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 11/18/2025 has been entered as compliant. Claims 1 and 10 have been amended and claim 14 are added to the current application. Claims 1-13 are pending and examined in the current application.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berios, (US 20080145483 A1), hereinafter D1 in view of Deng (CN1092607(A)], hereinafter D2. A full English translation of D2 is included with this office action and any reference to paragraphs of D2 are with respect to this full English translation.
D1 teaches a method for making a crunchy food (para 71), said method comprising the steps of: (i) homogenization of dry feed powders, including textured pulse protein powder; (ii) mixing and hydration of dry feed powders with water and fat to form a dough; (iii) forming of said dough into a form factor; (iv) drying and expansion; and (v) cooling into a crunchy aerated matrix (Para 52-54, 56, 57-58, 63-64 and 67-68 where D1 method steps and mixing etc., to form a dough or extrusion to create the claimed form factor (claims 1-2 and 4). D1 teaches fat such as oil (para 123), and butter is a known fat substitute for oil, as recited in claims 5-7 and 11-13 (also see para 55 where fat and para 22 where peanut as the source of legume mass is taught).
Although para 58 of D1 mentions that an embodiment of the invention includes “particular extrusion processing parameters applied to extruded legume flours and/or powders in a way that results in uniformly highly expanded, crispy, tasty and shelf-stable extrudates” (also see para 24 of D1 that discloses extrusion is also for “modified intermediate product”), D1 does not clearly teach the said textured pulse protein powder is created by “first extruding pulse protein powders to create textured pulse protein powder” and “then milling or grinding, the extruded” textured pulse protein powder (as recited in claim 1) or “said TPP powder is created by milling or grinding TPPs” (as recited in claim 10). Referring to D2, it teaches a method of producing pulse protein powder (such as from “soybeans” – see para 2), further teaching the advantages of creating the textured pulse protein powder by first extruding pulse protein powders through a conical hole, which helps with “deodorization” (para 3), and the extrudate is subsequently powdered (para 3) to create textured pulse protein powder, and D1 suggests milling is a known process for powders (para 80 teaches “pin milled flour”). 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 additional step wherein the said textured pulse protein powder is created by “first extruding pulse protein powders to create textured pulse protein powder” and “then milling or grinding, the extruded” textured pulse protein powder. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify D1 at least for the purpose of deodorizing for a specific pulse (such as soybean in this case; see para 3 of D2) and then using a common powdering using a known process like milling or grinding, thus enabling use of a reduced odor textured pulse protein powder in the crunchy food.
For claim 8, D1 teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising the step of: (vi) application of topical seasonings (Para 58 where spices are taught). Fat such as oil is taught in para 123, and butter is a known fat substitute for oil.
For claims 2-3 D1 teaches a method of claim 1 wherein the dry feed powders also include chemical and biological leavening agents (para 107-109). Further D1 also does not teach application of chocolate as an component or flavor (see claim 9), but teaches using of flavorings, coatings and color that are routinely available (para 62; also see para 64) suitable for snacks to breakfast cereals (see abstract), and chocolate is a known and popular flavoring for snacks and cereals that adds desirable flavor and color. Thus and inclusion of chocolate either before creating the crisp product or afterwards as topical application was known at the time of the effective filing date of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include chocolate in the dough preform before making the crisp snack or adding chocolate after the crisp snack is ready based at least on the intended product and the intended consumers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to base claims 1 and 10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant’s argument that “Berrios would actually teach away from the present invention because by further processing and milling, the advantages Berrios seeks to achieve” are “lost” (see page 4, 1st paragraph of applicant’s response of 11/18/2025). This argument is not persuasive. As indicated in the revised rejections, para 58 of Berrios (D1) mentions that an embodiment of the invention includes “particular extrusion processing parameters applied to extruded legume flours and/or powders in a way that results in uniformly highly expanded, crispy, tasty and shelf-stable extrudates” (also see para 24 of D1 that discloses extrusion is also for “modified intermediate product”). Thus, D1 actually contemplates adding an additional step of extruding to create an intermediate product, and TPP created by first extruding pulse protein is an intermediate product, Thus, D1 does not provided details of the additional extruding step but does not teach against it.
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 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