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 1-6 is/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.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, it is unclear what aspect (appearance, orientation, taste, texture, calorie content) of the meat is being simulated. It is further unclear what constitutes a “whole” cut as opposed to a cut that is not whole. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 2-5 are rejected as indefinite as a result on depending upon indefinite claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, it is unclear if the “longitudinal direction of the fibers” is the same as or different than the “substantially aligned longitudinal direction” as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear if “the fibers” or “the membrane scaffolding” as recited in claim 5 refers to fibers or membrane scaffolding of the raw food product or cooked food product, since the antecedent basis for “the fibers” and “the membrane scaffolding” as recited in claim 5 refers to the fibers and membrane scaffolding as recited in claim 1 with reference to the raw food product. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected as indefinite.
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, 5, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrljic (US 20190116855 A1) in view of Purslow et al. (The structural basis of cooking loss in beef: Variations with temperature and ageing).
Regarding claim 1, Vrljic teaches (Paragraph 0015, 0078) consumable products and methods of making the same, wherein the consumables can be non-animal based consumable goods in the form of a meat product, and wherein the consumables can be made to mimic the cut or appearance of meat. It is noted that the claim language does not limit the particular properties that are being simulated. Therefore, Vrljic is understood to simulate at cut of meat. Vrljic further teaches (Paragraph 0264) in some embodiments, the consumable is a meat replica that is cooked for human consumption. Also, Vrljic teaches (0286) in some embodiments, the meat substitute is optimized for particular cooking methods such as cooking in a microwave oven (cooking apparatus). Vrljic further teaches (0449) exemplary embodiments comprising preparing a blood-sausage analog and poaching in near-boiling water followed by crisping in an oven, and preparing fibers and curing in an oven (providing a raw food product to a cooking apparatus and heating the raw food product with the cooking apparatus to make the cooked food product). Also, Vrljic teaches (Paragraph 0247) in some embodiments some or all of the components of the consumable are suspended in a gel wherein in some embodiments fibers or strings of proteins are oriented parallel to one another (substantially aligned longitudinal direction) and then held in place by the application of a gel. Additionally, Vrljic teaches (Paragraph 0237) the protein content of the fibrous structure is derived from a non-animal source. Furthermore, Vrljic teaches (Paragraph 0100) the consumables have a similar cook loss characteristic as a food product, e.g., meat, wherein, for example, a consumable can have the same reduction in size (volume) when cooked as real ground beef.
Vrljic does not explicitly state that the cooked food product is characterized by a volume reduction of greater than or about 10 vol.% compared to the raw food product.
Purslow et al. teaches (Section 3.1, 4.1, Fig. 1 (d)) changes in dimensions and weights of blocks of meat due to cooking at different temperatures, wherein Figure 1 (d) shows a volume reduction after cooking ranging from greater than 15% to 35%, with a maximum shrinkage in volume of 35%.
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vrljic in view of Purslow et al. to configure the cooked food product to have a volume reduction greater than 10% since Vrljic teaches (Paragraph 0100) the consumables have a similar cook loss characteristic, including size, as a food product, e.g., meat, since volume reductions for meat products after cooking greater than 10% are known in the art as shown by Purslow et al., and since a volume reduction after cooking comparable to a meat product would better satisfy consumers by matching the properties of the meat product being simulated.
Furthermore, the claimed volume reduction of greater than or about 10 vol.% would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Vrljic based upon factors such as the time and temperature of cooking (where a longer time and higher temperature can cause a greater loss and fat, moisture, etc. that will lower the volume further), the composition of the food product (where the type of fibers, initial moisture and fat content, etc., will affect the volume lost during cooking), the type of cooking process, consumer preferences in food product size, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed volume reduction of greater than or about 10 vol.% that would render it non-obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Vrljic does not explicitly state that the cooked food product is characterized by a shear force across the longitudinal direction of the fibers or the membrane scaffolding that is greater than or about twice a shear force along the longitudinal direction of the fibers or the membrane scaffolding.
However, the claimed shear force across the longitudinal direction of the fibers or the membrane scaffolding that is greater than or about twice a shear force along the longitudinal direction of the fibers would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Vrljic based upon factors such as the dimensions/thickness of the fibers (where thicker fibers will require greater force to shear), the type of materials (e.g. type of plant protein) of which the fibers or membrane scaffolding are made (where different materials will have different shearing properties), the spacing between the fibers, the cooking parameters such as time and temperature (where cooking will affect the food product’s shearing properties), consumer preferences in food texture, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed shear force across the longitudinal direction of the fibers or the membrane scaffolding that is greater than or about twice a shear force along the longitudinal direction of the fibers that would render it non-obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Vrljic teaches (Paragraph 0078) the consumables can be made to mimic the cut or appearance of meat, wherein, for instance, a consumable may be visually similar to or indistinguishable from ground beef or a particular cut of beef.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrljic (US 20190116855 A1) in view of Purslow et al. (The structural basis of cooking loss in beef: Variations with temperature and ageing), and further in view of Dudman (US 2785069 A).
Regarding claim 2, Vrljic, as modified above, is silent on the raw food product further comprising additional fibers or membranes that dissolve when the raw food product is heated to make the cooked food product.
Dudman teaches (Col. 2, lines 8-9; Col. 3, lines 12-14) a method for preparing food products from man-made, edible protein fibers, wherein the fibers are subjected to a heat treatment suitably high to cause fusion thereof (dissolve when the raw food product is heated to make the cooked food product). Dudman further teaches (Col. 4, lines 20-21) the fibers may be made from materials including soybeans (non-animal-based).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vrljic, as modified above, to provide fibers that dissolve when the raw food product is heated in view of Dudman since both are directed to methods of making food products comprising non-animal based protein fibers, since dissolving non-animal based protein fibers when heating is known in the art as shown by Dudman, since it would be desirable to eliminate the use of binders, and the use of extraneous binders such as cereals or the like can be dispensed with if the fibers are subjected to a heat treatment suitably high to cause fusion thereof (Dudman, Col. 2, lines 5-6; Col. 3, lines 11-14), and since dissolving the fibers can alter the taste and texture of the food product in a way that some consumers will find more palatable.
Claim(s) 3 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vrljic (US 20190116855 A1) in view of Purslow et al. (The structural basis of cooking loss in beef: Variations with temperature and ageing), and further in view of Varadan (US 20190133162 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Vrljic is silent on the raw food product being heated to an internal temperature greater than or about 145 °F to make the cooked food product.
However, the claimed internal temperature greater than or about 145 °F would have been used during the course of normal experimentation and optimization procedures in the method of Vrljic based upon factors such as the cooking time and temperature (where a longer time and higher cooking temperature will result in a higher internal temperature), the composition of the food product (where less dense foods will have a greater increase in internal temperature), the type of cooking process, consumer preferences temperature and texture, the preferred extent of pathogen reduction, etc. Furthermore, the Applicant has neither demonstrated the criticality nor identified any unique or unexpected benefit of the claimed volume reduction of greater than or about 10 vol.% that would render it non-obvious.
Furthermore, since Vrljic is silent with regards to the internal temperature one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the art for suitable values.
Varadan teaches (Paragraph 0002) methods of making meat replicas, such as ground meat replicas, and more particularly to plant-based products that mimic the texture, appearance, and sensory aspects of ground meat. Varadan further teaches (Paragraph 0125) an exemplary embodiment wherein a replica burger is heated to an internal temperature of 160° F.
Selection of a known processing parameter (internal temperature) based on its suitability for its intended use (cooking a non-animal-based food product) supports a prima facie obviousness determination (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding claim 4, Vrljic is silent on the cooked food product is characterized by a chewiness that is greater than the chewiness of the raw food product.
Varadan teaches (Paragraph 0002) methods of making meat replicas, such as ground meat replicas, and more particularly to plant-based products that mimic the texture, appearance, and sensory aspects of ground meat. Varadan further teaches (claim 2) after cooking the meat replica, the meat replica is firmer (chewier) than the meat replica before cooking.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vrljic to configure the cooked food product to have a chewiness that is greater than the chewiness of the raw food product in view of Varadan, since both are directed to methods of preparing non-animal-based food products that simulate meat products, since a cooked food product that is characterized by a chewiness that is greater than the chewiness of the raw food product is known in the art as shown by Varadan, since meat replicas can replicate the behavior and qualities of meat by firming during cooking (Varadan, Paragraph 0004), thus satisfying consumer desires for non-meat products similar to meat, and since some consumers will prefer the texture of chewier foods.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hsieh (US 20120093994 A1) teaches meat compositions produced from vegetable protein and processes for producing the analog meat compositions.
Chang (US 20230157315 A1) teaches an artificial fiber meat, wherein a longitudinal shear force of the fibers is between 3 kg and 20 kg, and a radial shear force of the fibers is between 3 kg and 10 kg.
Lolas (US 4141999 A) teaches an improved bacon-like meat analog is provided having a novel simulated fatty portion which is intended when fried to ripple or crinkle and have a juicy, fatty mouthfeel similar to the fatty portions of bacon.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN P TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-2652. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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.
/AUSTIN PARKER TAYLOR/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights