DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Non-final Rejection is in response to the Amendment dated March 12, 2026 filed in response to the Final Rejection dated December 19, 2025 and Advisory Action dated March 9, 2026.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection in the Final Rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments made to claim 1 distinguishing the claim over the cited anticipating prior art reference. However, claim 1, as amended, is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as explained below.
Response to Arguments
In the fourth paragraph of page 6 of the Amendment, Applicant first argues Bohm is silent on the concept of an adjustable compacted bed because paragraph [0084] of Bohm merely discloses a variable roller gap during milling. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph [0084] of Bohm discloses adjusting the thickness of the compacted bed of material between the rollers of mills 16 by increasing the volume of grain in the roller gap to increase the size of the roller gap. Adjusting the volume of grain being fed to the mill adjusts the thickness of the compacted bed.
Then, starting in the bottom half of page 6, Applicant argues the adjustable compacted bed of material provides numerous unexpected advantages over the prior art and cites M.P.E.P. 716.02. Examiner does not find the argument persuasive. The argued advantages are not a “marked improvement, over the results achieved under other ratios, as to be classified as a difference in kind, rather than one of degree” as argued, but are merely arguable differences between the claimed invention and what Applicant considers the prior art as teaching.
Next, in the second and third full paragraphs of page 7, Applicant asserts one skilled in the art would readily appreciate the adjustable compacted bed can be obtained before performing the MBC milling without providing any context or reasoning supporting the assertion. To the extent Applicant does not provide explanation as to why one of skill in the art would readily appreciate the asserted premise, Examiner does not find the assertion persuasive and cannot fully respond.
Next, in the bottom half of page 7, Applicant argues claim 1 as amended is patentably distinct and non-obvious over the cited reference. Examiner agrees to the extent the amendments to claim 1 distinguishes the claim from Bohm used as the anticipating prior art reference in the previous Office action. However, Examiner disagrees the prior art does not teach claim 1 as amended. The prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering does render claim 1 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103 as explained in detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2011/0186661 A1 by Bohm et al., hereinafter “Bohm”, in view of United Kingdom Published Patent Application No. GB 2 269 976 A by Andreae-Jackering, hereinafter “Jackering”.
Regarding claim 1, Bohm discloses a process for milling vegetable-based material, to produce dehulled or/and fractionate flour (the process mill diagram shown in Fig. 7; ¶[0116]), comprising:
- producing an adjustable compacted bed of material that preserves starch and fibers from the vegetable-based material (an adjustable compacted bed of material preserving starch and fibers is produced by adjusting the volume of grain 20 introduced into the variable roller gap of roller mills 16 in Fig. 7 as disclosed in ¶[0084]) including:
- compacting the vegetable-based material to a thickness to obtain the adjustable compacted bed of material (roller mills 16 in Fig. 7 compact vegetable-based material grain 20 in the variable roller gap to obtain the adjustable compacted bed of material),
- performing a Material Bed Compression (MBC) milling of the vegetable-based material on an adjustable compacted bed of material (Material bed roller mills 16 in Fig. 7 perform material bed compression as shown in Fig. 9. As explained in the Response to Arguments section above, ¶[0084] discloses increasing grain volume which would include adjusting the compacted bed of material.),
- performing a first air classification of the milled material to obtain a first fine fraction on one side and a first coarse fraction on another side (air classifier zigzag separators 13 and cyclone separators 18 in Fig. 7 removes coarse bran from the fine ground product),
- performing a first post-treatment to the first fine fraction to obtain separate flour (the fine ground product is successively milled and classified again in further stages as shown in Fig. 7), and
- recycling the first coarse fraction to the MBC milling (Fig. 7 shows the return of the coarse bran to bed roller mills 16).
Bohm does not disclose controlling fibre elasticity of the vegetable-based material with a hydration phase.
In the same field of processing wheat flour, Jackering teaches it was known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mix wheat grain with water and then condition the mixture prior to milling it in an impact mill. See the abstract and the figure. The last paragraph on page 1 of the written description teaches conditioners 11 in the figure are used in a hydration phase to hydrate the husked wheat by allowing moisture to fully seep into the wheat.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Jackering with the process disclosed by Bohm to achieve the predictable result of Bohm’s process where fibre elasticity of the wheat is controlled with a hydration phase as Jackering teaches.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering renders the process according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Jackering teaches it is known to mix wheat grain with water and then condition the mixture to stabilize it prior to milling it in an impact mill. See the abstract and the last paragraph on page 1 of the written description.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering renders the process according to claim 3 unpatentable as explained above. Bohm further discloses wherein said material comprises wheat grain, and the first post-treatment to the first fine fraction delivers wheat bran on one side and wheat flour on another side. Paragraph [0116] discloses wheat is milled in mill 16 and is then separated into bran and ground product flour.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering renders the process according to claim 4 unpatentable as explained above. Fig. 7 of Bohm shows successive stages of milling and air classification where the coarser material is separated from the finer material so that the coarser material may be recycled to be further milled.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering renders the process according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Bohm further disclose adjusting a thickness of the adjustable compacted bed of material by varying the roller gap and/or adjusting the grain volume fed to the roller gap. See paragraph [0084]. Bohm does not disclose a thickness range of from 10mm to 100mm. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of the adjustable compacted bed of material within the range of 10mm to 100mm since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, Bohm’s process would not perform differently with the claimed range. Further, applicant has placed no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply the bed thickness ranges from 10mm to 100mm. See paragraph [0044] of applicant’s written description.
Regarding claim 14, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering renders the process according to claim 3 unpatentable as explained above. Jackering teaches adjusting moisture content of the vegetable-based material with the hydration phase. See the last paragraph of page 1. But Jackering does not teach a specific contact time of between 30 minutes to 18 hours. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the seeping, i.e. contact time, taught by Jackering to be between 30 minutes to 18 hours since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, Bohm’s process would not perform differently with the claimed range. Further, applicant has placed no criticality on the range claimed. Paragraphs [0053], [0056], [0063], [0074] and [0084] of Applicant’s written description merely state a contact time of 30 minutes to 18 hours in often used.
Claims 2, 6-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm in view of U.S. Patent No. US 7,097,871 to Rudie et al., hereinafter “Rudie”.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering renders the process according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. However, Bohm does not disclose the milling material is peas seeds.
In the same field of processing vegetable-based material, Rudie teaches a method of milling vegetable powders which includes dehulling, steaming, milling and classifying millable vegetable material. See the abstract. Col. 3, line 5-14 defines “millable vegetables” to include peas.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use peas as the milling material in Bohm’s process in the same way Rudie teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Rudie to the process of Bohm would yield the predictable result of using Bohm’s process to mill peas.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering renders the process of claim 3 unpatentable as explained above. Bohm does not disclose the milling material is peas seeds as claim 6 claims.
In the same field of processing vegetable-based material, Rudie teaches a method of milling vegetable powders which includes dehulling, steaming, milling and classifying millable vegetable material. See the abstract. Col. 3, line 5-14 defines “millable vegetables” to include peas.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use peas as the milling material in Bohm’s process in the same way Rudie teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Rudie to the process of Bohm would yield the predictable result of using Bohm’s process to mill peas.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering and further in view of Rudie renders the process of claim 6 unpatentable as explained above. Bohm further discloses sieving the first coarse fraction in plan sifters 15 shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 12. See paragraphs [0116] and [0123]. When peas are used as the milling material according to the teaching of Rudie, milled peas will be sieved in Bohm’s plan sifter sieves 15 to obtain coarser and finer fractions.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering and further in view of Rudie renders the process of claim 7 unpatentable as explained above. Fig. 7 of Bohm shows successive stages of milling and air classification where the coarser material is separated from the finer material so that the coarser material may be recycled to be further milled. When peas are used as the milling material according to the teaching of Rudie, peas will be processed in these successive stages.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering renders the process according to claim 1 unpatentable as explained above. Bohm further discloses sieving the milled material in plan sifter 15 shown in Figs. 7 and 12 and recycling the coarse fraction. See paragraphs [0116] and [0123]. However, Bohm does not disclose the milling material is pulse seeds. Applicant defines “pulse seed” to include peas. See paragraph [0002] of the written description.
In the same field of processing vegetable-based material, Rudie teaches a method of milling vegetable powders which includes dehulling, steaming, milling and classifying millable vegetable material. See the abstract. Col. 3, line 5-14 defines “millable vegetables” to include peas.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use peas as the milling material in Bohm’s process in the same way Rudie teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Rudie to the process of Bohm would yield the predictable result of using Bohm’s process to mill peas.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm in view of Jackering and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2014/0252141 A1 by Weinmann et al., hereinafter “Weinmann”.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering renders the process of claim 3 unpatentable as explained above. Bohm does not disclose the milling material is sunflower as claim 9 claims.
Weinmann teaches a method for producing flour by passing raw material through a roller press. See the abstract and Fig. 1. Paragraphs [0009] and [0010] teach the raw material milled by the roller press may be sunflower seeds.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sunflower as the milling material in Bohm’s process in the same way Weinmann teaches. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized applying the teaching of Weinmann to the process of Bohm would yield the predictable result of using Bohm’s process to mill sunflower.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering and further in view of Weinmann renders the process of claim 9 unpatentable as explained above. Bohm further discloses sieving the first coarse fraction in plan sifters 15 shown in Fig. 7 and Fig. 12. See paragraphs [0116] and [0123]. When sunflower is used as the milling material according to the teaching of Weinmann, milled sunflower will be sieved in Bohm’s plan sifter sieves 15 to obtain coarser and finer fractions.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art reference combination of Bohm in view of Jackering and further in view of Weinmann renders the process of claim 10 unpatentable as explained above. Fig. 7 of Bohm shows successive stages of milling and air classification where the coarser material is separated from the finer material so that the coarser material may be recycled to be further milled. When sunflower is used as the milling material according to the teaching of Weinmann, sunflower will be processed in these successive stages.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DEREK PRESSLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-6658. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 3:30pm Eastern.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/P DEREK PRESSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights