ADETAILED 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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 15, 17-19, 21-23, 26-27, and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (herein referred to as Wang, US 5989620 A) in view of Fulger et al. (herein referred to as Fulger, US 4568550) A Seppaelae et al. (herein referred to as Seppaelae, DE 69631884 T2) and Miyata (JP 2018064489 A). With evidence for Claim 18 provided by Coperion (“ZSK Food Extruders”).
With regard to Claim 15, Wang teaches a method for producing a crushed composition (abstract). Wang teaches the steps of preparing a dough composition wherein in the moisture content is in the range of 15 to 40% (claim 25) and a starch content of 48.2% (Example 1). See MPEP 2144.05(I) which states in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);
Wang teaches 100 mass % of the total amount of moisture to be added during producing the crush composition is mixed with other ingredients in the extruder (col 2 lines 55-58). However, Wang is silent to the interior temperature of the extruder being less than 40℃.
Fulger teaches the preparation of a fully cooked extruded flour-based product (abstract). Fulger teaches the flour, water and other optional ingredients are mixed and kneaded to prepare a homogeneous dough. Fulger teaches the mixing and kneading process can be carried out in a first stage or section of the extruder which has temperatures below the cooking or gelatinization range of the ingredients, i.e. below about 130℉ (55℃) (Col 3 lines 48-53) See MPEP 2144.05(I) which states in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Fulger teaches within the mixing step, kneading of the dough takes place which aids in the formation of a desirable texture in the resultant extruded product (col 3 lines 56-58).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang in view of Fulger to include mixing the moisture with other ingredients in the extruder wherein interior temperature of the extruder being less than 40℃ to aid in the formation of a desirable texture in the resultant extruded product.
Continuing, Wang teaches kneading the dough composition at a temperatures in the range of 70 to 135℃ and thereby obtaining a kneaded dough composition (Col 2. Lines 55-67, Col 4. Lines 55-67) Wang reads such that the dough is kneaded in a Model ZSK 57 extruder (Col 4. Lines 55-67 reading on the limitations of step (ii).
However, Wang is silent to the specific mechanical energy
Seppaelae teaches a process for thermoplasticizing starch (abstract). Seppaelae teaches a specific mechanical energy (SME) expense of more than 500 to 600 kJ / kg is required before substantial degradation of the grain takes place ([0041]). Seppaelae teaches teaching the plasticized mass (i.e., dough) with thermal and mechanical energy causing melting and disruption of the molecular structure of the starch granule resulting in a highly degraded starch ([0044])
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Seppaelae to utilize a SME of more than 500 to 600 kJ / kg to achieve substantial degradation of the grain. The SME directly relates to the molecular structure of the starch and results in a highly degraded starch. Thus, through routine optimization, one would be able to satisfy the requirements of step (1)(a) by adjusting the SME to achieve the level of degradation of the grain (i.e., number of starch grain structures) desired.
Continuing, Wang is silent to crushing the kneaded dough composition.
Miyata teaches a method for producing a noodle material ([0001]). Miyata teaches extruding a starch dough composition and then proceeding to dry and powder the compositions for storage stability, distribution, and workability in producing noodles ([0019]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify Wang in view of Miyata to crush the kneaded dough composition for storage stability, distribution, and workability in producing noodles.
It is important to note that in regard to in the points labeled (1)-(4), the limitations claimed are inherently met as a result of Wang, Fulger, Seppaelae, and Miyata teaching the claimed method steps. Points (1)-(4) are merely recite properties of the composition produced by the method and, in the case of Procedure A and Condition A, methods in which to evaluate these properties. See MPEP 2122 (I) which states "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to Claim 17, Wang teaches adjusting the dry mass basis moisture content of the kneaded dough to about 8 to 12% after extrusion (Col 3. Lines 6-10).
With regard to Claim 18, Wang teaches utilizing a Model ZSK 57 extruder (Col 4. Lines 55-67). The ZSK extruders are known for its ability to be individually configured for the desired application as evidence by Coperion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the ZSK extruder to be individually configured to achieve the desired results. See MPEP 2144.05(II) "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
With regard to Claim 19, the requirements (c) or (d) as claimed are inherently met as a result of Wang, Seppaelae, and Miyata teaching the claimed method steps. Requirements (c) or (d) merely recite properties of the composition produced by the method. See MPEP 2122 (I) which states "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to Claim 21, the amylolytic enzyme activity further limits procedure a from claim 15. As discussed above, procedure a is inherently met as a result of Wang, Seppaelae, and Miyata teaching the claimed method steps. The amylolytic enzyme activity merely recites properties of the composition produced by the method and in the case with procedure A method in which to evaluate these properties. See MPEP 2122 (I) which states "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to Claims 22 and 23, the limitations are inherently met as discussed above. Procedure A and Condition A are inherently met as a result of Wang, Seppaelae, and, Miyata teaching the claimed method steps. These limitations merely recite properties of the composition produced by the method and in the case with procedure A and Condition A method in which to evaluate these properties. See MPEP 2122 (I) which states "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to Claim 26, Wang teaches the starch-containing solid composition is a noodle (abstract).
With regard to Claim 29, Wang teaches the pulse is a pea flour (col 3. Lines 10-12). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize pea flour contains pisum. See MPEP 2112.01(II) A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
With regard to Claims 30 and 31, the claimed protein dispersibility index (PDI) is inherently met as a result of Wang, Seppaelae, and Miyata teaching the claimed method steps. The PDI is merely a property of the composition produced by the method. See MPEP 2122 (I) which states "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
With regard to Claim 32, Wang teaches a method for producing a crushed composition (abstract). Wang teaches the steps of preparing a dough composition wherein in the moisture content is in the range of 15 to 40% (claim 25) and a starch content of 48.2% (Example 1). See MPEP 2144.05(I) which states in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);
Wang teaches 100 mass % of the total amount of moisture to be added during producing the crush composition is mixed with other ingredients in the extruder (col 2 lines 55-58). However, Wang is silent to the interior temperature of the extruder being less than 40℃.
Fulger teaches the preparation of a fully cooked extruded flour-based product (abstract). Fulger teaches the flour, water and other optional ingredients are mixed and kneaded to prepare a homogeneous dough. Fulger teaches the mixing and kneading process can be carried out in a first stage or section of the extruder which has temperatures below the cooking or gelatinization range of the ingredients, i.e. below about 130℉ (55℃) (Col 3 lines 48-53) See MPEP 2144.05(I) which states in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Fulger teaches within the mixing step, kneading of the dough takes place which aids in the formation of a desirable texture in the resultant extruded product (col 3 lines 56-58).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang in view of Fulger to include mixing the moisture with other ingredients in the extruder wherein interior temperature of the extruder being less than 40℃ to aid in the formation of a desirable texture in the resultant extruded product.
Continuing, Wang teaches kneading the dough composition at a temperatures in the range of 70 to 135℃ and thereby obtaining a kneaded dough composition (Col 2. Lines 55-67, Col 4. Lines 55-67) Wang reads such that the dough is kneaded in a Model ZSK 57 extruder (Col 4. Lines 55-67 reading on the limitations of step (ii). Wang teaches cooling the kneaded dough composition before it exits the extruder (col 1. Line 23). Wang does not explicitly state the cooling is performed by heat of vaporization. However, in applicants specification paragraph [0179] the applicant described the cooling being performed in the extruder by heat of vaporization. Thus, because Wang reads on this example in the specification of cooling in the extruder, which is an example of heat vaporization, one with ordinary skill in the art would reasonably deduce Wang reads on the method of cooling via heat vaporization.
However, Wang is silent to the specific mechanical energy
Seppaelae teaches a process for thermoplasticizing starch (abstract). Seppaelae teaches a specific mechanical energy (SME) expense of more than 500 to 600 kJ / kg is required before substantial degradation of the grain takes place ([0041]). Seppaelae teaches teaching the plasticized mass (i.e., dough) with thermal and mechanical energy causing melting and disruption of the molecular structure of the starch granule resulting in a highly degraded starch ([0044])
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Seppaelae to utilize a SME of more than 500 to 600 kJ / kg to achieve substantial degradation of the grain. The SME directly relates to the molecular structure of the starch and results in a highly degraded starch. Thus, through routine optimization, one would be able to satisfy the requirements of step (1)(a) by adjusting the SME to achieve the level of degradation of the grain (i.e., number of starch grain structures) desired.
Continuing, Wang is silent to crushing the kneaded dough composition.
Miyata teaches a method for producing a noodle material ([0001]). Miyata teaches extruding a starch dough composition and then proceeding to dry and powder the compositions for storage stability, distribution, and workability in producing noodles ([0019]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify Wang in view of Miyata to crush the kneaded dough composition for storage stability, distribution, and workability in producing noodles.
It is important to note that in regard to in the points labeled (1)-(4), the limitations claimed are inherently met as a result of Wang, Fulger, Seppaelae, and Miyata teaching the claimed method steps. Points (1)-(4) are merely recite properties of the composition produced by the method and, in the case of Procedure A and Condition A, methods in which to evaluate these properties. See MPEP 2122 (I) which states "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (herein US 5989620 A) in view of Fulger (US 4568550), Seppaelae (DE 69631884 T2) and Miyata (JP 2018064489 A) and Ma et al. (herein referred to as Ma, “Thermal processing effects on the functional properties and microstructure of lentil, chickpea, and pea flours”)
With regard to Claim 20, Wang teaches the composition contains starch in the form of legume flour, wherein the legume flour may be pretreated pea flour(col 3. Lines 10-12).
However, Wang is silent to the starch being heat treated.
Ma teaches thermal processing effects on the functional properties and microstructure of lentil, chickpea, and pea flours (title). Ma teaches antinutritional components in pulses can be largely removed by heat treatment. Additionally pre-treatment of pulses with heat and processing of seeds into flour could further enhance their use by decreasing processing and preparation times (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Ma to use heat treat pea flour because the heat treatment largely removes the antinutritional components.
Claims 24-25, 28, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (herein US 5989620 A) in view of Fulger (US 4568550), Seppaelae (DE 69631884 T2) Miyata (JP 2018064489 A) and Al-katib et al. (herein referred to as Al-katib, CA 3008247 A1).
With regard to Claim 24, Wang is silent to agglomerating the crush composition.
Al-Katib teaches a pulse-based pasta and a method of manufacturing the pulse based-pasta using a heat and moisture treatment process (abstract). Al-Katib teaches the hydrated pulse dough may be agglomerated to produce agglomerated pulse dough ([0006]). Al-Katib teaches heat and moisture treatment (i.e., steps (i), (ii), (v)) may be applied to improve sensory and flavor attributes of the limited protein pulse flour fraction. The limited protein pulse flour fraction may also be agglomerated as part of the heat and moisture treatment ([0030]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Al-Katib to utilize an agglomerating step to assist in the improvement of the sensory and flavor attributes of the composition. As stated above, Al-Katib’s “heat and moisture treatment” reads on steps (i), (ii), and (v).
With regard to Claim 25, the combination of Wang, Seppaelae, and Miyata teach the claimed method steps (i)-(iv). Wang teaches the combined effects of mixing, mechanical shear and cooking within the extruder provide a gelatinized pasta dough (col 3, lines 1-3). But the combination of Wang, Seppaelae, and Miyata are silent to the steps coming after crushing the kneaded dough composition (i.e., steps (i)’ – (iv)’)
Al-katib teaches a pulse-based pasta and a method of manufacturing the pulse based-pasta using a heat and moisture treatment process (abstract). Al-katib teaches hydrating, mixing/kneading, and heating treating a protein pulse fraction to form an agglomerated pulse dough ([0006], [0030] Thus, Al-katib reads on steps (i)-(iv)). Al-katib teaches agglomerated pulse dough may be heated at about 95°C to about 150°C to cook and dry the agglomerated pulse dough to a moisture content of less than about 10% moisture. Rehydrating the agglomerated pulse dough to a moisture range from about 25% to about 43% by weight (i.e., step (i)’) and cooking the agglomerated pulse dough in a barrel of a screw extruder to produce a cooked pulse dough (i.e., step (ii)’ In claim 37 Al-katib teaches the screw extruder is a twin screw mixer and extruder.) The cooked pulse dough may be extruded to produce an extruded pasta. The extruded pasta may be dried to produce a dried pasta with a moisture content between about 7% to 12. 5% by weight ([0006] i.e. steps (iii)’ and (iv)’). Al-katib teaches pulse-based pasta made via the disclosed method improves the taste, flavor, and aroma ([0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wang, Seppaelae, and Miyata in view of Al-katib, in order to improve the taste, flavor and aroma of the pulse-based pasta product. Examiner would like to point out MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) which found that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. It is important to note section MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) is directed to an article, however the principle applies to steps in a method as well. Unless a new and unexpected results is produced it would have been obvious.
With regard to Claim 28, Wang’s method is silent to the dough composition is exposed to atmospheric pressure at a die section in the extruder. However, Wang does teach Pasta products are traditionally manufactured by blending of wheat flour and water to form a homogeneous mixture, kneading of this mixture to form a dough, extruding of the dough into desired shapes at room temperature and at atmospheric pressure or under vacuum, and subsequent air drying of the extruded products for a period of time to provide a dried pasta product ([Col 1. Lines 20-27)
Al-Katib teaches In some aspects, a temperature of the agglomerated pulse dough within the barrel of the screw extruder may range from about 105 C to about 125 C at atmospheric pressure ([0006], [0011]).
Thus, Al-Katib imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that atmospheric pressure was known to be successfully utilized for the extrusion of a legume flour pasta product at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize atmospheric pressure at a die section because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
With regard to Claim 33, Wang teaches a method for producing a crushed composition (abstract). Wang teaches the steps of preparing a dough composition wherein in the moisture content is in the range of 15 to 40% (claim 25) and a starch content of 48.2% (Example 1). See MPEP 2144.05(I) which states in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976);
Wang teaches 100 mass % of the total amount of moisture to be added during producing the crush composition is mixed with other ingredients in the extruder (col 2 lines 55-58). However, Wang is silent to the interior temperature of the extruder being less than 40℃.
Fulger teaches the preparation of a fully cooked extruded flour-based product (abstract). Fulger teaches the flour, water and other optional ingredients are mixed and kneaded to prepare a homogeneous dough. Fulger teaches the mixing and kneading process can be carried out in a first stage or section of the extruder which has temperatures below the cooking or gelatinization range of the ingredients, i.e. below about 130℉ (55℃) (Col 3 lines 48-53) See MPEP 2144.05(I) which states in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); Fulger teaches within the mixing step, kneading of the dough takes place which aids in the formation of a desirable texture in the resultant extruded product (col 3 lines 56-58).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang in view of Fulger to include mixing the moisture with other ingredients in the extruder wherein interior temperature of the extruder being less than 40℃ to aid in the formation of a desirable texture in the resultant extruded product.
Continuing, Wang teaches kneading the dough composition at a temperatures in the range of 70 to 135℃ and thereby obtaining a kneaded dough composition (Col 2. Lines 55-67, Col 4. Lines 55-67) Wang reads such that the dough is kneaded in a Model ZSK 57 extruder (Col 4. Lines 55-67 reading on the limitations of step (ii).
However, Wang is silent to the specific mechanical energy
Seppaelae teaches a process for thermoplasticizing starch (abstract). Seppaelae teaches a specific mechanical energy (SME) expense of more than 500 to 600 kJ / kg is required before substantial degradation of the grain takes place ([0041]). Seppaelae teaches teaching the plasticized mass (i.e., dough) with thermal and mechanical energy causing melting and disruption of the molecular structure of the starch granule resulting in a highly degraded starch ([0044])
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Seppaelae to utilize a SME of more than 500 to 600 kJ / kg to achieve substantial degradation of the grain. The SME directly relates to the molecular structure of the starch and results in a highly degraded starch. Thus, through routine optimization, one would be able to satisfy the requirements of step (1)(a) by adjusting the SME to achieve the level of degradation of the grain (i.e., number of starch grain structures) desired.
Continuing, Wang is silent to crushing the kneaded dough composition.
Miyata teaches a method for producing a noodle material ([0001]). Miyata teaches extruding a starch dough composition and then proceeding to dry and powder the compositions for storage stability, distribution, and workability in producing noodles ([0019]-[0020]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify Wang in view of Miyata to crush the kneaded dough composition for storage stability, distribution, and workability in producing noodles.
In addition, Wang’s method is silent to the dough composition is exposed to atmospheric pressure at a die section in the extruder. However, Wang does teach Pasta products are traditionally manufactured by blending of wheat flour and water to form a homogeneous mixture, kneading of this mixture to form a dough, extruding of the dough into desired shapes at room temperature and at atmospheric pressure or under vacuum, and subsequent air drying of the extruded products for a period of time to provide a dried pasta product ([Col 1. Lines 20-27)
Al-Katib teaches in some aspects, a temperature of the agglomerated pulse dough within the barrel of the screw extruder may range from about 105 C to about 125 C at atmospheric pressure ([0006], [0011]).
Thus, Al-Katib imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that atmospheric pressure was known to be successfully utilized for the extrusion of a legume flour pasta product at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to utilize atmospheric pressure at a die section because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
With regard to steps (i)’ – (iv)’, the combination of Wang, Fulger, Seppaelae, and Miyata teach the claimed method steps (i)-(iv). Wang teaches the combined effects of mixing, mechanical shear and cooking within the extruder provide a gelatinized pasta dough (col 3, lines 1-3). But the combination of Wang, Fulger, Seppaelae, and Miyata are silent to the steps coming after crushing the kneaded dough composition (i.e., steps (i)’ – (iv)’)
Al-katib teaches a pulse-based pasta and a method of manufacturing the pulse based-pasta using a heat and moisture treatment process (abstract). Al-katib teaches hydrating, mixing/kneading, and heating treating a protein pulse fraction to form an agglomerated pulse dough ([0006], [0030] Thus, Al-katib reads on steps (i)-(iv)). Al-katib teaches agglomerated pulse dough may be heated at about 95°C to about 150°C to cook and dry the agglomerated pulse dough to a moisture content of less than about 10% moisture. Rehydrating the agglomerated pulse dough to a moisture range from about 25% to about 43% by weight (i.e., step (i)’) and cooking the agglomerated pulse dough in a barrel of a screw extruder to produce a cooked pulse dough (i.e., step (ii)’ In claim 37 Al-katib teaches the screw extruder is a twin screw mixer and extruder.) The cooked pulse dough may be extruded to produce an extruded pasta. The extruded pasta may be dried to produce a dried pasta with a moisture content between about 7% to 12. 5% by weight ([0006] i.e. steps (iii)’ and (iv)’). Al-katib teaches pulse-based pasta made via the disclosed method improves the taste, flavor, and aroma ([0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Wang, Fulger, Seppaelae, and Miyata in view of Al-katib, in order to improve the taste, flavor and aroma of the pulse-based pasta product. Examiner would like to point out MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) which found that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. It is important to note section MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B) is directed to an article, however the principle applies to steps in a method as well. Unless a new and unexpected results is produced it would have been obvious.
It is important to note that in regard to in the points labeled (1)-(4), the limitations claimed are inherently met as a result of Wang, Fulger, Seppaelae, and Miyata teaching the claimed method steps. Points (1)-(4) are merely recite properties of the composition produced by the method and, in the case of Procedure A and Condition A, methods in which to evaluate these properties. See MPEP 2122 (I) which states "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicants argument in view of the newly amended claim 15, Wang teaches 100 mass % of the total amount of moisture to be added during producing the crush composition is mixed with other ingredients in the extruder (col 2 lines 55-58). However, as applicant stated, the temperature range taught by Wang (70 to 135℃) is outside the claimed limitation of less than 40℃. First, it is important to note that the temperature taught by Wang is merely taught in examples and preferred embodiments. Per MPEP 2123(II) Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Therefore Fulger can further be relied upon to teach the claimed temperature range. In this case, Fulger is then further relied upon to teaches the claimed temperature range. Fulger teaches the flour, water and other optional ingredients are mixed and kneaded to prepare a homogeneous dough. Fulger teaches the mixing and kneading process can be carried out in a first stage or section of the extruder which has temperatures below the cooking or gelatinization range of the ingredients, i.e. below about 130℉ (55℃) (Fulger, Col 3 lines 48-53) Fulger provides motivation to combine because the mixing step taught by the reference is substantially the same as taught by Wang but Folger’s method advantageously teaches within the mixing step, kneading of the dough takes place which aids in the formation of a desirable texture in the resultant extruded product (Fulger, col 3 lines 56-58). Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would have ample motivation to combine Fulger with Wang. The examiner would like to highlight MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) which states Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." And Further the examiner points to MPEP 2144.05(III)(B) In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997) which discusses when teaching away is not established.
With regard to applicant’s argument that requirements (1)-(4) are not inherently met because the processes conditions in recited amended claims 15 and 32 are not disclosed. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Fulger is now relied upon to teach the newly added process conditions presented in Claims 15 and 32. Therefore, the combination of Wang, Fulger, Seppaelae, and Miyata teach all the claimed process limitations and as a result requirements (1)-(4) are inherently met. Thus applicants argument is not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KARLA I DIVIESTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (MST).
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/K.I.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights