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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites “according to claim 1”. The limitations of claim 1 should be written out to improve clarity.
Claim 16 recites “according to claim 2”. The limitations of claim 1 should be written out to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossen (US 3,528,823) found in IDS filed 08/15/2025, in view of Sagara (WO 2021/145303 A1) found in IDS filed 10/25/2024.
Regarding claim 1, Rossen teaches a modifier for a food (fluid shortening for use in baking Col. 1 lines 12-19)
comprising: a plant oil and fat having a property of being in a liquid state at 10°C (liquid vehicle, peanut oil, rapeseed oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil, safflower oil Col. 4 lines 43-51). Applicant teaches all of Rossen’s oils as suitable oil and fat options which are in a liquid state at 10°C (paragraphs 0029-0030 of the specification filed 10/25/2024)
and a fatty acid ester as an emulsifier (polyglycerol ester with emulsification activity Col. 3 lines 29-42)
wherein the emulsifier has a crystal size of 0.1 to 250 μm (solids were crystals about 3 to 5 microns long by about 0.3 to 0.5 micron in diameter Col. 7 lines 60-65)
Rossen does not teach the modifier is for a meat-like food.
Sagara, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a modifier for a meat-like food (food texture improving composition for meat-like food products Abstract)
comprising a plant oil and fat, and a fatty acid ester (examples of oils such as soybean oil Par. 0011; emulsifiers may be one or more of polyglycerol fatty acid esters propylene glycol fatty acid esters Par. 0020).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use the invention of Rossen in a meat-like food such as that of Sagara. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a meat-like food product with excellent loosening properties which satisfies the growing demand for meat-like products that do not use meat ingredients (Sagara Par. 0002-0004).
Regarding claim 2, Rossen teaches a modifier for a food (fluid shortening for use in baking Col. 1 lines 12-19)
comprising: a plant oil and fat having a property of being in a liquid state at 10°C (liquid vehicle, peanut oil, rapeseed oil, corn oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil, safflower oil Col. 4 lines 43-51). Applicant teaches all of Rossen’s oils as suitable oil and fat options which are in a liquid state at 10°C (paragraphs 0029-0030 of the specification filed 10/25/2024)
and a fatty acid ester as an emulsifier (polyglycerol ester with emulsification activity Col. 3 lines 29-42)
wherein the modifier has a viscosity at 21°C of 3,100 mPa·s (viscosity of 3,100 cps at 70 °F Col. 7lines 68-75)
Regarding wherein the modifier has a viscosity at 15°C of 1000 to 30000 mPa·s, Rossen teaches a viscosity of 3,100 mPa·s at 21°C and a viscosity of 3,400 mPa·s at 32°C. Though Rossen does not provide data for viscosity at 15°C, it is obvious that at 15°C the modifier of Rossen is at least within the claimed range of 1000 to 30000 mPa·s.
Rossen does not teach the modifier is for a meat-like food.
Sagara, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a modifier for a meat-like food (food texture improving composition for meat-like food products Abstract)
comprising a plant oil and fat, and a fatty acid ester (examples of oils such as soybean oil Par. 0011; emulsifiers may be one or more of polyglycerol fatty acid esters propylene glycol fatty acid esters Par. 0020).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use the invention of Rossen in a meat-like food such as that of Sagara. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a meat-like food product with excellent loosening properties which satisfies the growing demand for meat-like products that do not use meat ingredients (Sagara Par. 0002-0004).
Regarding claim 3, Rossen further teaches the fatty acid ester contains a glycerol fatty acid ester and a fatty acid ester of a polyhydric alcohol other than glycerin (ester of polyglycerol, monoester of propylene glycol Col. 2 lines 31-36).
Regarding claim 4, Rossen further teaches the fatty acid ester contains the glycerol fatty acid ester and the fatty acid ester of a polyhydric alcohol other than glycerin at a weight ratio of 1:99 to 67:33 (0.1% to 4% ester of polyglycerol, 2% to about 15% monoester of propylene glycol Col. 2 lines 31-36).
Regarding the fatty acid ester contains the glycerol fatty acid ester and the fatty acid ester of a polyhydric alcohol other than glycerin at a weight ratio of 10:90 to 90:10, Rossen teaches glycerol fatty acid ester and the fatty acid ester of a polyhydric alcohol other than glycerin at a weight ratio of 1:99 to 67:33 (Col. 2 lines 31-36, as seen above). As Rossen discloses a range which overlaps with the claimed range of ratios, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Rossen to have 10:90 to 90:10 of the glycerol fatty acid ester and the fatty acid ester of a polyhydric alcohol other than glycerin. It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 10:90 to 67:33) from the taught range of 10:90 to 90:10 (as seen above). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 6, as Rossen teaches the modifier for use in baking, it teaches the food contains no animal protein or contains an animal protein at a weight ratio of 1.0 or less with respect to a plant protein (no meat or animal products required in the product of Rossen).
Sagara further teaches a meat-like food containing no animal protein or contains an animal protein at a weight ratio of 1.0 or less with respect to a plant protein (does not contain fish meat or livestock meat Claim 8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use the invention of Rossen in a meat-like food containing no meat such as that of Sagara. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a meat-like food product which satisfies the growing demand for meat-like products that do not use meat ingredients (Sagara Par. 0002).
Regarding claim 7, Rossen teaches the modifier is a quality improver for a food (cakes scored on basis of symmetry, grain, volume, texture, and eating quality Col. 6 lines 34-36, Table at top of Col. 7; improved quality score in examples 25 and 27, the examples within the scope of the invention Col. 12 line 68-Table at top of Col. 13).
Rossen does not teach impact on a meat-like food.
Sagara teaches the modifier is a texture improver for a meat-like food (texture improving composition Par. 0001).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use the invention of Rossen in a meat-like food such as that of Sagara. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a meat-like food product with excellent loosening properties which satisfies the growing demand for meat-like products that do not use meat ingredients with a texture that is easier to break apart (Sagara Par. 0002-0004).
Regarding claim 8, Rossen teaches the modifier is a quality improver for a food (cakes scored on basis of symmetry, grain, volume, texture, and eating quality Col. 6 lines 34-36, Table at top of Col. 7; improved quality score in examples 25 and 27, the examples within the scope of the invention Col. 12 line 68-Table at top of Col. 13).
Rossen does not teach impact on a meat-like food.
Sagara teaches that juiciness is the release of oil when chewed (Par. 0055), so one would recognize that as the modifier of modified Rossen contains oil and fat, the increased oil content would increase juiciness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use the invention of Rossen in a meat-like food such as that of Sagara. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a meat-like food product with excellent loosening properties which satisfies the growing demand for meat-like products that do not use meat ingredients with a texture that is easier to break apart (Sagara Par. 0002-0004).
Regarding claim 9, modified Rossen teaches a modifier for a food according to claim 1, as seen in the above rejection of claim 1. Rossen further teaches a food comprising the modifier for a food (fluid shortenings having exceptional cake-baking performance Col. 2 lines 25-28).
Rossen does not teach a meat-like food.
Sagara, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a meat-like food (food texture improving composition for meat-like food products Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use the invention of Rossen in a meat-like food such as that of Sagara. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a meat-like food product with excellent loosening properties which satisfies the growing demand for meat-like products that do not use meat ingredients (Sagara Par. 0002-0004).
Regarding claim 10, Rossen further teaches the fatty acid ester contains a glycerol fatty acid ester and a fatty acid ester of a polyhydric alcohol other than glycerin (ester of polyglycerol, ester of propylene plycol Col. 2 lines 31-36).
Regarding claim 11, Rossen further teaches the fatty acid ester contains the glycerol fatty acid ester and the fatty acid ester of a polyhydric alcohol other than glycerin at a weight ratio of 1:99 to 67:33 (0.1% to 4% ester of polyglycerol, 2% to about 15% monoester of propylene glycol Col. 2 lines 31-36).
Regarding the fatty acid ester contains the glycerol fatty acid ester and the fatty acid ester of a polyhydric alcohol other than glycerin at a weight ratio of 10:90 to 90:10, Rossen teaches glycerol fatty acid ester and the fatty acid ester of a polyhydric alcohol other than glycerin at a weight ratio of 1:99 to 67:33 (Col. 2 lines 31-36, as seen above). As Rossen discloses a range which overlaps with the claimed range of ratios, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Rossen to have 10:90 to 90:10 of the glycerol fatty acid ester and the fatty acid ester of a polyhydric alcohol other than glycerin. It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. 10:90 to 67:33) from the taught range of 10:90 to 90:10 (as seen above). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Regarding claim 13, as Rossen teaches the modifier for use in baking, it teaches the food contains no animal protein or contains an animal protein at a weight ratio of 1.0 or less with respect to a plant protein (no meat or animal products required in the product of Rossen).
Sagara further teaches a meat-like food containing no animal protein or contains an animal protein at a weight ratio of 1.0 or less with respect to a plant protein (does not contain fish meat or livestock meat Claim 8)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use the invention of Rossen in a meat-like food containing no meat such as that of Sagara. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a meat-like food product which satisfies the growing demand for meat-like products that do not use meat ingredients (Sagara Par. 0002).
Regarding claim 14, Rossen teaches the modifier is a quality improver for a food (cakes scored on basis of symmetry, grain, volume, texture, and eating quality Col. 6 lines 34-36, Table at top of Col. 7; improved quality score in examples 25 and 27, the examples within the scope of the invention Col. 12 line 68-Table at top of Col. 13).
Rossen does not teach impact on a meat-like food.
Sagara teaches the modifier is a texture improver for a meat-like food (texture improving composition Par. 0001).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use the invention of Rossen in a meat-like food such as that of Sagara. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a meat-like food product with excellent loosening properties which satisfies the growing demand for meat-like products that do not use meat ingredients with a texture that is easier to break apart (Sagara Par. 0002-0004).
Regarding claim 15, Rossen teaches the modifier is a quality improver for a food (cakes scored on basis of symmetry, grain, volume, texture, and eating quality Col. 6 lines 34-36, Table at top of Col. 7; improved quality score in examples 25 and 27, the examples within the scope of the invention Col. 12 line 68-Table at top of Col. 13).
Rossen does not teach impact on a meat-like food.
Sagara teaches that juiciness is the release of oil when chewed (Par. 0055), so one would recognize that as the modifier of modified Rossen contains oil and fat, the increased oil content would increase juiciness.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use the invention of Rossen in a meat-like food such as that of Sagara. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a meat-like food product with excellent loosening properties which satisfies the growing demand for meat-like products that do not use meat ingredients with a texture that is easier to break apart (Sagara Par. 0002-0004).
Regarding claim 16, modified Rossen teaches a modifier for a food according to claim 2, as seen in the above rejection of claim 2. Rossen further teaches a food comprising the modifier for a food (fluid shortenings having exceptional cake-baking performance Col. 2 lines 25-28).
Rossen does not teach a meat-like food.
Sagara, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a meat-like food (food texture improving composition for meat-like food products Abstract)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to use the invention of Rossen in a meat-like food such as that of Sagara. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a meat-like food product with excellent loosening properties which satisfies the growing demand for meat-like products that do not use meat ingredients (Sagara Par. 0002-0004).
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rossen, in view of Sagara, further in view of Dunford (“Why Peanut Oil is Good for Frying Food”).
Regarding claim 5, Rossen and Dunford teach the limitations of claim 1 above. They do not teach the modifier further contains a phospholipid.
Dunford, in the same field of endeavor, teaches crude peanut oil contains 1% phospholipids and refined peanut oil contains less than 30 ppm phospholipids (Pg. 1 Col. 2 Par. 1). As peanut oil is an oil and fat of modified Rossen, modified Rossen further modified with Dunford teaches a modifier which contains a phospholipid.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify
the invention of modified Rossen with the peanut oil of Dunford. One would have been motivated to make this modification to select an oil which has natural antioxidants (Pg. 1 Col. 1 Par. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Rossen and Dunford teach the limitations of claim 2 above. They do not teach the modifier further contains a phospholipid.
Dunford, in the same field of endeavor, teaches crude peanut oil contains 1% phospholipids and refined peanut oil contains less than 30 ppm phospholipids (Pg. 1 Col. 2 Par. 1). As peanut oil is an oil and fat of modified Rossen, modified Rossen further modified with Dunford teaches a modifier which contains a phospholipid.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify
the invention of modified Rossen with the peanut oil of Dunford. One would have been motivated to make this modification to select an oil which has natural antioxidants (Pg. 1 Col. 1 Par. 1).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagara in view of Rossen.
Regarding claim 9, Sagara teaches a meat like food comprising a modifier (food texture improving composition for meat-like food products Abstract)
comprising a plant oil and fat having a property of being in a liquid state at 10°C (examples of oils such as soybean oil, rapeseed oil, corn oil, safflower oil Par. 0011). Applicant teaches the oils of Sagara as suitable oil and fat options which are in a liquid state at 10°C (paragraphs 0029-0030 of the specification filed 10/25/2024)
and a fatty acid ester as an emulsifier (emulsifiers may be one or more of polyglycerol fatty acid esters propylene glycol fatty acid esters Par. 0020)
Sagara does not teach wherein the emulsifier has a crystal size of 0.1 to 250 μm.
Rossen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a modifier for a food (fluid shortening for use in baking Col. 1 lines 12-19)
wherein the emulsifier has a crystal size of 0.1 to 250 μm (solids were crystals about 3 to 5 microns long by about 0.3 to 0.5 micron in diameter Col. 7 lines 60-65).
As Sagara is silent regarding crystal size, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to apply the crystal size of Rossen to the invention of Sagara. One would have been motivated to make this modification to ensure a stable suspension (Rossen Col. 2 line 70-Col 3 line 2).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagara.
Regarding claim 16, Sagara teaches a meat like food comprising a modifier (food texture improving composition for meat-like food products Abstract)
comprising a plant oil and fat having a property of being in a liquid state at 10°C (examples of oils such as soybean oil, rapeseed oil, corn oil, safflower oil Par. 0011). Applicant teaches the oils of Sagara as suitable oil and fat options which are in a liquid state at 10°C (paragraphs 0029-0030 of the specification filed 10/25/2024)
and a fatty acid ester as an emulsifier (emulsifiers may be one or more of polyglycerol fatty acid esters propylene glycol fatty acid esters Par. 0020)
wherein the modifier has a viscosity at 20°C of 100-20,000 mPa·s (Abstract)
Regarding wherein the modifier has a viscosity at 15°C of 1000 to 30,000 mPa·s, Sagara teaches a viscosity at 20°C of 100-20,000 mPa·s (Abstract, as seen above). Though Sagara does not provide data at the claimed 15°C, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the taught viscosity would still overlap with the claimed viscosity at a temperature of 15°C. As Sagara discloses a range which overlaps with the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Sagara to have a viscosity of 1000 to 30,000 mPa·s at 15°C. It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (approximately 1,000 to 20,000 mPa·s at 15°C) from the taught range of 100-20,000 mPa·s at 20°C (as seen above). In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanasaki (US 2019/0281852 A1) discloses an emulsion composition (Abstract) containing edible oils and fats (Par. 0142) and emulsifiers containing esters of fatty acid (Par. 0113).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL M RODGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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 5712703475. 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.
/A.M.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights