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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 11/28/2025 has been entered. Applicant arguments are convincing and a revised rejection is being provided for claims 1-17 in the current application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4, 7 and 13 are objected for the recitation of term “and/or” in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
For the purpose of this office action the above recitation will be assumed to be equivalent of either “and” OR “or”; i.e. the “/” is equivalent of or.
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 12 and 15 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.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 recites multiple limitations that start with “in any case” followed by some ingredient (such as “contains pulses and cereals”) followed by “processed according to the method of the preceding claims”. It is not clear what this means. Claim 15 depends from claim 14, and claim 14 depends from claim 1, and as such, it appears “preceding claims” is simply a reference to claims 1 and 14 from which claim 15 depends. But the preceding claims do not have the recited ingredients. Further, it is still not clear what “case” is being referred to by the limitation “in any case” and why are ingredients being listed if they are simply in accordance with “preceding claims”. For the purposes of this office action, claim 15 will be considered to not further limit claims 1 and 14.
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:
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(s) 1-3, 7, 9-10, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS reference to Sridevi, hereinafter D1 in view of IDS reference Franz (DE 19650666 C1, (English translation provided by applicant and citations are from translation), hereinafter D2.
Regarding claim 1, D1 teaches a. method for producing a mushy mass, comprising
(a) allowing cereals, pseudo cereals, pulses and/or oilseeds to swell but not to germinate (Page 557, abstract and page 558, column 1, “preparation of idli batter” where soaking rice, a cereal and dehulled black gram , a legume /pulse, is taught by D1. Di1 also teaches soaking for 6-8 hours but follows the soaking step with grinding, so the soaked cereal and legume do not germinate);
(b) wet grinding of the swelled cereals, pseudo cereals, the pulses and/or the oilseeds to form a mushy mass (D1 page 558, column 1, “preparation of idli batter” where soaked ingredients are ground to fine paste/ mushy mass);
Regarding steps (c) and (d) which are directed to first and second fermentation steps, D1 does teaches fermenting of the mushy mass using acid-forming microorganisms and the already fermented mushy mass using CO2-forming microorganisms (D1 page 557 abstract and page 558, column 1, “preparation of idli batter” where acid forming microbes and carbon dioxide producing microbes are taught) ; and
D1 teaches both fermentations but D1 differs from claim 1 in that fermentations are simultaneous and not performed separately as recited in claim 1.
Regarding the “first and second fermenting takes place separated from one another in time and/or space, and wherein the consistency of the mushy mass is substantially maintained between the first and second fermentation”, inoculation with a starter culture or starter cultures for microbial fermentation either in one step or fermenting partially at one time and finish the fermentation at another time as a separate fermentation steps was known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as taught by D2. D2 teaches of fermentation of cereal grain, pseudo cereal mixtures (abstract), where the part of fermentation is done to create a pre- dough that is packaged and stored and at consumer preferred time water yeast and other ground grain products ingredients including sunflower seeds, linseed, etc. and kneaded to create a ready to bake dough (Para 8 of Machine translation of D2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to separate the first and second fermenting steps such that takes place separated from one another in time and/or space, and wherein the consistency of the mushy mass is substantially maintained between the first and second fermentation. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify D1 at least for the purpose of providing a fermented dough/ batter product that is shelf stable and stored at room temperature and can be processed into a ready to bake dough by mixing other grain products, yeast and water along with ingredients like sunflower seeds, linseed, etc. (as taught by Para 7 and 8 of machine translation of D2).
Regarding claim 2, D1 teaches the method according to claim 1, comprising (c') filling or transferring the once-fermented mass into another vessel (D1 teaches grinding the soaked grain and pulses and since grinding is typically done in a mixer, which is a container or vessel other than a soaking vessel. Further D1 teaches adding fermented idli batter to measuring cylinders (another vessel) and covered with foil to achieve batter to rise.
Regarding claim 3, the method according to claim 1, comprising (e) optionally mixing the twice-fermented mushy mass(es), which is a method step that is not required. However, mixing a fermented batter/ dough to create a uniform mixture is conventional and this optional step does not lend patentable distinction to the invention as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, D1 teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the cereal is rice, wheat, spelt, oat, barley, rye, maize or common millet (D1 page 558, column 1, “preparation of idli batter” where cereal is rice).
Regarding claim 9, D1 teaches the method according to claim , wherein the pulse is lentils, beans, peas, peanuts, chickpeas, soya or sweet lupins (D1 page 558, column 1, “preparation of idli batter” where pulse is black gram Vigna mungo is a bean).
Regarding claim 10, D1 teaches the method of claim 1, D1 is silent regarding adding oilseed and wherein the oilseed is pumpkin seeds, flaxseed, hempseed or poppy seeds, however, fermented batter/ dough products containing oilseeds, like sunflower seed and linseed/ flax seeds was known at the time of the effective filing date of the invention as taught by D2 (see Machine translation para 9). Oilseeds are economical a rich source of calories and nutrients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify D1 to include one or more oilseeds in the fermentation batter/ dough. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify D1 at least for the purpose of providing a fermented batter/ dough product (as taught by D2 in para 9) with enhanced level of nutrients while also providing variety in the fermentation batter.
Regarding claim 12, D1 teaches the method according to claim 1, , wherein an artificial leaven, for example baking powder, is not added in any step (see D1, Pages 557 abstract and pages 558- 559 where materials and methods are described and there is no artificial leavening agent taught) .
Regarding claim 13, D1 teaches a method of producing a dish, comprising cooking the mushy mass obtained or obtainable according to the method of claim 1 (D1, Page 557, abstract teaches idlis prepared using the fermented batter, page 561, column 1, para 2 where prepared idli texture is discussed, i.e., idli is a product obtained by cooking the mushy mass as claimed) .
Regarding claim 14 and 15, D1 teaches the method according to claim 1, where mushy mass obtained or obtainable according to the method according to claim 1 (see D1 where grinding soaked cereal and black gram is taught to form a paste, i.e., a mushy mass , see page 558, column 1, “preparation of idli batter”). Claim 14 recites limitation that is essentially the product obtained by claim 1 step (b). Also see 35 USC 112 (second paragraph rejection) above.
Regarding claim 16, D1 teaches the method for producing a dish, comprising
(f) cooking the mushy mass according to claim 14 (D1, Page 557, abstract teaches idlis prepared/ made/ cooked using the fermented batter, page 561, column 1, para 2 where prepared idli texture is discussed, i.e., idli is a product obtained by cooking the mushy mass as claimed).
Regarding claim 17, D1 teaches the method of claim 16, where fermented food is prepared, therefore the dish, obtained or obtainable according to the method according to claim 16.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS references to Sridevi, hereinafter D1 and Franz (Machine translation), hereinafter D2, as applied above to claims 1-3, further in view of IDS reference to Blandino et al, hereinafter D3.
Regarding claim 4, D1 teaches fermenting but is silent regarding adding other ingredients, however, D2 teaches sunflower seed and linseed/ flaxseeds (Para 8 of machine translation of D2). Further, it was known to add small quantity of salt to the idli fermentation batter (Page 535, column 1, section 3.1 of D3) , which meets the limitation as claimed wherein method of claim 1 further comprising adding spices, salt, cooking oil, sweetener, milk product, nut flour, chopped vegetables, and/or moisture -increasing agents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify D1 to include the above cited missing limitations. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify D1 at least for the purpose of providing a fermented batter/ dough product that includes salt to enhance flavor and to aid in fermentation of the batter/ dough product, (as taught on page 535, column of D3).
Regarding claims 5-6, the method according to claim 1, comprising wherein the first fermenting is 8-14 hours (claim 5) and “the first fermenting is 15 to 25 minutes” (claim 6). Since claims 5 and 6 both are directed to duration of first fermentation, it follows that are both are alternate methods of achieving the desired level of fermentation
D1 teaches fermentation on Page 557, Column 1, abstract and Tables 1 and 2 on pages 558-559, however where the fermentation time is not specified but rather fermented batter’s titrable acidity and pH are measured. However, overnight fermentation of cereal and other grains or legumes combinations was known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, which meets the claimed duration of claim 5. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify D1 to include the above cited missing limitations. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify D1 and ferment the inoculated idli batter overnight, i.e., 8-12 hours at room temperature at least for the purpose of providing a desired level of fermentation or titrable acidity or volume increase due to CO 2 production in the fermented batter/ dough product that includes salt to enhance flavor and to aid in fermentation of the batter/ dough product, as described in D1 (abstract and tables 1-2) and as explained on page 535, column 1 of D3).
Regarding the limitation of claim 6, which limits the first fermentation to a shortened duration of 15-25 minutes,(claim 6), it is noted that unlike claim 5 which recites a typical overnight fermentation duration, claim 6 is directed to instant fermentation alternative which also depends from claim 1 and does not provide any added ingredients or any specific steps to achieve a desired level similar level of fermentation in 15-25 minutes.. Further, claim 6 merely specifies the fermentation duration without providing any other variables or fermentation conditions like the temperature of fermentation mixture,
fast CO2 producing ingredients or fast acid producing ingredients to speed the fermentation process. In the instant case D1 teaches fermentation based on desired level of CO2 production to about 23 %, titrable acidity of 2.4-3.5%and pH of 4.3 to 4.4 and desired, thus the duration of fermentation is not a limiting criteria for D1. Based on the teaching of D1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify fermentation variables, temperature, acidity, CO2 level of fermented product as listed above to achieve a desired fermentation time, for example the claimed fermentation time of 15-25 minutes.
Note: As the claim 6 merely provides a shortened time duration for first fermentation without any other information it is not possible for the limitation of claim 6 to be fully considered.
Regarding claim 11, the method according to claim 1, comprising, wherein the portion of the pulses is at least 25%, D1 teaches rice to legume ratio of 4:1 before soaking (Page 558, column 1, materials and methods section, para 2 of D1), which makes the pulse proportion to be about 20%. However, modifying the amount of pulses in a fermented cereal and pulse batter based at least on the desired nutritive value of the fermented product was known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as taught by D3. D3 teaches rice: black gram ratio of 2:1 which makes the proportion of black gram, a pulse to be about 33% which falls in the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify D1 to include the above cited missing limitations. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify D1 and include the pulse content in the recited range as is taught by D3, i.e., at least 25% of pulse, at least for the purpose of providing a desired level of legume based nutrients in the fermented batter (see page 535, column 1 of D3).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS references to Sridevi, hereinafter D1 and Franz (Machine translation), hereinafter D2, as applied above to claims 1-3, further in view of IDS reference DE 3905055 A1 to Wiesenberger et al, (English translation provided by applicant and citations are from translation), hereinafter D4.
Regarding claim 8, D1 is silent regarding the pseudo cereal is buckwheat, sesame, amaranth, quinoa or chia. (D1 page 558, column 1, “preparation of idli batter” where soaked ingredients are ground to fine paste/ mushy mass). However, fermented products like idli or other fermented products were well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize one or more pseudo cereal products listed above, as taught by D4. D4 translation para 27 teaches lactic fermented products obtained from sesame and buckwheat, which fall in the list of pseudo cereals recited in claim 8. Based on the teaching of D4, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify D1 to utilize buckwheat and /or sesame to employ the fermentation method. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify D1 and include the buckwheat , sesame or other pseudo cereals as s is taught by D4, at least for the purpose of providing a gluten free ingredient in the fermented batter (see para 27 pf machine translation of D4 for pseudo cereals listed in the claim. ).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/18/2025, with respect to rejection of claim 1-17 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection is withdrawn and new rejection provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Debashree Ghosh "Preparation of idli batter, its properties and nutritional improvement during fermentation", Journal of Food Science and Technology, September October 2011, 48(5):610-615.- is cited for relative proportion of bean/ pulse proportion and general method steps of making fermented food idli.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI CHAWLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30- 5:30.
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, 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.
/JYOTI CHAWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791