color (page 189 columns 1 and 2 and Conclusions).
Hopkins et al (Hopkins) teaches treating meat with ascorbic acid to obtain a more desirable meat color, wherein good results are obtained with about 25-200mg per pound of meat (about 5-40ppm).
It would have been obvious for the meat mixture of Hartmut to specifically comprise about 5-40ppm ascorbic acid from acerola berry or acerola berry extract in order to obtain a desirable meat color in view of Suter and/or Hopkins and to do so without needing to add an E-number and raising consumer disapproval and suspicion as taught by Suter. It would have been further obvious to adjust the amount based on the desired color result.
Regarding the acerola berry or berry extract and green tea or green tea extract are in a weight ratio of 100:1 to 1:100 as recited in claim 26, as discussed above it would have been obvious for the meat product of Hartmut to comprise 5-40ppm ascorbic acid (acerola berry extract) and no more than 200ppm catechins (green tea extract), and thus the product of the prior art would encompass a product with the ratio as claimed.
Claim 6 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hartmut (DE102009037055 machine translation) in view Tang et al (“Effects of added tea catechins on colour stability and lipid oxidation in minced beef patties held under aerobic and modified atmosphere packaging conditions” Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) pages 248-253) and Hopkins et al (US 3,597236) and Suter et al (“Lyoner Sausages Production with no E-number additives and with reduced salt content” Viandes Prod Carnes Vol 26(6) pages 189-192), further in view of Smith (“How to Grind Your Own Sausage” Kithn March 2009, pages 1-5).
As discussed above, the teachings of Hartmut encompass or at least make obvious the preservation of sausage products, including uncooked beef with table salt and plant products selected from the group including: acerola cherry, green tea, catechin, gallocaechin, epicatechin, and epigallocatechin gallate.
Hartman is silent to the beef as having a fat content of less than 30% as recited in claim 6.
Smith teaches that sausage has better taste and texture with 15-30% fat (page 2, bullet 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the raw sausage of Hartmut to comprise 15-30% fat for better taste and texture as taught by Smith.
Claim 18 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hartmut (DE102009037055 machine translation) in view Tang et al (“Effects of added tea catechins on colour stability and lipid oxidation in minced beef patties held under aerobic and modified atmosphere packaging conditions” Journal of Food Engineering 77 (2006) pages 248-253) and Hopkins et al (US 3,597236) and Suter et al (“Lyoner Sausages Production with no E-number additives and with reduced salt content” Viandes Prod Carnes Vol 26(6) pages 189-192), further in view of Igoe et al (Dictionary of Food Ingredients 4th Edition, Aspen Publishing 2001, pages 101-102).
As discussed above, Hartmut teaches of the preservation of sausage products, including raw sausages with table salt and plant products selected from the group including: preparations of citrus fruits, acerola cherry, green tea, catechin, gallocaechin, epicatechin, and epigallocatechin gallate, wherein it would have been particularly obvious to include both green tea and acerola cherry extracts within the meat product.
Hartmut is not explicit to the composition as comprising a further extract selected from the group including orange extract as recited in claim 18.
Igoe et al (Igoe) teaches that orange oil was an extract from oranges and a known flavoring with an aromatic odor resembling oranges.
It would have been obvious for the meat product of Hartmut which contained one or more from the group including citrus extracts, to comprise orange extract for its known flavoring and aromatic orange odor in view of Igoe. To include a known ingredient for its known and intended function would have been obvious and well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dictionary.com “sausage” shows that sausage is defined as minced pork, beef or other meat.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY BEKKER whose telephone number is (571)272-2739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-3:30pm.
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.
KELLY BEKKER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1792
/KELLY J BEKKER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792