Thanksgiving is a time for family, gratitude, and—let’s be honest—lots of food. But for vegetarians, it can feel more like a minefield of side dishes. While others enjoy the turkey, vegetarians are often left piecing together a meal that usually consists of mashed potatoes, stuffing, sweet potatoes, mac and cheese, cranberry sauce, and salad. The turkey, as the table’s centerpiece, becomes a glaring reminder of what’s missing for those who don’t eat meat.
What if vegetarians could be brought back to the center of the table—literally? That’s where a clever idea from a patent application, US20050257694, comes in. This inventive solution proposed a method and apparatus for preparing a roast turkey analog made entirely from vegetarian ingredients. The invention included a mold that replicated the shape and texture of a traditional turkey, allowing a tofu-based “turkey” to be baked into a visually stunning centerpiece. With realistic turkey-skin texturing and an optional stuffing cavity, the mold aimed to make vegetarians feel fully included in the festivities.
Speaking as a carnivore, I’m unsure how appealing this would be—but that’s beside the point. The inventor made a genuine effort to ensure everyone could share in the holiday’s traditions without feeling left out.
The patent application included claims for both the mold itself and the method for using it to create the vegetarian turkey. Unfortunately, this dual focus led to a figurative fork in the road (i.e., a procedural challenge known as a restriction requirement).
A restriction requirement is issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) when an application contains claims directed to two or more distinct inventions. Because U.S. patent law prohibits claiming multiple inventions in a single application, the applicant must choose one set of claims to pursue. The other claims can be filed separately in a divisional application.
In this case, the examiner determined that the method (steps for creating the vegetarian turkey) and the apparatus (the turkey mold) were distinct inventions. The method claims described the steps of preparing the tofu-based turkey, including mixing, pressing, and baking. The apparatus claims were focused on the mold’s structure and features, such as its turkey-skin texturing and multi-piece design.
Applicants faced with a restriction requirement often accept it and pursue divisional applications for each invention. Alternatively, applicants can challenge the restriction by showing that the claims are not distinct and independent.
To succeed, the applicant must demonstrate that the method and apparatus are inherently linked by a common inventive concept. That is, the method and apparatus are not distinct or independent. For example, one could argue that the method as claimed cannot be performed using another apparatus, or that the mold itself cannot be used for a process materially different from the one described. If successful, this approach would follow the spirit of Thanksgiving and allow both the method and apparatus claims to remain in a single application, providing broader protection and reducing costs.
Unfortunately, the applicant for this patent application did not respond to the restriction requirement, resulting in the application being abandoned. As a result, the mold and method were never examined further, leaving us to wonder if this inventive idea could have been granted patent protection and brought everyone together at the Thanksgiving table—well, everyone except for your crazy uncle (we all have one).
This Thanksgiving, whether your centerpiece is a roast turkey or a tofu-based alternative, remember that the table is about more than food. It’s about making sure everyone feels at home.