DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the first Office action on the merits of the claims.
The Patent Office has transferred this application to a different examiner. Please direct any reply to the examiner now identified on the cover sheet.
All citations to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) refer to Revision 01.2024, which was released in November 2024.
Status of the Claims
In the Reply filed 13 March 2026, Applicant did not amend the claims. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-15, 17-18, and 22-23 are pending.
Restriction/Election
The examiner acknowledges Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, which encompasses claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 10-14. Reply, p. 1.
Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), the claims directed to non-elected Groups II-V (claims 15, 17-18, and 22-23) are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 10-14 are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the inventors regard as the invention.
Limitation (a) of claim 1 recites, in relevant part: “mixing flours of Triticum, Chickpea and Semolina with water.” However, under binomial nomenclature, Triticum is the genus referring to wheat, which is a group of wild and domesticated grasses. For example, there is Triticum aestivum, which is also known as common wheat or bread wheat. Referring to limitation (a), Semolina is a coarse flour traditionally made from durum wheat, which — under binomial nomenclature — is Triticum durum or Triticum turgidum subsp. durum. Thus, Semolina is a member of the Triticum genus. In the words, Semolina is a species of Triticum. Claim 1 is ambiguous because it is unclear whether the presence of a Semolina flour in the mixture can simultaneously satisfy both (i) the Triticum flour and (ii) the Semolina flour limitations. Does the Triticum flour limitation actually require the presence of an additional wheat flour? The examiner notes that the specification of the present application fails to adequately resolve this issue. Consequently, claim 1 and all claims depending thereon are indefinite.
Additional Remarks
A search of the relevant art revealed no prior art reference, or combination of prior art references, that would have adequately supported a rejection of claim 1 under either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103. References considered for this purpose include those listed on the PTO-892 that accompanies this Office action. The examiner makes the following brief observations regarding two of the most relevant references:
Section 2.1 of Aydin (“Isolation and identification of lactic acid bacteria from fermented chickpeas.” Black Sea J. Agric, 2 (2) (2019) 79-84) discloses traditional fermentation of chickpeas performed at 40°C for 16 hours.
Section 2.2 of Fois (“Fresh Pasta Manufactured with Fermented Whole Wheat Semolina: Physicochemical, Sensorial, and Nutritional Properties.” Foods 2019; 8(9):422) discloses fermentation of semolina at 26°C for 5 hours.
There is insufficient motivation in the prior art to co-ferment and otherwise co-process chickpea and semolina flours in accordance with the steps and conditions recited in claim 1 of the present application. The examiner is mindful that “impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art.” MPEP § 2142; see also MPEP § 2141.02(I) (“In determining the differences between the prior art and the claims, the question under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious.” (emphasis in original)).
* * *
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, and 10-14 are rejected.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER ANTHOPOLOS whose telephone number is 571-270-5989. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday (9:00 am – 5:00 pm). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bethany P. Barham, can be reached on Monday – Friday (9:00 am – 5:00 pm) at 571-272-6175. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/P.A./
01 May 2026
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights