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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/25/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 19-22 are pending. Claims 19-20 are withdrawn. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments, amendments and the affidavit filed 2/25/2026.
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.
Claim 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (JP 2008-054028 A, reference is made to the previously provided machine translation) in view of Chiu (WO 96/03891).
Regarding Claims 1 and 4, Kobayashi teaches a composition comprising heat treated starch and thickening polysaccharides (Page 2, Paragraph 9). Regarding the limitation of a complex-type dietary fiber, Kobayashi teaches the combination of both, e.g. pectin and cellulose (Page 2, Paragraph 10 of the translated document) in the composition. Note that the instant Specification [0029] teaches e.g. pectin as a water-soluble dietary fiber, and cellulose as an insoluble dietary fiber.
Kobayashi teaches that the mixture is prepared at 15-50% moisture (Abstract) and then heat treated under dry conditions. Note that Kobayashi teaches that the 15-50% of water is prior to heating (Page 2, second to last paragraph). The final product of Kobayashi is therefore expected to have a moisture content of below, e.g. 14.9%.
Note that since water is reduced during the process of a heat treatment as in instant Claims 1 and 4, the “heat treatment” as claimed may encompass, e.g., a step of heating an intermediate mixture at 20% (as in Claim 4) moisture followed by a heating step at 14.9% moisture (as in Claim 1). Where Kobayashi teaches a composition meetings the limitations of the “intermediate mixture” of Claim 4, and additionally teaches drying of the intermediate mixture (which reduces moisture content) to below 14.9%, the method of Kobayashi overlaps the moisture requirements of both Claims 1 and 4.
Kobayashi does not discuss the addition of a basic compound, or the pH of the mixture.
Chiu teaches a heat treated starch (Abstract). Chiu teaches that degradation of starches during heating is avoided by raising the pH to “neutral or above” (Page 5, Line 20), which is a pH range of 7-14, which overlaps the claimed range. Chiu teaches that the pH is adjusted via the addition of basic compounds (Page 6, Lines 21-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pH of a starch mixture intended for heat treatment to a pH range as claimed. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to prevent heat degradation of the starch.
Regarding Claim 2, Kobayashi teaches heat treatment at 100-200 °C (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 5, Kobayashi teaches that the hydrocolloid (or fiber) and starch mixture is 15-50% water. Kobayashi additionally teaches that the method of adding water is not particularly limited (Page 2, last paragraph) as long as the powders are uniformly dispersed. Kobayashi therefore teaches e.g. the addition of water to the starch prior to adding fiber. Note that since the instant Specification describes that a step of “not adding water” means that water is not directly added to component (B) (that is, the dietary fiber), or the mixture comprising dietary fiber (instant Specification, Page 32), the mixture of Kobayashi is interpreted to meet the limitations of the Claim. Additionally, note that selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2144.04 IV C.
Regarding Claim 6, Kobayashi teaches the use of tapioca, corn, rice, wheat, potato, and sweet potato starch (Page 2, Paragraph 12).
Regarding Claim 8, Chiu teaches hydroxides and carbonates of alkali and alkali earth metals. (e.g. potassium carbonate, potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, and sodium hydroxide, Page 6, Lines 21-27).
Regarding Claim 9, Kobayashi teaches the addition of 0.5-5 parts by weight of polysaccharide to starch, which lies within the claimed range. Note that the teaching of Kobayashi is interpreted to mean 0.5-5 parts per hundred of polysaccharide to starch, in view of the example of Kobayashi at e.g. Page 3, Reference Example 2 (200 grams of starch to 4 grams of xanthan gum, which is a ratio of 100:2 of starch:hydrocolloid). Therefore, the teaching of Kobayashi is interpreted to lie within the claimed ranges.
Regarding Claim 10, Kobayashi teaches a heat treated starch and thickening polysaccharides (Page 2, Paragraph 9). Regarding the limitation of a complex-type dietary fiber, Kobayashi teaches the combination of both, e.g. pectin and cellulose (Page 2, Paragraph 10 of the translated document) in the composition. Note that the instant Specification [0029] teaches e.g. pectin as a water-soluble dietary fiber, and cellulose as an insoluble dietary fiber.
Kobayashi does not discuss the addition of a basic compound, or the pH of the mixture.
Chiu teaches a heat treated starch (Abstract). Chiu teaches that degradation of starches during heating is avoided by raising the pH to “neutral or above” (Page 5, Line 20), which is a pH range of 7-14, which overlaps the claimed range. Chiu teaches that the pH is adjusted via the addition of basic compounds (Page 6, Lines 21-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the pH of a starch mixture intended for heat treatment to a pH range as claimed. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to prevent heat degradation of the starch.
Modified Kobayashi does not teach a “viscosity decrease at a time of gelatinization…or by subsequent high temperature heating”, or “imparting a viscosity stabilization after gelatinization”. However, given that the prior art is similar to the claimed product, with a similar intended use, composition, and processing, there is an expectation that the product of the prior art have the properties as claimed.
Regarding Claims 21 and 22, Kobayashi teaches heat treatment under dry conditions, which is a dry heat treatment (Abstract).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi in view of Chiu, taken with evidentiary reference of Riyamol (“Recent Advances in the Extraction of Pectin from Various Sources”, DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.3c04010, 2023)
Regarding Claim 7, Kobayashi teaches the use of pectin, which is derived from apples and oranges (see evidentiary reference of Riyamol, Page 46311, “Extraction Methods for Pectin”, Paragraph 1).
Response to Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 2/25/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 21-22 based upon Kobayashi and Chiu under 35 U.S.C. 103 of the prior Final Action.
Applicant’s declaration describes the effect of moisture at 12.21%, 25.75%, and 39.58% in “initial viscosity increase rate (Vr)” for the resultant modified starch. Applicant alleges that the experiment demonstrates the criticality of the 0-14.9% range. However, evidence of criticality requires demonstrating a difference between 14.9% moisture, as set forth in the instant Claim(s), and 15% moisture as taught by Kobayashi.
Further, the showings in the declaration describe the results of experiments performed for waxy corn starch and citrus fiber at a pH of 5 and a temperature of 160 °F. No evidence or arguments are shown demonstrating the generalizability of the results to e.g. other starches, fibers, pH conditions, or temperature conditions. Additionally, Applicant has not claimed that the method produce a specific initial viscosity increase rate.
Additionally, note that Applicant has claimed a higher intermediate moisture in instant Claim 4, which encompass the moisture content of Additional Comparative Examples 4 and 5. Applicant states that these conditions do not provide a “desired low initial viscosity increase”.
The showings are therefore not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues (Pages 5-6) that Kobayashi teaches away from a water content of less than 15%, and therefore teaches away from the amended claim(s).
This argument is not persuasive.
First, the claim does not require that the mixture for heat treatment contain 0-14.9% moisture prior to any heating. The amended claim only requires that a mixture with 0-14.9% moisture is heat treated. A mixture which contains, e.g. 15% moisture and then subjected to an extended heating step would experience a reduction in moisture content. Further treatment of this mixture, which would then contain less than 15% moisture, would result in a heating step as required by the claim. Second, note that instant Claim 4 requires heating of an intermediate mixture comprising 20-99% moisture. Where Kobayashi teaches a composition meetings the limitations of the “intermediate mixture” of Claim 4, and additionally teaches drying of the intermediate mixture (which reduces moisture content) to below 14.9%, the method of Kobayashi overlaps the moisture requirements of both Claims 1 and 4.
Second, the disclosed composition is so close in value to the claimed composition that there is an expectation is will provide an identical product. No material difference is expected between a composition comprising 14.9% moisture as required by the claim and 15% moisture as taught by Kobayashi. The Applicant’s claimed range is thus obvious over the prior art range. Note that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Additionally, note that the filed declaration is insufficient to overcome the outstanding rejection, as detailed above.
Applicant additionally argues (Page 6) that the physical mixture of pectin and cellulose is different from a “pre-existing complex-type” dietary fiber (such as citrus fiber).
This argument is not convincing. First, note that a “fiber” is broadly interpreted to mean a fiber composition, which may be a mixture of fibers. Second, “complex dietary fiber” is not an art-recognized term for a single fiber comprising water-soluble dietary fiber and water-insoluble dietary fiber which are chemically bound. See evidentiary reference of, e.g. Yuksel, “Structure and degradation dynamics of dietary pectin”, DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2024.2437573, Abstract, Line 1). The Claim is therefore interpreted to mean any composition comprising water-soluble and water-insoluble dietary fiber. Third, the instant Claim does not require that the water-soluble and water-insoluble fiber be “pre-existing”, or chemically or physically bound.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Yuksel, “Structure and degradation dynamics of dietary pectin”, DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2024.2437573
Yuksel teaches that pectin is known as a “complex” dietary fiber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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.
/D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights