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 .
IDS
Please consider filing an IDS for all materially, non-cumulative references, including those that may have been cited in foreign patent offices. Applicant has not filed any IDS.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al., Effects of L-lysine/L-arginine on the Physicochemical Properties and Quality of Sodium-Reduced and Phosphate-Free Pork Sausage; International Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences (2016) in view of Boevink (WO 03/030660) and Zhang et al. (CN 110663892).
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one amount of additive over another and the incorporation of minor ingredients.
Regarding claim 1, Zheng (2016) teaches a phosphates-free water holding agent rich in amino acids (See Abs., Sections 2, 2.1, 3.1, 3.5 and 4, amino acids including L-arginine and L-lysine.),
PNG
media_image1.png
230
662
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
232
656
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
656
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
332
318
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
682
320
media_image5.png
Greyscale
however, fails to expressly disclose the following raw materials in parts by weight: 30 parts to 65 parts of potassium salt, 15 parts to 40 parts of amino acid, and 5 parts to 50 parts of cellulose stabilizer.
Boevink (‘660) teaches a similar product as taught by Zheng (2016) wherein carboxymethyl cellulose can be incorporated in an amount of 0.1 to 25 wt% wherein the fluid loss was less than compared to a standard (See Abs., Example 1.).
Zhang (‘892) teaches a similar product as taught by Zheng (2016) wherein 15-20 parts of potassium carbonate and 20-30 parts of potassium bicarbonate are incorporated into the food to improve the water-holding property (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 5-16, claims 1 and 7.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Zheng (2016), Boevink (‘660) and Zhang (‘892) before them to combine the ingredients and amounts thereof into Zheng’s (2016) composition to provide an agent without phosphate that has less fluid loss and improved water-holding properties. The Selection of amounts of the various ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a healthier food product than those containing phosphate while functionally desirable.
Regarding claim 2, Zheng (2016) teaches the agent discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the potassium salt is any one selected from the group consisting of potassium carbonate and potassium bicarbonate.
Zhang (‘892) teaches a similar product as taught by Zheng (2016) wherein 15-20 parts of potassium carbonate and 20-30 parts of potassium bicarbonate are incorporated into the food to improve the water-holding property (See Abs., p. 3, ll. 5-16, claims 1 and 7.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select potassium carbonate and potassium bicarbonate as taught by Zhang (‘892) for Zheng’s (2016) composition to provide an agent without phosphate that has less fluid loss and improved water-holding properties. The Selection of amounts of the various ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a healthier food product than those containing phosphate while functionally desirable.
Regarding claim 3, Zheng (2016) teaches wherein the amino acid is L-arginine and L-lysine (See Abs., Sections 2, 2.1, 3.1, 3,5 and 4, amino acids including L-arginine and L-lysine.).
Regarding claim 4, Zheng (2016) teaches the agent discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the cellulose stabilizer is any one selected from the group consisting of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (Na-CMC) and cellulose.
Boevink (‘660) teaches a similar product as taught by Zheng (2016) wherein carboxymethyl cellulose can be incorporated in an amount of 0.1 to 25 wt% wherein the fluid loss was less than compared to a standard (See Abs., Example 1.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select carboxymethyl cellulose (Na-CMC) and/or cellulose as taught by Boevink (‘660) for Zheng’s (2016) composition to provide an agent without phosphate that has less fluid loss and improved water-holding properties. The Selection of amounts of the various ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a healthier food product than those containing phosphate while functionally desirable.
Regarding claim 5, Zheng (2016) teaches the agent discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the Na-CMC has a degree of polymerization of 300 to 500.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one degree of polymerization over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date since Boevink’s (‘660) carboxymethyl cellulose is substantially the same as Applicant uses that its degree of polymerization would also be the same. The selection of type of carboxymethyl cellulose would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a composition usable as intended.
Regarding claim 6, Zheng (2016) teaches the agent discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the cellulose is in a powder form and has a degree of polymerization of 500 to 600.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one degree of polymerization over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date since Boevink’s (‘660) carboxymethyl cellulose is substantially the same as Applicant uses that its degree of polymerization would also be the same. The selection of type of Na-CMC would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide a composition usable as intended.
Regarding claim 7, Zheng (2016) teaches the agent discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose the claimed method steps of making.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one method step over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Zheng (2016), Boevink (‘660) and Zhang (‘892) before them to combine the ingredients and amounts thereof per the method steps as claimed to provide an agent without phosphate that has less fluid loss and improved water-holding properties. The Selection of method steps would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a healthier food product than those containing phosphate while functionally desirable.
Regarding claim 8, Zheng (2016) teaches the agent discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose the claimed method of making.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one method step over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Zheng (2016), Boevink (‘660) and Zhang (‘892) before them to combine the ingredients and amounts thereof per the method steps as claimed to provide an agent without phosphate that has less fluid loss and improved water-holding properties. The Selection of method steps would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a healthier food product than those containing phosphate while functionally desirable.
Regarding claim 9, Zheng (2016) teaches the agent discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose the claimed components.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one component and amount thereof over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Zheng (2016), Boevink (‘660) and Zhang (‘892) before them to combine the ingredients and amounts thereof as claimed to provide an agent without phosphate that has less fluid loss and improved water-holding properties. The Selection of components and amounts would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date to provide a healthier food product than those containing phosphate while functionally desirable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 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, 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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights