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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed 12/17/25. Claims 1,3-5, 13-14 are amended.
It’s noted that claims 6-12 are identified as currently amended or previously presented. The claims are also directed to withdrawn claims as directed to non-elected invention. The claims need to be identified as “ withdrawn-currently amended” not just currently amended.
Election/Restrictions
Amended claims 13-14 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: The amended claim 13 is directed to a method of formulating and aqueous coating and glazing composition. The new method is different from the original elected claim 1 which is directed a method for coating and glazing ready to eat breakfast cereals by applying onto a surface a mixture. The method of claim 1 and method of amended claim 13 do not share the same or corresponding special technical feature. The amended claim 13 does not require the applying step of claim 1. The method of claim 1 does not require the forming of aqueous coating and glazing composition having reduced amount of sucrose.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 13-14 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 1-5 are pending.
The previous objection to the specification and part of 112 second paragraph rejection are withdrawn due to the amendment. The following 112 second paragraph is maintained because the claim is not amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 2 is 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.
In claim 2, the phase “ more particularly from peas or faba beans” 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green ( 2005/0255218) in view of Boursier ( FR 2934465) and Kasica ( EPA 0480433).
For claim 1 Green discloses a method for coating and glazing a ready-to-eat breakfast cereal comprising the step of applying onto the surface of the cereal food pieces an adhesive primer coating and a low sugar topcoat. The adhesive coating is a binder liquid comprising pregelatinized starch and the sugar topcoat containing powdered maltodextrin. ( see paragraphs 0019-0024,0028 and 0040)
Green does not disclose the pregelatinized starch is pregelatinized amylose rich starch and soluble fiber as in claim 1, the starch source as in claim 2, the amylose content as in claim 3, the particle size as in claim 4, the branched maltodextrin as in claim 5 and the DP1-DP2 as in claim 14.
Kasica discloses foods containing soluble high amylose starch. The starch is gelatinized. Kasica teaches amylose is a linear polymer that readily aligns or associates through hydrogen bonding. Starches containing large amounts of amylose will form more rigid gels and stronger, tougher films and will provides surfaces having reduced air, water, and oil absorption and migration in food application relative to ordinary starches which typically contain much less than 40% amylose. Other advantages include improved binding properties where the starch primarily functions as an adhesive and the related property of improved cling or adhesion between dissimilar food substances. The high amylose starch may be derived from any high amylose plant source which contains about 40-100% amylose, including wrinkle pea. ( see page 2 lines 9-24, page 3 lines 56-58)
Boursier discloses baked product comprising soluble fiber including branched maltodextrin. The branched maltodextrins have the advantage of being a source of indigestible fiber beneficial for the metabolism and for the intestinal balance. The branched maltodextrin has between 15-35% glucoside bonds 1-6 and a reducing sugar content of less than 10%. ( see abstract, page 3 )
Green discloses to use pregelatinized starch as binding agent for the sugar topcoat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pregelatinized high amylose starch as taught in Kasica to obtain a better binding agent and also other benefits disclosed in Kasica. It would have been obvious to use pea starch as the source of high amylose starch as disclosed in Kasica. Green discloses to add powdered maltodextrin. It would have been obvious to use the branched maltodextrin taught in Boursier to obtain the advantage of a soluble fiber source which enhances the nutrition of the Green product. One would also have been motivated to use the branched maltodextrin for the additional benefits taught in Boursier. As to the particle of the starch, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary size depending on the textural feel desired. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. Generally, difference in size does not support patentability in absence of showing of criticality or unexpected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues Green’s method does not disclose the application of a single coating composition but requires two distinct coating composition to be applied sequentially. This argument is not persuasive. The claim does not reflect a single coating or exclude the sequential application disclosed in Green. The claim recites “ applying onto a surface of said cereal a mixture”. Green discloses applying an adhesive and a second dry powder adhering to the adhesive. This gives a mixture on the surface of the cereal. Applicant further argues that Green teaches away from the invention by disclosing high-conversion maltodextrin. This argument is not persuasive because Green is not used in the rejection alone. While Green discloses the use of high conversion maltodextrin, Green also discloses to use maltodextrin having DE of from about 5 to less 40 to insure that the level of sugars is low. As shown in Boursier, branched maltodextrin functions as soluble fiber and it’s known that branched maltodextrin has low DE. Thus, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to use branched maltodextrin to enhance the nutrition of the product and still providing low DE maltodextrin required in Green. With respect to Kasica, applicant argues Kasica fails to teach or suggest a method comprising applying a mixture combining a pregelatinized amylose-rich starch and a soluble fiber. This argument is not persuasive because applicant does not argue the position taken. The Kasica reference is not used as primary teaching of applying a mixture. Green discloses to use pregelatinized starch as binding agent for the sugar topcoat. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pregelatinized high amylose starch as taught in Kasica to obtain a better binding agent and also other benefits disclosed in Kasica. It would have been obvious to use pea starch as the source of high amylose starch as disclosed in Kasica. Kasica discloses foods containing soluble high amylose starch. The starch is gelatinized. Kasica teaches amylose is a linear polymer that readily aligns or associates through hydrogen bonding. Starches containing large amounts of amylose will form more rigid gels and stronger, tougher films and will provides surfaces having reduced air, water, and oil absorption and migration in food application relative to ordinary starches which typically contain much less than 40% amylose. Other advantages include improved binding properties where the starch primarily functions as an adhesive and the related property of improved cling or adhesion between dissimilar food substances. With respect to the Boursier reference, applicant makes similar argument in that Boursier teaches incorporating the branched maltodextrin into a dough formulation. Boursier is a secondary reference showing the known aspect of using branched maltodextrin in food products. Green discloses to use maltodextrin having DE of from about 5 to less 40 to ensure that the level of sugars is low. As shown in Boursier, branched maltodextrin functions as soluble fiber and it’s known that branched maltodextrin has low DE. Thus, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to use branched maltodextrin to enhance the nutrition of the product and still providing low DE maltodextrin required in Green. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant argues that starting from Green, a skilled artisan would have found no teaching, suggestion or motivation in Kasica and Boursier that would led to the presently claimed invention. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The suggestion and motivation to use the starch and branched maltodextrin as claimed is clearly explained in the rejection and above. Applicant alludes to reduced sugar coating with a frosted appearance. The combination of prior art discloses the same ingredients; thus, whatever property resulting from the combination of ingredients would be present in the prior art in absence of evidence showing otherwise. Furthermore, there is no limitation in the claims on appearance or reduced sugar coating. In any event, the Green coating contains small amount of sucrose of less than 10% (see paragraphs 0032, 0034). Green discloses to use different sweeteners and only include small amount of sucrose. Thus, it is obvious the sucrose normally used in the coating is reduced.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
March 1, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793