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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 29-35 in the reply filed on 4/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 37 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/8/2026.
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.
Claim 31 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.
It is unclear how a percentage of the starch digestion enzyme activity is derived from a powder.
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.
Claim(s) 29-35,38-50 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Katib(WO2018227296A1) in view of Delcour(GB 2368512).
Regarding claims 29,40,44,45,46, Al-Katib teaches a method for producing a swollen composition, comprising
Processing a powder comprising a dried pulse at a temperature of about 60C to about 120C in an extruder(para 33,35, Al-Katib teaches an agglomerated pulse flour that is formed from hydrated and heat treated pulses that are further dried and milled. The dried pulse flour is further heated in an extruder)
Mixing the processed powder to prepare a dough(paragraph 33)
Swelling the dough composition via heat treatment(para 34).
Regarding requirement (1), Al-Katib teaches that the dough contains 25% to about 43% moisture(para 33), with the balance being 57-75% flour. Al-Katib teaches that the balance contains a flour comprising protein and starch. The flour contains about 7% to about 16% protein with the balance being starch in an amount of about 84% to about 93%(para 39). Therefore, the dough would contain 48-70% starch on a wet mass basis.
Regarding requirement (2), Al-Katib teaches that the dough contains 25% to about 43% moisture(para 33), with the balance being 57-75% flour. Therefore, the dough contains 33-75% moisture on a dry mass basis.
Regarding requirement 3, Al-Katib is silent on the dietary fiber content. However, since Al-Katib teaches pulses derived from peas as claimed, which are known to contain 2.0 mass% or more of fiber on a wet basis. Al-Katib teaches also a fine milling step to provide additional fiber(para 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to include additional fiber to reach a content of 2.0 mass% or more.
Regarding requirement 4, Al-Katib does not teach the inclusion of a starch digestion enzyme. However, Delcour teaches the addition of a fiber hydrolyzing enzyme such as cellulases or xylanases during pasta production in order to increase the water soluble fiber content of the pasta(p.1). It would have been obvious to include cellulase or xylanase in with the dried pulse after extrusion and during formation of the dough in order to increase the dietary fiber content of the pasta product. It would have been obvious to adjust the activity of the enzyme depending on the desired final fiber content.
Regarding requirement 5, Al-Katib does not teach the particle diameter of the dough under the claimed conditions. However, Al-Katib teaches the process of claim 29, including the use of a dried pulse powder derived from peas. One of ordinary skill in the art would expect the associated properties as clamed.
Regarding claim 30, Al-Katib teaches that the powder contains only dried pulses(claim 2).
Regarding claims 32,45, Al-Katib teaches that the dried pulse is obtained from Pisum(para 16).
Regarding claims 31,33,34,50, Al-Katib teaches that the dried pulse can be in the form of Pisum(claim 2) but does not specifically teach that the dried pulse is obtained from yellow peas. However, since Pisum(peas) are known to be available in limited varieties such as yellow peas it would have been obvious to select a known variety of peas without undue experimentation. As such, it would have been obvious to select an enzyme derived from unheated yellow peas so that it can function with the yellow peas.
Regarding claims 35,48, Al-Katib does not specifically teach “wherein a decrement difference of a peak temperature of gelatinization before and after processing the powder is less than 80 0C.” However, Al-Katib teaches the method of claim 29. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the associated properties to the claimed method.
Regarding claims 38,49, Al-Katib does not specifically teach that the total porosity increases by 1% or more.
However, Al-Katib teaches the method of claim 29. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the associated properties to the claimed method.
Regarding claims 39, 42,43, Al-Katib does not teach the properties of the composition during heat treatment. However, Al-Katib teaches the method of claim 29. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the associated properties to the claimed method.
Regarding claims 41,47, Al-Katib teaches that the powder comprising the dried pulse is contact with steam at a temperature of about 25 to about 85C(para 30).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE D LEBLANC whose telephone number is (571)270-1136. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4PM EST M-F.
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.
/KATHERINE D LEBLANC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights