Patent Application 16071828 - MEAT SNACKS JERKY JERKY SAUSAGE AND METHODS OF

Title: MEAT SNACKS, JERKY, JERKY SAUSAGE AND METHODS OF THEIR MAKING AND USE

Application Information

Invention Title: MEAT SNACKS, JERKY, JERKY SAUSAGE AND METHODS OF THEIR MAKING AND USE
Application Number: 16071828
Submission Date: 2025-05-21T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2018-07-20T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2018-07-20T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 426
National Sub-Class: 646000
Examiner Employee Number: 98154
Art Unit: 1791
Tech Center: 1700

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 0
103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/02/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 12-15 are pending and under examination. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn. Claims 4-5, 9 and 11 are cancelled. Any objections or rejections not repeated below have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 3, 6-8, 12-13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 7, claim 3 line 1, claim 6 line 1, claim 7 line 1, claim 8 line 1, claim 12 line 1, claim 13 line 1 and claim 15 line 1 recite, “the protein mix.” For matters of form “the protein mix” should be changed to “the poultry protein mix.” Appropriate correction is required.

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 1-3, 6-8, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMindes et al. US 20140170283 and in view of Dake US 20150011500 (cited on IDS dated 02/25/2019).
Regarding claim 1, McMindes discloses a food product (restructured meat product; [0082]) in the form of “strips, steaks, cutlets, patties, cube-shaped kabobs, meat sticks, or sausages" [0109] including, inter alia, a meat block (animal meat from sheep, cattle, goats, pork, bison, and horses; [0082], [0085-0086]) and "a variety of flavorings, spices, antioxidants, or other ingredients to impart a desired flavor or texture or to nutritionally enhance the final food product" [0100]. However, the food product of McMindes does not include a poultry protein mix. It is noted, from the applicant remarks dated 01/02/2025, that the term “poultry protein mix” is limited to protein mix prepared from poultry sources, not other animals, or plants or insects.
Dake teaches a poultry protein mix (high protein composition prepared from poultry) in the form of powder (Abstract, [0005]). Dake discloses the poultry protein mix (composition) comprises one or more branched chain amino acids (BCAA) [0016]. Dake teaches the composition is added to one or more ingredients to achieve certain health benefits such as preventing or treating joint diseases and improved nutrition (Abstract, [0006]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified McMindes to have incorporated the teachings of Dake by adding the poultry protein mix composition to the meat block, because adding the poultry protein mix composition to one or more ingredients, such as a meat block, achieves certain health benefits such as preventing or treating joint diseases and improved nutrition, as recognized by Dake (Abstract, [0006]).
Neither McMindes nor Dake report the protein content of the meat block or poultry protein mix. However, McMindes teaches a meat block (animal meat) in a composition, where the meat block (animal meat) can be present in the composition at a wide range (Abstract, [0082], [0085]), and Dake teaches poultry protein mix (composition) to provide nutritional and health benefits (Abstract, [0006]), it would have been obvious to have utilized the powder composition of Dake in the formulation of McMindes in order to further improve the nutritional value of the composition taught by McMindes to provide the composition with a protein content as claimed, where the proteins from the poultry protein mix contribute more than 50% of the total protein content in the food product.
Further, applicant's attention is directed to In re Levin, 84 USPQ 232 p. 234
This court has taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food
which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them in
ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention merely because it
is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else
ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In all
such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further
establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients
which produces a new, unexpected, and useful function. In re Benjamin D. White, 17
C.C.P.A. (Patents) 956, 39 F.2d 974, 5 USPQ 267; In re Mason et al., 33 C.C.P.A.
(Patents) 1144, 156 F.2d 189, 70 USPQ 221

Regarding the claim recitations, “wherein the meat block has a protein content lower than protein content of the poultry protein mix” and “the content of branched chain amino acids in said food product is higher than the content of branched chain amino acids in the meat block without the protein mix;” given that McMindes teaches their composition may contain other ingredients to impart a desired flavor or texture or to nutritionally enhance the final food product, to have utilized the poultry protein mix (composition) of Dake is not considered to be an unobvious contribution over the art. Noting the instant specification, paragraph [0015] states the protein mix may be prepared according to methods described in U.S. Patent application Nos. 14/325,694, which is the Dake publication. Thus, utilizing the poultry protein mix of Dake, which is the same poultry protein mix of the instant application, and adding it to the meat block of McMindes, which is substantially identical to the claimed meat block, would provide a protein content for poultry protein mix where the poultry protein mix has a higher protein content than the meat block and a branched chain amino acid content as claimed. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2112.01 (I)).
Regarding claim 2, McMindes discloses the food product can have a variety of shapes [0108], which include strips, sheets (steaks, patties) or cubes sticks [0109].
Regarding claim 3, Dake teaches the protein mix is prepared from poultry (high protein composition prepared from poultry) in the form of powder (Abstract, [0005]). McMindes discloses the meat block (animal meat) is prepared from a second organism, wherein the second organism is not poultry (beef, pork, sheep, cattle, goats, pork, bison, horses, buffalo, deer, elk, moose, reindeer, caribou, antelope, rabbit, squirrel, beaver, muskrat, opossum, raccoon, armadillo, porcupine, alligator, snake, saltwater and freshwater fish, catfish, tuna, salmon, bass, mackerel, pollack, hake, tilapia, cod, grouper, whitefish, bowfin, gar, paddlefish, sturgeon, bream, carp, trout, surimi, walleye, snakehead, or shark; [0082].
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the instant specification at [0015] states that protein compositions (meat powder and broth) may be prepared according to methods described in 14/325,694, which is the Dake publication. Therefore, the protein mix (composition) of Dake is considered to comprise at least 90% animal protein, as required by claim 6, and is considered to comprise one or more peptides having 10 or fewer amino acids, as required by claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Dake discloses the protein mix (composition) further comprises one or more amino acids selected from the group consisting of leucine, isoleucine and valine [0016].
Regarding claim 10, the discussions of protein content contribution from the meat block and poultry protein mix from claim 1 also apply here for the protein content of the food product. Neither McMindes nor Dake report the protein content of the meat block or poultry protein mix, or the protein content for the food product. However, McMindes teaches a meat block (animal meat) in a composition, where the meat block (animal meat) can be present in the composition at a wide range from 0-95% by weight (Abstract, [0082], [0085]), and Dake teaches poultry protein mix (composition) to provide nutritional and health benefits (Abstract, [0006]), it would have been obvious to have utilized the powder composition of Dake in the formulation of McMindes in order to further improve the nutritional value of the composition taught by McMindes to provide the composition with a protein content of the food product as claimed, where the protein content of the food product is from about 20-80%. See In re Levin, 84 USPQ 232 p. 234.
Regarding claim 12, Dake discloses the protein mix is a dehydrated protein powder prepared from an animal source (high protein composition prepared from poultry in the form of powder (Abstract, [0005]).
Regarding claim 13, Dake teaches the protein mix is a concentrated broth prepared from an animal source (composition prepared from poultry in the form of broth, where the liquid has been concentrated; [0005], [0019]).
Regarding claim 14, McMindes discloses the food product is a strips, steaks, cutlets, patties, or generally cube-shaped for kabobs [0109]. Any one of a strips, steaks, cutlets, patties, or generally cube-shaped for kabobs is encompassed within the recited “meat snack.”
Regarding claim 15, the instant specification at [0015] states that protein compositions (meat powder and broth) may be prepared according to methods described in 14/325,694, which is the Dake publication. Additionally, McMindes teaches a meat block (animal meat) that can be present in a composition at a wide range 0-95% by weight and can be from a variety of meats (Abstract, [0082], [0085]), and is considered substantially identical to the claimed meat block. Therefore, the protein mix (composition) of Dake, which is identical to the claimed composition being prepared by the same method, is considered to have a protein content that is at least twice as high as the protein content of the meat block of McMindes, which is substantially identical to the claimed meat block. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP §2112.01 (I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 2, 2025, with respect to claims 1-3, 6-8, 10, 12-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE GERLA whose telephone number is (571)270-0904. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. and Fri. 7-1 pm; Tue. 7-12 pm; Wed. 7-9am, 12-2 pm; Th. 7-2pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.

/S.R.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791