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 § 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.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn due to applicant’s amendments.
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) 1,3-5,7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kormelink(WO 2013/072888) in view of Seib(WO 9854973).
Regarding claims 1,3,8, Kormelink teaches a dried granular extruded product that comprises at least 10wt% resistant starch and 30-45wt% non-resistant rice starch on a dry basis(p.9, last paragraph; example; p.11, 4th paragraph, claim 1). Kormelink describes the composition as a “rice-like grain”(p.5, line 6). Kormelink teaches that the granular composition contain protein inherently present in the cereal and dietary fiber(p.9, line 1-3). Protein inherently contains amino acids.
Kormelink teaches that the non-resistant starch can be in the form of high amylose starch(p.13, 1st paragraph), which is known in the art to contain at least 25wt% amylose content.
Kormelink is silent on the calorie content of the granular composition and the resistant starch. However, Seib teaches resistant starch compositions that contain zero calories(p.2, line 31-p.3, line 3). The resistant starch is preferably in the form of distarch phosphates of high amylose starches(abstract). Note these are the same starches that applicant classifies as having zero calories in the instant spec. It would have been obvious to use resistant starches in the form of distarch phosphates of high amylose starches in Kormelink as taught in Seib since they contribute 0 kcals to the composition.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Kormelink teaches a dried granular extruded product that comprises at least 10wt% resistant starch and 30-45wt% non-resistant starch on a dry basis(p.9, last paragraph; example; p.11, 4th paragraph, claim 1). Seib renders obvious using 0kcal/g resistant starch. The applicant states in the arguments that rice starch has a calorie content of 168kcal/100g. Therefore, assuming 30% non-resistant starch and 70% resistant starch, the composition would have 50kcal per 100g, which is less than 135kcal per 100g
Regarding claim 7, Kormelink teaches a dried granular extruded product that comprises at least 10wt% resistant starch and 30-45wt% non-resistant rice starch on a dry basis(p.9, last paragraph; example; p.11, 4th paragraph, claim 1). Seib renders obvious using 0kcal/g resistant starch. Therefore, assuming 30% non-resistant starch and 70% resistant starch, the composition would have a calorie content of 50kcal per 100g. The applicant states in the arguments that non-resistant rice starch has a calorie content of 168kcal/100g. Therefore, the final product would have a calorie content of 30% of cooked rice prepared without the resistant starch.
Regarding claim 9, Kormelink teaches that the non-resistant starch can be in the form of cereal flour, such as wheat flour, which contains gluten(p.7, 4th full paragraph, p. 12, 3rd full paragraph).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Kormelink teaches 3.5wt%-42wt% resistant starch and not 50 to 80% by weight as claimed.
However, Kormelink teaches a broader range of at least 10% resistant starch(see claim 1) and is not limited to 3.5wt%-42wt% resistant starch as alleged by the applicant. Kormelink further teaches the benefits of resistant starch dietary fiber(p.1) and also teaches that(p.7)
“The maximum amount of the resistant starch dietary fibre in the products is determined by the feasibility of the handling and processing of the raw ingredients blend containing the dietary fiber, and by the appearance, taste and texture of the final extruded product and the cooked final extruded product.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of resistant starch depending on factors as listed above.
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 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