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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 5, 2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
3. Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 10, and 13 – 28 are pending in this application, wherein claims 1, 4 – 5, 16 – 17, and 22 are amended, claims 23 – 28 are new, claims 3 and 11 – 12 are canceled, and claims 1 – 2, 4 – 10, and 13 – 15 are withdrawn.
Claims 16 – 28 are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
This application is a national stage application of PCT/US2021/034717, filed May 28, 2021, which claims benefit of foreign priority document EP20177583.0, filed May 29, 2020.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Withdrawn Objections
5. The objection of claim 22 in the previous Office Action, mailed January 9, 2026, is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 16 and the present rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Summer et al. in view of EP2248907A1 for the reasons set forth below.
Withdrawn Rejections
6. The rejection of claims 16 – 21 in the previous Office Action, mailed January 9, 2026, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. has been fully considered and is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 16.
The rejection of claims 16 – 21 in the previous Office Action, mailed January 9, 2026, on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/837,294 in view of Li et al. has been fully considered and is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 16.
The rejection of claims 16 – 21 in the previous Office Action, mailed January 9, 2026, on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/837,288 in view of Li et al. has been fully considered and is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 16.
The rejection of claims 16 – 21 in the previous Office Action, mailed January 9, 2026, on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/837,300 in view of Li et al. has been fully considered and is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 16.
The rejection of claims 16 – 21 in the previous Office Action, mailed January 9, 2026, on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/837,285 in view of Li et al. has been fully considered and is withdrawn in view of the amended claim 16.
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 16 – 28 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.
a. Claims 16 and 23 recite “(dry substance)” in lines 4 and lines 3 – 4, respectively. The use of the parenthetical phrase renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is uncertain whether “dry substance” is intended to limit the claimed substance or merely provide explanatory, optional, or descriptive information. Thus, it is unclear whether the claimed subject matter requires the substance to be dry, whether the amount is calculated on a dry-weight basis, or whether the phrase is non-limiting. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Claims 17 – 22 and 24 – 28 depend from claims 16 and 23 are also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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:
i. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
ii. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
iii. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
iv. 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 16 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Summer et al. (US2016/0015065A1, cited in the previous Office Action mailed August 15, 2025) in view of Groningen (EP2248907A1, hereinafter: ‘907A1, Reference included with PTO-892).
a. Regarding claims 16 – 28, Summer et al. teach carbohydrate compositions having lower digestibility and lower sugar compared to traditional nutritive sweeteners, methods of making the carbohydrate compositions (para. [0002]). The method comprises (i) a first treatment step comprising treating a saccharide to produce a reduced-sugar and lower-digestibility intermediate composition, followed by (ii) a second separation step comprising separating the desirable portion of the intermediate composition (para. [0042]). In various exemplary embodiments, the treatment step comprises contacting a saccharide feedstock (i.e. starting material) with at least one catalyst to obtain a feed composition. In some embodiments, the feedstock may be chosen from at least one saccharide in an aqueous solution, wherein the saccharide is glucose (para. [0066]), wherein the concentration of dry substance can range from about 30 to 95% (para. [0065]). In certain preferred embodiments, the catalyst may be hydrochloric acid (para. [0071]). The catalyst may be added to a concentration ranging up to about 1250 ppm (para. [0072]). The saccharide feedstock may have a pH in the range of about 3.0 to about 6.0 and inorganic acid may be added to adjust the pH of the feed composition to a desired pH. In certain preferred embodiments, the pH of the feed composition ranges from about 1.0 to about 2.5 (para. [0074]). The feed composition is then treated by being subjected to elevated temperature to promote polycondensation polymerization (para. [0045]). The temperature range may be about 50 to 350 ⁰C (para. [0062]). The treatment time can range from about 5 seconds to about 5 days, depending on how the parameters cited herein are controlled. Non-limiting example is that the treatment time can range up to about 24 hours (para. [0064]). Summer et al. teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides and polysaccharide, and physical and functional properties of lower digestible oligosaccharides can be achieved by controlling parameters in the process according to the disclosure, such as time, temperature, type and concentration of the catalyst (para. [0045]; [0052]; [0055 – 0056]). In some embodiments, the carbohydrate composition may comprise an amount of total DP3+, on a dry basis, ranging from about 40% to about 80% (para. [0115]). In various embodiments, the carbohydrate composition prepared may comprise branched saccharide with α and/or β-glycosidic bonds at various carbon positions, such as a 1,6-glycosidic linkages (para. [0095]), wherein the 1,6-glycosidic linkages may be in an amount of greater than about 10% in an exemplary embodiment (para. [0096]; [0114]). The carbohydrate composition may have reduced-calorie content (para. [0099]).
However, Summer et al. do not explicitly teach that the glucose oligosaccharide is having at least 45% or 50% of α- and β-1,6 linkages.
‘907A1 teaches a method for producing a mixture of gluco-oligosaccharides having one or more consecutive (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) glucosidic linkages and one or more consecutive (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) glucosidic linkages (Abstract), wherein (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages are at least 25% and the ratio between (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) and (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) linkages generally ranges between 20:80 and 90:10 (para. [0031]). It is advantageous that the gluco-oligosaccharide products are linear or contain linear stretches of primarily (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) and (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) glucosidic linkages, rendering them resistant to enzymatic attack in the small intestine (para. [0013]). The product is useful for inhibiting enzymes of the alpha-amylase type, such as salivary and pancreatic amylases. These enzymes normally act on a (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) malto-oligosaccharide chain with DP ranging from 4 – 6. It is hypothesized that the presence of non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages in an oligosaccharide only results in enzyme binding but not in glucose release. Addition of such oligosaccharides would lower the rate of metabolism of starch metabolism, thereby reducing the glycaemic index (GI) of a food product. A gluco-oligosaccharide (mixture) can therefore also help to reduce caloric value and/or the glycaemic load of food products. It thus contributes to a low GI diet. This is of particular interest for human health in general as well as in specific metabolic diseases, including diabetes mellitus and obesity (para. [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because both Summer et al. and ‘907A1 are directed to low-digestibility oligosaccharide composition and ‘907A1 teaches that increased non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages provide the desired benefits of resistance to enzymatic attack, reduced starch metabolism, reduced GI index, and reduced caloric value. One would have been motivated to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because ‘907A1 teaches the benefits of increased non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages. Furthermore, Summer et al. explicitly teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides, as well as the physical and functional properties of the lower digestible products may be achieved by controlling process parameters, such as time, temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst concentration and Summer et al. additionally teach carbohydrate compositions comprising α and/or β-glycosidic bonds at various carbon positions, such as a 1,6-glycosidic linkages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the linkage profile of the resulting glucose oligosaccharide composition is a result-effective variable that might be optimized through routine experimentation by adjusting process parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because Summer et al. teach that the saccharide distribution, degree of polymerization, and physical and functional properties of the resulting oligosaccharides may be controlled by adjusting process parameters and ‘907A1 teaches that increased 1,6-linkage content provides desirable low-digestibility and reduced calorie value.
Regarding claims 16 – 17 and 23 – 24, Summer teach that hydrochloric acid may be used as catalyst and that the pH of the feed composition may range from about 1.0 to about 2.5. As hydrochloric acid is a strong acid, a pH of about 1.0 corresponds to approximately 0.1 M HCl, which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 M to 0.15 M. Summer et al. further teach that catalyst concentration and pH are controllable process parameters for achieving the desired product profile. Therefore, the claimed HCl concentration would have been obvious as an result-effective process parameter.
Regarding claims 16, 18, 23, and 25, Summer et al. teach that the temperature range of the polymerization may be about 50 to 350 ⁰C, which overlaps the claimed range of 60 ⁰C to 98 ⁰C. One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best temperature for optimal polymerization based on the disclosed temperature range of Summer et al.
Regarding claims 19 and 26, Summer et al. teach that the treatment time ranges from about 5 seconds to about 5 days, depending on how the parameters cited herein are controlled. Non-limiting example is that the treatment time can range up to about 24 hours. The disclosure of Summer et al. falls within the claimed time “from 2.5 to 40 hours”. One would have been motivated to adjust the treatment time because Summer et al. explicitly teach that the treatment time depends on other parameters used in the reaction. One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best treatment time for optimal polymerization based on the disclosed treatment time of Summer et al.
Regarding claims 22 – 23, Summer et al. teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides, and physical and functional properties of the lower digestible products can be achieved by controlling the process parameters, such as time, temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst concentration. Summer et al. further teach compositions comprising greater than 90% glucose, less than about 30% DP1+2, on a dry weight basis, and a total amount of DP3-5 greater than about 20% (para. [0114]) as well as compositions comprising an amount of DP1+2, on a dry weight basis, ranging from about 10% to about 85%, and amount of DP3+, on a dry weight basis, ranging from about 40% to about 80% (para. [0115]). Thus, the claimed glucose, disaccharide, and DP3+ distribution represents an optimized saccharide distribution that may be obtained by routine experimentation by adjusting the process parameters. As Summer et al. teach controlling the same variables to obtain desired monosaccharide/disaccharide/oligosaccharide distributions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the process of Summer et al. to obtain the claimed composition profile.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant’s Remarks, filed May 5, 2026, have been fully considered and are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same primary reference in the prior rejection of record.
Regarding Li et al., Applicant argues that Li et al. requires the use of ALBTH and the Li et al. teach against catalyzing glycosylation of glucose with acid alone as the yield of the disaccharide barely exceed 20% and no oligosaccharides with DP>2 were detected and it would generate undesired side-products.
Regarding the new claim 23, Applicant states that it includes the combined subject matter of claims 16 and 22.
Applicant’s argument directed to Li et al. is moot because the new rejection is no longer based on Li et la.. The claims are rejected over Summer et al. in view of EP2248907A1. Summer et al. teach acid-catalyzed treatment of a glucose-containing aqueous saccharide feedstock using hydrochloric acid to promote polymerization and form lower digestibility glucose oligosaccharide compositions. Summer et al. further teach that the molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, saccharide distribution, and physical and functional properties of the products may be controlled by adjusting process parameters, such as time, temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst concentration. ‘907A1 is relied upon for teaching that increased non-hydrolyzable 1,6-linkage content provides desirable reduced digestibility, reduced glycermic response, and reduced caloric value. Therefore, the new combination of references renders the claimed invention obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16 – 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/837,294 in view of Summer et al. (US2016/0015065A1) and Groningen (EP2248907A1, hereinafter: ‘907A1, Reference included with PTO-892).
Regarding claims 16 – 19, ‘294 teaches a method for making the resistant dextrin, wherein the method comprising (a) providing a saccharide feed comprising at least 35 weight % on a dry solid basis of dextrose; (b) heating the saccharide feed to a temperature of at least 60 ⁰C; (c) adding the acidifying catalyst to form an acidic composition; (d) heating the acidic composition up to at least 120 ⁰C (claims 11 and 16).
However, ‘294 does not explicitly teach to prepare an aqueous solution consisting of water, glucose, and 0.01 M to 0.25 M hydrochloric acid. ‘294 does not teach the reaction time. ‘294 does not explicitly teach that the glucose oligosaccharide is having at least 45% or 50% of α- and β-1,6 linkages. ‘294 does not teach the composition comprising 30 wt% or more, on a dry basis, of glucose oligosaccharides having a DP of at least 3. ‘294 also does not disclose the glucose, disaccharide, and oligosaccharide distribution recited in claims 22 – 23.
Summer et al. teach carbohydrate compositions having lower digestibility and lower sugar compared to traditional nutritive sweeteners, methods of making the carbohydrate compositions (para. [0002]). The method comprises (i) a first treatment step comprising treating a saccharide to produce a reduced-sugar and lower-digestibility intermediate composition, followed by (ii) a second separation step comprising separating the desirable portion of the intermediate composition (para. [0042]). In various exemplary embodiments, the treatment step comprises contacting a saccharide feedstock (i.e. starting material) with at least one catalyst to obtain a feed composition. In some embodiments, the feedstock may be chosen from at least one saccharide in an aqueous solution, wherein the saccharide is glucose (para. [0066]), wherein the concentration of dry substance can range from about 30 to 95% (para. [0065]). In certain preferred embodiments, the catalyst may be hydrochloric acid (para. [0071]). The catalyst may be added to a concentration ranging up to about 1250 ppm (para. [0072]). The saccharide feedstock may have a pH in the range of about 3.0 to about 6.0 and inorganic acid may be added to adjust the pH of the feed composition to a desired pH. In certain preferred embodiments, the pH of the feed composition ranges from about 1.0 to about 2.5 (para. [0074]). The feed composition is then treated by being subjected to elevated temperature to promote polycondensation polymerization (para. [0045]). The temperature range may be about 50 to 350 ⁰C (para. [0062]). The treatment time can range from about 5 seconds to about 5 days, depending on how the parameters cited herein are controlled. Non-limiting example is that the treatment time can range up to about 24 hours (para. [0064]). Summer et al. teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides and polysaccharide, and physical and functional properties of lower digestible oligosaccharides can be achieved by controlling parameters in the process according to the disclosure, such as time, temperature, type and concentration of the catalyst (para. [0045]; [0052]; [0055 – 0056]). In some embodiments, the carbohydrate composition may comprise an amount of total DP3+, on a dry basis, ranging from about 40% to about 80% (para. [0115]). In various embodiments, the carbohydrate composition prepared may comprise branched saccharide with α and/or β-glycosidic bonds at various carbon positions, such as a 1,6-glycosidic linkages (para. [0095]), wherein the 1,6-glycosidic linkages may be in an amount of greater than about 10% in an exemplary embodiment (para. [0096]; [0114]). The carbohydrate composition may have reduced-calorie content (para. [0099]).
‘907A1 teaches a method for producing a mixture of gluco-oligosaccharides having one or more consecutive (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) glucosidic linkages and one or more consecutive (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) glucosidic linkages (Abstract), wherein (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages are at least 25% and the ratio between (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) and (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) linkages generally ranges between 20:80 and 90:10 (para. [0031]). It is advantageous that the gluco-oligosaccharide products are linear or contain linear stretches of primarily (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) and (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) glucosidic linkages, rendering them resistant to enzymatic attack in the small intestine (para. [0013]). The product is useful for inhibiting enzymes of the alpha-amylase type, such as salivary and pancreatic amylases. These enzymes normally act on a (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) malto-oligosaccharide chain with DP ranging from 4 – 6. It is hypothesized that the presence of non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages in an oligosaccharide only results in enzyme binding but not in glucose release. Addition of such oligosaccharides would lower the rate of metabolism of starch metabolism, thereby reducing the glycaemic index (GI) of a food product. A gluco-oligosaccharide (mixture) can therefore also help to reduce caloric value and/or the glycaemic load of food products. It thus contributes to a low GI diet. This is of particular interest for human health in general as well as in specific metabolic diseases, including diabetes mellitus and obesity (para. [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the acidifying catalyst as taught by ‘294 with hydrochloric acid and perform the polymerization reaction in aqueous condition in view of Summer et al. because both references teach the process for producing carbohydrate composition with polymerization. One would have been motivated to substitute the acidifying catalyst as taught by ‘294 with hydrochloric acid and perform the polymerization reaction in aqueous condition in view of Summer et al. because of the predictable results. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the acidifying catalyst as taught by ‘294 with hydrochloric acid and perform the polymerization reaction in aqueous condition in view of Summer et al. because ‘294 teach that acidifying catalyst should be added to the process and Summer et al. explicitly teach that the catalyst is hydrochloric acid.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by ‘294 and Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because ‘294, Summer et al. and ‘907A1 are directed to low-digestibility oligosaccharide composition and ‘907A1 teaches that increased non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages provide the desired benefits of resistance to enzymatic attack, reduced starch metabolism, reduced GI index, and reduced caloric value. One would have been motivated to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by ‘294 and Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because ‘907A1 teaches the benefits of increased non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages. Furthermore, Summer et al. explicitly teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides, as well as the physical and functional properties of the lower digestible products may be achieved by controlling process parameters, such as time, temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst concentration and Summer et al. additionally teach carbohydrate compositions comprising α and/or β-glycosidic bonds at various carbon positions, such as a 1,6-glycosidic linkages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the linkage profile of the resulting glucose oligosaccharide composition is a result-effective variable that might be optimized through routine experimentation by adjusting process parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by ‘294 and Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because Summer et al. teach that the saccharide distribution, degree of polymerization, and physical and functional properties of the resulting oligosaccharides may be controlled by adjusting process parameters and ‘907A1 teaches that increased 1,6-linkage content provides desirable low-digestibility and reduced calorie value.
Regarding claims 16 – 17 and 23 – 24, Summer teach that hydrochloric acid may be used as catalyst and that the pH of the feed composition may range from about 1.0 to about 2.5. As hydrochloric acid is a strong acid, a pH of about 1.0 corresponds to approximately 0.1 M HCl, which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 M to 0.15 M. Summer et al. further teach that catalyst concentration and pH are controllable process parameters for achieving the desired product profile. Therefore, the claimed HCl concentration would have been obvious as an result-effective process parameter.
Regarding claims 16, 18, 23, and 25, Summer et al. teach that the temperature range of the polymerization may be about 50 to 350 ⁰C, which overlaps the claimed range of 60 ⁰C to 98 ⁰C. One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best temperature for optimal polymerization based on the disclosed temperature range of Summer et al.
Regarding claims 19 and 26, Summer et al. teach that the treatment time ranges from about 5 seconds to about 5 days, depending on how the parameters cited herein are controlled. Non-limiting example is that the treatment time can range up to about 24 hours. The disclosure of Summer et al. falls within the claimed time “from 2.5 to 40 hours”. One would have been motivated to adjust the treatment time because Summer et al. explicitly teach that the treatment time depends on other parameters used in the reaction. One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best treatment time for optimal polymerization based on the disclosed treatment time of Summer et al.
Regarding claims 22 – 23, Summer et al. teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides, and physical and functional properties of the lower digestible products can be achieved by controlling the process parameters, such as time, temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst concentration. Summer et al. further teach compositions comprising greater than 90% glucose, less than about 30% DP1+2, on a dry weight basis, and a total amount of DP3-5 greater than about 20% (para. [0114]) as well as compositions comprising an amount of DP1+2, on a dry weight basis, ranging from about 10% to about 85%, and amount of DP3+, on a dry weight basis, ranging from about 40% to about 80% (para. [0115]). Thus, the claimed glucose, disaccharide, and DP3+ distribution represents an optimized saccharide distribution that may be obtained by routine experimentation by adjusting the process parameters. As Summer et al. teach controlling the same variables to obtain desired monosaccharide/disaccharide/oligosaccharide distributions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the process of Summer et al. to obtain the claimed composition profile.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 16 – 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/837,288 in view of Summer et al. (US2016/0015065A1) and Groningen (EP2248907A1, hereinafter: ‘907A1, Reference included with PTO-892).
Regarding claims 16 – 28, ‘288 teaches a method for making the resistant dextrin, wherein the method comprising (a) providing a saccharide feed comprising at least 35 weight % on a dry solid basis of dextrose; (b) heating the saccharide feed to a temperature of at least 60 ⁰C; (c) adding the acidifying catalyst to form an acidic composition; (d) heating the acidic composition up to at least 120 ⁰C (claims 11 and 16).
However, ‘288 does not explicitly teach to prepare an aqueous solution consisting of water, glucose, and 0.01 M to 0.25 M hydrochloric acid. ‘288 does not teach the reaction time. ‘288 does not explicitly teach that the glucose oligosaccharide is having at least 45% or 50% of α- and β-1,6 linkages. ‘288 does not teach the composition comprising 30 wt% or more, on a dry basis, of glucose oligosaccharides having a DP of at least 3. ‘288 also does not disclose the glucose, disaccharide, and oligosaccharide distribution recited in claims 22 – 23.
Summer et al. teach carbohydrate compositions having lower digestibility and lower sugar compared to traditional nutritive sweeteners, methods of making the carbohydrate compositions (para. [0002]). The method comprises (i) a first treatment step comprising treating a saccharide to produce a reduced-sugar and lower-digestibility intermediate composition, followed by (ii) a second separation step comprising separating the desirable portion of the intermediate composition (para. [0042]). In various exemplary embodiments, the treatment step comprises contacting a saccharide feedstock (i.e. starting material) with at least one catalyst to obtain a feed composition. In some embodiments, the feedstock may be chosen from at least one saccharide in an aqueous solution, wherein the saccharide is glucose (para. [0066]), wherein the concentration of dry substance can range from about 30 to 95% (para. [0065]). In certain preferred embodiments, the catalyst may be hydrochloric acid (para. [0071]). The catalyst may be added to a concentration ranging up to about 1250 ppm (para. [0072]). The saccharide feedstock may have a pH in the range of about 3.0 to about 6.0 and inorganic acid may be added to adjust the pH of the feed composition to a desired pH. In certain preferred embodiments, the pH of the feed composition ranges from about 1.0 to about 2.5 (para. [0074]). The feed composition is then treated by being subjected to elevated temperature to promote polycondensation polymerization (para. [0045]). The temperature range may be about 50 to 350 ⁰C (para. [0062]). The treatment time can range from about 5 seconds to about 5 days, depending on how the parameters cited herein are controlled. Non-limiting example is that the treatment time can range up to about 24 hours (para. [0064]). Summer et al. teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides and polysaccharide, and physical and functional properties of lower digestible oligosaccharides can be achieved by controlling parameters in the process according to the disclosure, such as time, temperature, type and concentration of the catalyst (para. [0045]; [0052]; [0055 – 0056]). In some embodiments, the carbohydrate composition may comprise an amount of total DP3+, on a dry basis, ranging from about 40% to about 80% (para. [0115]). In various embodiments, the carbohydrate composition prepared may comprise branched saccharide with α and/or β-glycosidic bonds at various carbon positions, such as a 1,6-glycosidic linkages (para. [0095]), wherein the 1,6-glycosidic linkages may be in an amount of greater than about 10% in an exemplary embodiment (para. [0096]; [0114]). The carbohydrate composition may have reduced-calorie content (para. [0099]).
‘907A1 teaches a method for producing a mixture of gluco-oligosaccharides having one or more consecutive (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) glucosidic linkages and one or more consecutive (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) glucosidic linkages (Abstract), wherein (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages are at least 25% and the ratio between (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) and (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) linkages generally ranges between 20:80 and 90:10 (para. [0031]). It is advantageous that the gluco-oligosaccharide products are linear or contain linear stretches of primarily (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) and (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) glucosidic linkages, rendering them resistant to enzymatic attack in the small intestine (para. [0013]). The product is useful for inhibiting enzymes of the alpha-amylase type, such as salivary and pancreatic amylases. These enzymes normally act on a (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) malto-oligosaccharide chain with DP ranging from 4 – 6. It is hypothesized that the presence of non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages in an oligosaccharide only results in enzyme binding but not in glucose release. Addition of such oligosaccharides would lower the rate of metabolism of starch metabolism, thereby reducing the glycaemic index (GI) of a food product. A gluco-oligosaccharide (mixture) can therefore also help to reduce caloric value and/or the glycaemic load of food products. It thus contributes to a low GI diet. This is of particular interest for human health in general as well as in specific metabolic diseases, including diabetes mellitus and obesity (para. [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the acidifying catalyst as taught by ‘288 with hydrochloric acid and perform the polymerization reaction in aqueous condition in view of Summer et al. because both references teach the process for producing carbohydrate composition with polymerization. One would have been motivated to substitute the acidifying catalyst as taught by ‘288 with hydrochloric acid and perform the polymerization reaction in aqueous condition in view of Summer et al. because of the predictable results. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the acidifying catalyst as taught by ‘288 with hydrochloric acid and perform the polymerization reaction in aqueous condition in view of Summer et al. because ‘288 teach that acidifying catalyst should be added to the process and Summer et al. explicitly teach that the catalyst is hydrochloric acid.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by ‘288 and Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because ‘288, Summer et al. and ‘907A1 are directed to low-digestibility oligosaccharide composition and ‘907A1 teaches that increased non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages provide the desired benefits of resistance to enzymatic attack, reduced starch metabolism, reduced GI index, and reduced caloric value. One would have been motivated to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by ‘288 and Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because ‘907A1 teaches the benefits of increased non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages. Furthermore, Summer et al. explicitly teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides, as well as the physical and functional properties of the lower digestible products may be achieved by controlling process parameters, such as time, temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst concentration and Summer et al. additionally teach carbohydrate compositions comprising α and/or β-glycosidic bonds at various carbon positions, such as a 1,6-glycosidic linkages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the linkage profile of the resulting glucose oligosaccharide composition is a result-effective variable that might be optimized through routine experimentation by adjusting process parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by ‘288 and Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because Summer et al. teach that the saccharide distribution, degree of polymerization, and physical and functional properties of the resulting oligosaccharides may be controlled by adjusting process parameters and ‘907A1 teaches that increased 1,6-linkage content provides desirable low-digestibility and reduced calorie value.
Regarding claims 16 – 17 and 23 – 24, Summer teach that hydrochloric acid may be used as catalyst and that the pH of the feed composition may range from about 1.0 to about 2.5. As hydrochloric acid is a strong acid, a pH of about 1.0 corresponds to approximately 0.1 M HCl, which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 M to 0.15 M. Summer et al. further teach that catalyst concentration and pH are controllable process parameters for achieving the desired product profile. Therefore, the claimed HCl concentration would have been obvious as an result-effective process parameter.
Regarding claims 16, 18, 23, and 25, Summer et al. teach that the temperature range of the polymerization may be about 50 to 350 ⁰C, which overlaps the claimed range of 60 ⁰C to 98 ⁰C. One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best temperature for optimal polymerization based on the disclosed temperature range of Summer et al.
Regarding claims 19 and 26, Summer et al. teach that the treatment time ranges from about 5 seconds to about 5 days, depending on how the parameters cited herein are controlled. Non-limiting example is that the treatment time can range up to about 24 hours. The disclosure of Summer et al. falls within the claimed time “from 2.5 to 40 hours”. One would have been motivated to adjust the treatment time because Summer et al. explicitly teach that the treatment time depends on other parameters used in the reaction. One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best treatment time for optimal polymerization based on the disclosed treatment time of Summer et al.
Regarding claims 22 – 23, Summer et al. teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides, and physical and functional properties of the lower digestible products can be achieved by controlling the process parameters, such as time, temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst concentration. Summer et al. further teach compositions comprising greater than 90% glucose, less than about 30% DP1+2, on a dry weight basis, and a total amount of DP3-5 greater than about 20% (para. [0114]) as well as compositions comprising an amount of DP1+2, on a dry weight basis, ranging from about 10% to about 85%, and amount of DP3+, on a dry weight basis, ranging from about 40% to about 80% (para. [0115]). Thus, the claimed glucose, disaccharide, and DP3+ distribution represents an optimized saccharide distribution that may be obtained by routine experimentation by adjusting the process parameters. As Summer et al. teach controlling the same variables to obtain desired monosaccharide/disaccharide/oligosaccharide distributions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the process of Summer et al. to obtain the claimed composition profile.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 16 – 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/837,300 in view of Summer et al. (US2016/0015065A1) and Groningen (EP2248907A1, hereinafter: ‘907A1, Reference included with PTO-892).
Regarding claims 16 – 28, ‘300 teaches a method for making the resistant dextrin, wherein the method comprising (a) providing a saccharide feed comprising at least 35 weight % on a dry solid basis of dextrose; (b) heating the saccharide feed to a temperature of at least 60 ⁰C; (c) adding the acidifying catalyst to form an acidic composition; (d) heating the acidic composition up to at least 120 ⁰C (claims 11 and 16).
However, ‘300 does not explicitly teach to prepare an aqueous solution consisting of water, glucose, and 0.01 M to 0.25 M hydrochloric acid. ‘300 does not teach the reaction time. ‘300 does not explicitly teach that the glucose oligosaccharide is having at least 45% or 50% of α- and β-1,6 linkages. ‘300 does not teach the composition comprising 30 wt% or more, on a dry basis, of glucose oligosaccharides having a DP of at least 3. ‘300 also does not disclose the glucose, disaccharide, and oligosaccharide distribution recited in claims 22 – 23.
Summer et al. teach carbohydrate compositions having lower digestibility and lower sugar compared to traditional nutritive sweeteners, methods of making the carbohydrate compositions (para. [0002]). The method comprises (i) a first treatment step comprising treating a saccharide to produce a reduced-sugar and lower-digestibility intermediate composition, followed by (ii) a second separation step comprising separating the desirable portion of the intermediate composition (para. [0042]). In various exemplary embodiments, the treatment step comprises contacting a saccharide feedstock (i.e. starting material) with at least one catalyst to obtain a feed composition. In some embodiments, the feedstock may be chosen from at least one saccharide in an aqueous solution, wherein the saccharide is glucose (para. [0066]), wherein the concentration of dry substance can range from about 30 to 95% (para. [0065]). In certain preferred embodiments, the catalyst may be hydrochloric acid (para. [0071]). The catalyst may be added to a concentration ranging up to about 1250 ppm (para. [0072]). The saccharide feedstock may have a pH in the range of about 3.0 to about 6.0 and inorganic acid may be added to adjust the pH of the feed composition to a desired pH. In certain preferred embodiments, the pH of the feed composition ranges from about 1.0 to about 2.5 (para. [0074]). The feed composition is then treated by being subjected to elevated temperature to promote polycondensation polymerization (para. [0045]). The temperature range may be about 50 to 350 ⁰C (para. [0062]). The treatment time can range from about 5 seconds to about 5 days, depending on how the parameters cited herein are controlled. Non-limiting example is that the treatment time can range up to about 24 hours (para. [0064]). Summer et al. teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides and polysaccharide, and physical and functional properties of lower digestible oligosaccharides can be achieved by controlling parameters in the process according to the disclosure, such as time, temperature, type and concentration of the catalyst (para. [0045]; [0052]; [0055 – 0056]). In some embodiments, the carbohydrate composition may comprise an amount of total DP3+, on a dry basis, ranging from about 40% to about 80% (para. [0115]). In various embodiments, the carbohydrate composition prepared may comprise branched saccharide with α and/or β-glycosidic bonds at various carbon positions, such as a 1,6-glycosidic linkages (para. [0095]), wherein the 1,6-glycosidic linkages may be in an amount of greater than about 10% in an exemplary embodiment (para. [0096]; [0114]). The carbohydrate composition may have reduced-calorie content (para. [0099]).
‘907A1 teaches a method for producing a mixture of gluco-oligosaccharides having one or more consecutive (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) glucosidic linkages and one or more consecutive (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) glucosidic linkages (Abstract), wherein (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages are at least 25% and the ratio between (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) and (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) linkages generally ranges between 20:80 and 90:10 (para. [0031]). It is advantageous that the gluco-oligosaccharide products are linear or contain linear stretches of primarily (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) and (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) glucosidic linkages, rendering them resistant to enzymatic attack in the small intestine (para. [0013]). The product is useful for inhibiting enzymes of the alpha-amylase type, such as salivary and pancreatic amylases. These enzymes normally act on a (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) malto-oligosaccharide chain with DP ranging from 4 – 6. It is hypothesized that the presence of non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages in an oligosaccharide only results in enzyme binding but not in glucose release. Addition of such oligosaccharides would lower the rate of metabolism of starch metabolism, thereby reducing the glycaemic index (GI) of a food product. A gluco-oligosaccharide (mixture) can therefore also help to reduce caloric value and/or the glycaemic load of food products. It thus contributes to a low GI diet. This is of particular interest for human health in general as well as in specific metabolic diseases, including diabetes mellitus and obesity (para. [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the acidifying catalyst as taught by ‘300 with hydrochloric acid and perform the polymerization reaction in aqueous condition in view of Summer et al. because both references teach the process for producing carbohydrate composition with polymerization. One would have been motivated to substitute the acidifying catalyst as taught by ‘300 with hydrochloric acid and perform the polymerization reaction in aqueous condition in view of Summer et al. because of the predictable results. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the acidifying catalyst as taught by ‘300 with hydrochloric acid and perform the polymerization reaction in aqueous condition in view of Summer et al. because ‘300 teach that acidifying catalyst should be added to the process and Summer et al. explicitly teach that the catalyst is hydrochloric acid.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by ‘300 and Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because ‘300, Summer et al. and ‘907A1 are directed to low-digestibility oligosaccharide composition and ‘907A1 teaches that increased non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages provide the desired benefits of resistance to enzymatic attack, reduced starch metabolism, reduced GI index, and reduced caloric value. One would have been motivated to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by ‘300 and Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because ‘907A1 teaches the benefits of increased non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages. Furthermore, Summer et al. explicitly teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides, as well as the physical and functional properties of the lower digestible products may be achieved by controlling process parameters, such as time, temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst concentration and Summer et al. additionally teach carbohydrate compositions comprising α and/or β-glycosidic bonds at various carbon positions, such as a 1,6-glycosidic linkages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the linkage profile of the resulting glucose oligosaccharide composition is a result-effective variable that might be optimized through routine experimentation by adjusting process parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by ‘300 and Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because Summer et al. teach that the saccharide distribution, degree of polymerization, and physical and functional properties of the resulting oligosaccharides may be controlled by adjusting process parameters and ‘907A1 teaches that increased 1,6-linkage content provides desirable low-digestibility and reduced calorie value.
Regarding claims 16 – 17 and 23 – 24, Summer teach that hydrochloric acid may be used as catalyst and that the pH of the feed composition may range from about 1.0 to about 2.5. As hydrochloric acid is a strong acid, a pH of about 1.0 corresponds to approximately 0.1 M HCl, which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 M to 0.15 M. Summer et al. further teach that catalyst concentration and pH are controllable process parameters for achieving the desired product profile. Therefore, the claimed HCl concentration would have been obvious as an result-effective process parameter.
Regarding claims 16, 18, 23, and 25, Summer et al. teach that the temperature range of the polymerization may be about 50 to 350 ⁰C, which overlaps the claimed range of 60 ⁰C to 98 ⁰C. One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best temperature for optimal polymerization based on the disclosed temperature range of Summer et al.
Regarding claims 19 and 26, Summer et al. teach that the treatment time ranges from about 5 seconds to about 5 days, depending on how the parameters cited herein are controlled. Non-limiting example is that the treatment time can range up to about 24 hours. The disclosure of Summer et al. falls within the claimed time “from 2.5 to 40 hours”. One would have been motivated to adjust the treatment time because Summer et al. explicitly teach that the treatment time depends on other parameters used in the reaction. One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best treatment time for optimal polymerization based on the disclosed treatment time of Summer et al.
Regarding claims 22 – 23, Summer et al. teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides, and physical and functional properties of the lower digestible products can be achieved by controlling the process parameters, such as time, temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst concentration. Summer et al. further teach compositions comprising greater than 90% glucose, less than about 30% DP1+2, on a dry weight basis, and a total amount of DP3-5 greater than about 20% (para. [0114]) as well as compositions comprising an amount of DP1+2, on a dry weight basis, ranging from about 10% to about 85%, and amount of DP3+, on a dry weight basis, ranging from about 40% to about 80% (para. [0115]). Thus, the claimed glucose, disaccharide, and DP3+ distribution represents an optimized saccharide distribution that may be obtained by routine experimentation by adjusting the process parameters. As Summer et al. teach controlling the same variables to obtain desired monosaccharide/disaccharide/oligosaccharide distributions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the process of Summer et al. to obtain the claimed composition profile.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 16 – 28 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/837,285 in view of Summer et al. (US2016/0015065A1) and Groningen (EP2248907A1, hereinafter: ‘907A1, Reference included with PTO-892).
Regarding claims 16 – 28, ‘285 teaches a method for making the resistant dextrin, wherein the method comprising (a) providing a saccharide feed comprising at least 35 weight % on a dry solid basis of dextrose; (b) heating the saccharide feed to a temperature of at least 60 ⁰C; (c) adding the acidifying catalyst to form an acidic composition; (d) heating the acidic composition up to at least 120 ⁰C (claims 11 and 16).
However, ‘285 does not explicitly teach to prepare an aqueous solution consisting of water, glucose, and 0.01 M to 0.25 M hydrochloric acid. ‘285 does not teach the reaction time. ‘285 does not explicitly teach that the glucose oligosaccharide is having at least 45% or 50% of α- and β-1,6 linkages. ‘285 does not teach the composition comprising 30 wt% or more, on a dry basis, of glucose oligosaccharides having a DP of at least 3. ‘285 also does not disclose the glucose, disaccharide, and oligosaccharide distribution recited in claims 22 – 23.
Summer et al. teach carbohydrate compositions having lower digestibility and lower sugar compared to traditional nutritive sweeteners, methods of making the carbohydrate compositions (para. [0002]). The method comprises (i) a first treatment step comprising treating a saccharide to produce a reduced-sugar and lower-digestibility intermediate composition, followed by (ii) a second separation step comprising separating the desirable portion of the intermediate composition (para. [0042]). In various exemplary embodiments, the treatment step comprises contacting a saccharide feedstock (i.e. starting material) with at least one catalyst to obtain a feed composition. In some embodiments, the feedstock may be chosen from at least one saccharide in an aqueous solution, wherein the saccharide is glucose (para. [0066]), wherein the concentration of dry substance can range from about 30 to 95% (para. [0065]). In certain preferred embodiments, the catalyst may be hydrochloric acid (para. [0071]). The catalyst may be added to a concentration ranging up to about 1250 ppm (para. [0072]). The saccharide feedstock may have a pH in the range of about 3.0 to about 6.0 and inorganic acid may be added to adjust the pH of the feed composition to a desired pH. In certain preferred embodiments, the pH of the feed composition ranges from about 1.0 to about 2.5 (para. [0074]). The feed composition is then treated by being subjected to elevated temperature to promote polycondensation polymerization (para. [0045]). The temperature range may be about 50 to 350 ⁰C (para. [0062]). The treatment time can range from about 5 seconds to about 5 days, depending on how the parameters cited herein are controlled. Non-limiting example is that the treatment time can range up to about 24 hours (para. [0064]). Summer et al. teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides and polysaccharide, and physical and functional properties of lower digestible oligosaccharides can be achieved by controlling parameters in the process according to the disclosure, such as time, temperature, type and concentration of the catalyst (para. [0045]; [0052]; [0055 – 0056]). In some embodiments, the carbohydrate composition may comprise an amount of total DP3+, on a dry basis, ranging from about 40% to about 80% (para. [0115]). In various embodiments, the carbohydrate composition prepared may comprise branched saccharide with α and/or β-glycosidic bonds at various carbon positions, such as a 1,6-glycosidic linkages (para. [0095]), wherein the 1,6-glycosidic linkages may be in an amount of greater than about 10% in an exemplary embodiment (para. [0096]; [0114]). The carbohydrate composition may have reduced-calorie content (para. [0099]).
‘907A1 teaches a method for producing a mixture of gluco-oligosaccharides having one or more consecutive (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) glucosidic linkages and one or more consecutive (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) glucosidic linkages (Abstract), wherein (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages are at least 25% and the ratio between (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) and (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) linkages generally ranges between 20:80 and 90:10 (para. [0031]). It is advantageous that the gluco-oligosaccharide products are linear or contain linear stretches of primarily (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) and (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) glucosidic linkages, rendering them resistant to enzymatic attack in the small intestine (para. [0013]). The product is useful for inhibiting enzymes of the alpha-amylase type, such as salivary and pancreatic amylases. These enzymes normally act on a (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]4) malto-oligosaccharide chain with DP ranging from 4 – 6. It is hypothesized that the presence of non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages in an oligosaccharide only results in enzyme binding but not in glucose release. Addition of such oligosaccharides would lower the rate of metabolism of starch metabolism, thereby reducing the glycaemic index (GI) of a food product. A gluco-oligosaccharide (mixture) can therefore also help to reduce caloric value and/or the glycaemic load of food products. It thus contributes to a low GI diet. This is of particular interest for human health in general as well as in specific metabolic diseases, including diabetes mellitus and obesity (para. [0035]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the acidifying catalyst as taught by ‘285 with hydrochloric acid and perform the polymerization reaction in aqueous condition in view of Summer et al. because both references teach the process for producing carbohydrate composition with polymerization. One would have been motivated to substitute the acidifying catalyst as taught by ‘285 with hydrochloric acid and perform the polymerization reaction in aqueous condition in view of Summer et al. because of the predictable results. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to substitute the acidifying catalyst as taught by ‘285 with hydrochloric acid and perform the polymerization reaction in aqueous condition in view of Summer et al. because ‘285 teach that acidifying catalyst should be added to the process and Summer et al. explicitly teach that the catalyst is hydrochloric acid.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by ‘285 and Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because ‘285, Summer et al. and ‘907A1 are directed to low-digestibility oligosaccharide composition and ‘907A1 teaches that increased non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages provide the desired benefits of resistance to enzymatic attack, reduced starch metabolism, reduced GI index, and reduced caloric value. One would have been motivated to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by ‘285 and Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because ‘907A1 teaches the benefits of increased non-hydrolyzable (α1[Wingdings font/0xE0]6) linkages. Furthermore, Summer et al. explicitly teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides, as well as the physical and functional properties of the lower digestible products may be achieved by controlling process parameters, such as time, temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst concentration and Summer et al. additionally teach carbohydrate compositions comprising α and/or β-glycosidic bonds at various carbon positions, such as a 1,6-glycosidic linkages. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the linkage profile of the resulting glucose oligosaccharide composition is a result-effective variable that might be optimized through routine experimentation by adjusting process parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the linkage profile of the glucose oligosaccharide as taught by ‘285 and Summer et al. to increase the amount of 1,6-glycosidic linkages in view of ‘907A1 because Summer et al. teach that the saccharide distribution, degree of polymerization, and physical and functional properties of the resulting oligosaccharides may be controlled by adjusting process parameters and ‘907A1 teaches that increased 1,6-linkage content provides desirable low-digestibility and reduced calorie value.
Regarding claims 16 – 17 and 23 – 24, Summer teach that hydrochloric acid may be used as catalyst and that the pH of the feed composition may range from about 1.0 to about 2.5. As hydrochloric acid is a strong acid, a pH of about 1.0 corresponds to approximately 0.1 M HCl, which falls within the claimed range of 0.05 M to 0.15 M. Summer et al. further teach that catalyst concentration and pH are controllable process parameters for achieving the desired product profile. Therefore, the claimed HCl concentration would have been obvious as an result-effective process parameter.
Regarding claims 16, 18, 23, and 25, Summer et al. teach that the temperature range of the polymerization may be about 50 to 350 ⁰C, which overlaps the claimed range of 60 ⁰C to 98 ⁰C. One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best temperature for optimal polymerization based on the disclosed temperature range of Summer et al.
Regarding claims 19 and 26, Summer et al. teach that the treatment time ranges from about 5 seconds to about 5 days, depending on how the parameters cited herein are controlled. Non-limiting example is that the treatment time can range up to about 24 hours. The disclosure of Summer et al. falls within the claimed time “from 2.5 to 40 hours”. One would have been motivated to adjust the treatment time because Summer et al. explicitly teach that the treatment time depends on other parameters used in the reaction. One would have performed routine experimentation to discover the best treatment time for optimal polymerization based on the disclosed treatment time of Summer et al.
Regarding claims 22 – 23, Summer et al. teach that the desired molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, distribution of monosaccharides, disaccharides, oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides, and physical and functional properties of the lower digestible products can be achieved by controlling the process parameters, such as time, temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst concentration. Summer et al. further teach compositions comprising greater than 90% glucose, less than about 30% DP1+2, on a dry weight basis, and a total amount of DP3-5 greater than about 20% (para. [0114]) as well as compositions comprising an amount of DP1+2, on a dry weight basis, ranging from about 10% to about 85%, and amount of DP3+, on a dry weight basis, ranging from about 40% to about 80% (para. [0115]). Thus, the claimed glucose, disaccharide, and DP3+ distribution represents an optimized saccharide distribution that may be obtained by routine experimentation by adjusting the process parameters. As Summer et al. teach controlling the same variables to obtain desired monosaccharide/disaccharide/oligosaccharide distributions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in optimizing the process of Summer et al. to obtain the claimed composition profile.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant’s Remarks, filed May 5, 2026, have been fully considered and are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the Li et al.
Regarding Li et al., Applicant argues that Li et al. requires the use of ALBTH and the Li et al. teach against catalyzing glycosylation of glucose with acid alone as the yield of the disaccharide barely exceed 20% and no oligosaccharides with DP>2 were detected and it would generate undesired side-products.
Regarding the new claim 23, Applicant states that it includes the combined subject matter of claims 16 and 22.
Applicant’s argument directed to Li et al. is moot because the new rejection is no longer based on Li et la.. The claims are rejected over the copending applications in view of Summer et al. and EP2248907A1. Summer et al. teach acid-catalyzed treatment of a glucose-containing aqueous saccharide feedstock using hydrochloric acid to promote polymerization and form lower digestibility glucose oligosaccharide compositions. Summer et al. further teach that the molecular weight distribution, degree of polymerization, saccharide distribution, and physical and functional properties of the products may be controlled by adjusting process parameters, such as time, temperature, catalyst type, and catalyst concentration. ‘907A1 is relied upon for teaching that increased non-hydrolyzable 1,6-linkage content provides desirable reduced digestibility, reduced glycermic response, and reduced caloric value. Therefore, the new combination of references renders the claimed invention obvious.
Conclusion
No claim is found to be allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI YAN LEE whose telephone number is 571-270-0265. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 - 17:30.
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, SCARLETT GOON can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/H.Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights