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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 02, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed March 02, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1,3,6,8-10,17-18 and 20-21 remain pending in the application. Claims 2, 4-5, 7, and 16 were canceled. Claims 11-15 and 19 were previously withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-10, and 20 were amended and support is found in the claims and Specification as originally filed. Claim 21 is newly added and support is found in the original Specification. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed December 01, 2025.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because the Drawings label the figures “Fig. 1”, “Fig. 2”, etc., but the figure descriptions refer to them as “Figure 1”, “Figure 2”, etc. Applicant is advised to change the figure descriptions in the Specification to “Fig. 1”, “Fig. 2”, etc. in order to match the drawing labels.
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.
Claims 1,3,6,8-10,17-18 and 20-21 are rejected are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Duan et al. (CN1389517 (A); English translation incorporated herein; hereafter as “Duan”) as evidenced by Yuan et al. (“Compositional diversity in pea flour: Effects on functional properties”, Current Research in Food Science, Volume 12, 2026, 101285).
Regarding Claims 1, 6, 18, 20-21, Duan teaches plant fiber material products [Abstract; Claim 1], corresponding to the composition of Claim 20, comprising:
0.5-35 wt. % natural gum, such as pea flour [Claims 1-2], corresponding to the ground whole pea seeds of Claims 1 and 20;
0-10 wt. % colorant, such as titanium oxide [Claims 1, 5; ¶ 0028], thereby reading on the TiO2 of Claims 1 and 20;
a ratio of titanium oxide to pea flour [Claim 1], which is equivalent to less than 2000 wt. %
(
m
a
x
.
a
m
t
.
T
i
O
2
m
i
n
.
a
m
t
.
g
r
o
u
n
d
p
e
a
s
=
10
0.5
=
2000
%
)
, which overlaps with 3% to 20% by weight of metal oxide based on the weight of ground whole pea seeds of Claims 1 and 20, and overlaps with 5% to 10% by weight of metal oxide of Claim 6;
adhesive, such as Glycerol [¶ 0008; Claim 3], which corresponds to the plasticizer which is at least one polyol or a mixture of polyols of Claims 1, 18 and 20. (The plasticizer as required by the instant claim is used in large amounts in an adhesive composition (see instant Specification, Page 5, Lines 18-21). As such, the glycerol/ethylene glycol polyols in the adhesive taught by Duan are interpreted as a plasticizer within an adhesive as described in the instant Specification.)
Duan does not particularly teach the Dv(50) of the ground whole pea seeds.
However, Yuan teaches pea flour, such as the pea flour of Duan, has a particle diameter of approximately 2-10 µm [Fig. 7], which corresponds to the ground whole pea seed powder diameter between 1 and 400 µm of Claims 1 and 20, and between 1 and 250 µm of Claim 21. Therefore the ground whole pea seeds of Duan has a particle diameter reading on the claimed range as evidenced by Yuan.
The water of Claims 1 and 20 and additives of Claim 20 are optional, and thus, for the purpose of examination, will be interpreted to be not required.
However, Duan does not explicitly teach 3% to 20% by weight of metal oxide based on the weight of ground whole pea seeds of Claim 1, and 5% to 10% by weight of metal oxide based on the weight of the ground whole pea seeds of Claim 6.
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Duan for the amount of metal oxide (≤2000 wt. %) overlaps the instantly claimed range (3-20 wt. % of Claim 1, and 5-10 wt. % of Claim 6) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 3, Yuan also teaches pea flours, such as the pea flour of Duan, has 22-35 % protein composition [Abstract], which corresponds with at least 3% proteins by weight based on the weight of the ground whole pea seeds of Claim 3.
Regarding Claims 8-10 and 17, Duan further teaches:
Extruding the plant fiber material product [Claim 9], which corresponds to said composition is injectable of Claim 8;
0.5-35 wt. % natural gum, such as pea flour [Claims 1-2], corresponding to the ground whole pea seeds of Claims 8 and 10;
0.01-1 wt. % of catalyst, such as MgO [Claims 1 and 4], which corresponds to the MgO of Claims 8, 10, and 17;
A ratio of MgO to pea flour of 0.03-200 %
(
m
i
n
.
a
m
t
.
m
e
t
a
l
o
x
i
d
e
m
a
x
.
a
m
t
.
g
r
o
u
n
d
p
e
a
s
=
0.01
35
=
0.03
%
;
m
a
x
.
a
m
t
.
m
e
t
a
l
o
x
i
d
e
m
i
n
.
a
m
t
.
g
r
o
u
n
d
p
e
a
s
=
1
0.5
=
200
%
)
, which overlaps with 3-10 wt. % of MgO based on the weight of the ground whole pea seeds of Claim 8, and overlaps with 10 wt. % of metal oxide of based on the weight of the ground whole pea seeds of Claim 10;
0.05-20 wt. % biodegradable chemically synthesized gum, such as glycerol/ethylene glycol [Claims 1 and 3],
which corresponds to 5-40 wt. % glycerol as plasticizer based on the total weight of the injectable composition of Claim 8,
which is equivalent to 0.14-4000 wt. % glycerol/ethylene based on the weight of the pea flour (
m
i
n
.
a
m
t
.
g
l
y
c
e
r
o
l
m
a
x
.
a
m
t
.
g
r
o
u
n
d
p
e
a
s
=
0.05
35
=
0.14
%
;
m
a
x
.
a
m
t
.
g
l
y
c
e
r
o
l
m
i
n
.
a
m
t
.
g
r
o
u
n
d
p
e
a
s
=
20
0.5
=
4000
%
),
which overlaps with 20-60 % plasticizer based on the weight of the ground whole pea seeds of Claim 9, and overlaps with 40 % plasticizer based on the weight of the ground whole pea seeds of Claim 10;
Wherein the plant fiber material product comprises adhesive [Claim 3], corresponding to the adhesive of Claim 10.
The water of Claims 8 and 10 is optional, and thus, for the purpose of examination, will be interpreted to be not required.
However, Duan does not explicitly teach 5% to 40% glycerol based on the weight of the ground whole pea seeds of Claim 8, nor 20% to 60% plasticizer based on the weight of the ground whole pea seeds of Claim 9, nor 40% plasticizer based on the weight of the ground whole pea seeds of Claim 10, nor 3-10 wt. % of MgO based on the weight of the ground whole pea seeds of Claim 8, nor 10 wt. % of metal oxide of based on the weight of the ground whole pea seeds of Claim 10.
Nevertheless, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Duan for the amount of glycerol as plasticizer and MgO (0.14-4000 wt. % and 0.03-200 %, respectively; ) overlaps the instantly claimed ranges (5-40 wt. % glycerol of Claim 8, 20-60 wt. % plasticizer of Claim 9, 40 wt. % glycerol of Claim 10, 3-10 wt. % of MgO of Claim 8, 10 wt. % of MgO of Claim 10) and is therefore considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues (1) the Specification discloses unexpected results. However, the data has been considered but is not found to be convincing.
Regarding the data in Fig. 6A which shows the modulus of rupture (MOR) for pea flour, pea flour with silicon dioxide, pea flour with glycerol, and pea flour with glycerol and silicon dioxide. Applicant states in the Remarks filed on 03/02/2026 that incorporation of a crosslinker, like SiO2, and a plasticizer, like glycerol, yields unexpected results. However, it is unclear what is expected about a crosslinked product having a higher MOR, a plasticized product having a lower MOR, and a product with both crosslinker and plasticizer to have an MOR that is somewhere in between the two. Furthermore, the examples all used the same amounts of SiO2 and glycerol, 10% and 40%, respectively, whereas the claimed amounts are as broad as 3-20% and 5-60%, respectively. The data is not commiserate in scope with the claims. In addition, the only plasticizer used in all the examples was glycerol, whereas Claim 1 broadly claims plasticizers in general. There is also no data demonstrating the criticality of the diameter in the ground whole pea seed powder. Applicant is advised to present more experimental data using several pea seed diameters, and several types of plasticizers with different amounts of plasticizer and metal oxide both inside and outside the claimed ranges to demonstrate unexpected results.
Regarding the data in Table 1 which indicated whether or not the product was thin enough to fill a mold, Applicant’s method of measuring the product viscosity is rather subjective. The data presented here merely says “Yes” if Applicant observed the product could fill the mold and vice versa. It is not clear how the Applicant determined whether the mold was filled. Furthermore, it is unclear the amounts of pea flour, MgO, and glycerol that were added to the examples.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS LING whose telephone number is (571)270-3961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, ARRIE LANEE REUTHER can be reached on (571)270-7026. 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.
/DORIS LING/Examiner, Art Unit 1764
/ARRIE L REUTHER/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764