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 . 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.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/KR2021/020382 filed on 12/31/2021 and claims foreign priority to Korean application no. KR10-2020-0189951 filed on 12/31/2020. The certified copy of the foreign priority applications filed on 06/16/2023 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/16/2023, 07/23/2024, 10/17/2024, 12/27/2024, and 09/11/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 05/13/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Status of the Claims
The preliminary claim amendments filed on 06/16/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 2, 6, 9, 12, 19, 23 and 26 are amended. Claims 3-5, 7, 10-11, 20, 24, and 29 are cancelled.
Accordingly, claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 12-19, 21-23, and 25-28 are pending and being examined on the merits herein.
Specification
This application does not contain an abstract of the disclosure as required by 37 CFR 1.72(b). An abstract on a separate sheet is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 12-19, 21-23, and 25-28 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “A dextrin with improved turbidity”, claim 21 recites “A method for producing the dextrin with improved turbidity according to claim 1”, and claim 26 recites “A method for producing the dextrin with improved turbidity according to claim 1”.
Claims 1, 21, and 26 are indefinite because it is unclear what parameters and/or conditions meet the limitation of a dextrin with “improved turbidity”. While the instant specification discloses an absorbance value of 0.09 or more as having turbidity in the dextrin and that the instant dextrin has an absorbance value of 0.09 or less (see lines 9-23 page 8), it is not clear if “improved turbidity” is limited to this absorbance value parameter, or if other parameters and/or conditions also meet the limitation a dextrin with “improved turbidity”.
For purposes of examination, a dextrin with “improved turbidity” is being interpreted as a dextrin having an absorbance value of 0.09 or less.
Claim 21 recites “a step of obtaining a high-molecular fraction by separating reacting product into a high-molecular fraction and a low-molecular fraction”.
The term “high-molecular fraction” and “low-molecular fraction” are terms of degree. See MPEP 2173.05(b). Here, Table 1 on page 17 of the instant specification provides example of a “high-molecular fraction” and “low-molecular fraction”, termed “dextrin fraction” and “oligosaccharide fraction, respectively. The dextrin fractions do not contain any DP1-3 whereas the oligosaccharide fraction does. various amounts of DP1-10 are shown. However, both fractions contain various amounts of DP4-10+, therefore it is unclear from this example and in the specification as to what standard is used to judge what amounts and components constitute a “high-molecular fraction” and a “low-molecular fraction”.
For purposes of examination, separating into a high-molecular fraction and a low-molecular fraction is being interpreted as separating DP4+ sugars such as malto-oligomers from DP1-3 sugars such as glucose or maltose.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8-9, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20060087411A (in IDS filed 06/16/2023, an English translation is provided in PTO-892 and used as the basis for this rejection) and as evidenced by Alias (Dissertation UMP, 2009 in PTO-892).
KR’411 discloses a method for producing low glucose equivalent (DE) starch digest, which have low-viscosity and no clouding due to aging or turbidity (see Abstract and fourth paragraph on page 2), which meets the limitation of a dextrin with improved turbidity as recited in instant claim 1. KR’411 discloses that their starch has a proportion of components exceeding a molecular weight of 100,000 at 2% by mass or less (see sixth paragraph on page 4). KR’411 discloses that their product also contains components with an average molecular weight of 1800-2600 at 90% by mass or more (see list number 6 on page 2), which meets the limitation of the recited group (1) in instant claim 2.
KR’411 demonstrates in Example 1 on page 4 a method of producing the starch degradation product. Here, 5 kg of commercial tapioca starch was degraded using an alpha-amylase enzyme (see second paragraph in Example 1 on page 4). KR’411 discloses this product has a viscosity of less than 200 mPa*s at 30 C temp and exemplifies a product having a viscosity of 117 mPa*s (see list number 4 on page 2 and last paragraph of Example 1 on page 4). KR’411 shows that the Example 1 product had a DE of 7.5, and a monosaccharide and disaccharide content of 1.7 and 1.8, respectively, which meets the limitation of group (3) recited in instant claim 9 (see Table 1 in original IDS document on page 5 and fourth paragraph page 5 in translated document). Furthermore, as evidenced by Alias (in PTO-892), starch degradation using an alpha-amylase results in oligosaccharide fragments such as glucose, maltotetrose, maltose, maltotriose, and oligosaccharides containing alpha-1,6 branches. Therefore, the monosaccharide and disaccharide disclosed in the starch product of KR’411 would necessarily comprise of glucose and maltose, respectively.
KR’411 discloses that their starch product can be a liquid product that is more concentrated to 60-70% by mass (see fourth paragraph on page 4). KR’411 demonstrates in Example 3 that their starch products had an absorbance (turbidity) value of less 0.09 and was stable without hazing after repeated freeze-thawing cycles (see second and third paragraph in Example 3 on page 5).
Therefore, claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, and 12-19 are anticipated.
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, 21-23, and 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2018169312A1 (in PTO-892, an English translation is provided and used as the basis for this rejection) in view of KR20060087411A (in IDS filed 06/16/2023, an English translation is provided in PTO-892 and used as the basis for this rejection) and Heikkila et al. (US20030006191A1 in PTO-892).
WO’312 discloses a powdered emulsifying composition containing oligosaccharides that improves the hygroscopicity, quality and storage stability of an emulsifying composition using a high maltotetraose content sugar syrup (see paragraph 0011).
WO’312 demonstrates in Example 1 (paragraphs 0063-0094) the preparation of the maltotetraose syrup. Here, corn starch was liquefactioned at high temperature using termamyl enzyme (Novozyme) and maltotetraose generating enzyme (paragraphs 0064-0065). The enzyme reaction was stopped, filtered, and concentrated to 70-72 wt% (paragraph 0065).
WO’312 discloses the maltotetraose content and the sugar composition of the final product shown in Table 1 as % of solids weight (paragraph 0065). In Table 1 of WO’312 (see Table 1 in original document pages 12-13), sample 4 (fifth column from the left in original document pages 12-13) had a DE of 16.4. Furthermore, saccharides with DP10 are 37.2% (see fifth column, fourth row in original document pages 12-13), which meets the limitation of group (2) recited in instant claim 23 and DP10 or more of 60% by weight or less recited in instant claim 27. The saccharides between DP3 to DP9 in sample 4 adds up to 58.7% (see fifth column, rows 5-11 in original document pages 12-13), which meets the limitation of a content of saccharides with DP3 to DP9 of 50% or more recited in instant claims 25 and 28, and DP3 to DP9 of 40% by weight or more in instant claim 27. The saccharides between DP3 and DP10 is 95.2% (see fifth column, rows 4-11 in original document pages 12-13), which meets a content of saccharides with DP3 or more of 75% by weight or more as recited in instant claim 26. Lastly, the content monosaccharides and disaccharides are 4.4% (see fifth column, rows 12-13 in original document pages 12-13), which meets the limitation of monosaccharides and disaccharides of 20% by weight or less recited in instant claim 27.
WO’312 further analyzed the turbidity of their starch products in Table 3 (see original document pages 13-14) and determined that the turbidity of the product was low and had excellent storage stability and viscosity (see paragraph 0090), which meets the limitations of a dextrin with improved turbidity as recited in instant claim 1.
The difference between WO’312 and the claimed invention is that WO’312 does not disclose a content of carbohydrates having a molecular weight of 100,000 or more is 8% by weight or less recited in instant claim 1 as well as a step of obtaining high-molecular fraction by separating reacting product in a high-molecular fraction and low-molecular fraction recited in instant claims 21 and 26.
The teachings of KR’411 are as described above.
Heikkila discloses a method of fractionating a solution into two or more fractions by a chromatographic simulated moving bed (SMB) process in which the dissolved substances present in the feedstock are separated in the partial packed beds, and the formed separation profile is circulated more than once or less than once through the chromatographic separation loop during one cycle (see Abstract). Heikkila discloses that their process can be adjusted in accordance with the separation goals (yield, purity, capacity) (paragraph 0022), and that their method is suitable for mixtures comprising a feed solution such as starch hydrolysates, maltose-containing solutions, and among others (paragraph 0040). Heikkila discloses that their method solves the problems having to use long chromatographic separation beds for high yields, purities, and product fractions (paragraphs 0009-0010 and 0016).
Heikkila demonstrates in Example 5 the chromatographic separation of maltose syrup (paragraphs 0176-0196). Table 10 in paragraph 0195 shows the various fractions that were separated in the maltose syrup with the maltose yield being 94%. Here, the separation of the maltose components is being interpreted as separating products into a high-molecular fraction and low-molecular fraction because the separated fractions contain low molecular fractions such as glucose and maltose and high molecular fractions such as malto-oligomers.
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of WO’312 by having a proportion of starch components exceeding a molecular weight of 100,000 at 2% by mass or less as disclosed in KR’411 and further separating the starch components into fractions as disclosed in Heikkila to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skilled would have made the modification of having the molecular weights disclosed in KR’411 with a reasonable expectation of success because KR’411 provides guidance that having these molecular weights in a similar starch degradation product also had suitable turbidity and storage stability. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to try the separation process disclosed in Heikkila because Heikkila provides guidance that their separation method achieves high yields and purity for the separated fractions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success of using this separation method of Heikkila because Heikkila provides guidance that their method can be used for starch hydrolysate solutions and demonstrates the high yield separation of a similar maltose syrup solution.
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H CHO whose telephone number is (571)270-0691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/D.H.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693