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 .
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 2 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is
acknowledged.
Additionally, note that claims 19-21 and 26-31 are indicated as cancelled in the Remarks and Claims filed 11/17/2025.
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.
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) 1-7, 11, 16, 17, 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 2007/0207240 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hansen teaches a food composition comprising millet [0038] and legumes (i.e. pulses [0044]) which is leavened [0037]. Note that the instant Specification teaches that a food that has undergone “heating or fermentation with a puffing agent, yeast or the like”, is puffed according to the claim [0012 of the instant Specification].
Regarding (1)-(3), the food comprises 1-40% dietary fiber [0035] and 0-50% protein [0044], which overlap the claimed range(s). The dough may comprise, e.g. 5.2% starch [0061], which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding (4), Hansen teaches the use of millet, potato [0038], and legumes (i.e. pulses, [0044]. Note that where Hansen teaches the use of edible plants such as millet, potatoes, and pulses as claimed, Hansen additionally teaches the use of soluble carbohydrates contained in the claimed edible plants.
Regarding (5), Hansen teaches that the dough comprises a “major portion” of a flour component, and additionally teaches examples comprising 46.8% flour [0061] on a dry basis. Hansen teaches millet flour as a flour component [0038]. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include millet flour in an amount greater than 10%, as claimed, since Hansen teaches embodiments comprising greater than 10% of a flour component and additionally teaches millet flour as a flour component. Note that the teaching of Hansen is sufficient to provide for both the soluble carbohydrate of (4) and the components of Claim (5).
Regarding (6) and (7), Hansen teaches the use of particles with an average size below 60 µm [0063], but does not address the number average diameter of all the particles within the food composition or the maximum particle diameter. However, given that the instant Specification teaches that “finely ground” powders of edible plants [0136] are sufficient to meet the limitations of the Claim, and given that Hansen teaches the composition and ingredients as claimed, the product of Hansen is interpreted to meet the limitations of the Claim.
Regarding Claim 2, Hansen teaches the use of 1-50%, which overlaps the claimed range, of a crystalline polysaccharide [0040], which is a type of oligosaccharide.
Regarding Claim 3, Hansen teaches 0-30% sugar [0045]. Note that Hansen teaches at least 46.8% [0061] of a soluble carbohydrate component such as potato or millet flour [0038] as set forth in Claim 1, part (4), and therefore teaches at most 0-64% of sugar to soluble carbohydrate, which encompasses the claimed range.
Regarding Claim 4-5, Hansen does not discuss the lowering rate in d90 or a number-based average diameter. However, given that Hansen meets the composition and ingredient limitations of Claim 1, the product of Hansen is interpreted to meet the limitations of the Claim, absent evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding Claim 6, Hansen does not teach the density of the bread dough. However, given that Hansen teaches a puffed composition as claimed and teaches significant moisture loss in the baking process [0057], and given that the density of water is known to be 1 g/cm3, the product of Hansen is interpreted to have a density of less than 1 g/cm3, absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding Claim 7, Hansen teaches that the dough comprises a “major portion” of a flour component, and additionally teaches examples comprising 46.8% flour [0061] on a dry basis. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include e.g. potato flour [0038] in an amount greater than 5%, as claimed, since Hansen teaches embodiments comprising greater than 5% of a flour component and additionally teaches potato as a flour component.
Regarding Claim 11, note that since the limitation of Claim 1 has been met, the limitations of Claim 11 have also been met. Regardless, Hansen teaches [0044] the use of peas (Pisum genera), chickpeas (Cicer genera), and kidney beans (Phaseolus genera)
Regarding Claim 16, Hansen teaches that the dough comprises a “major portion” of a flour component, and additionally teaches examples comprising 46.8% flour [0061] on a dry basis. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to include e.g. millet flour [0038] in an amount greater than 30%, as claimed, since Hansen teaches embodiments comprising greater than 30% of a flour component and additionally teaches millet flour as a flour component.
Regarding Claim 17, Hansen teaches the use of e.g. a total amount of starch at 5.2% [0061], which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding Claims 32 and 33, note that since the limitation of Claim 1 has been met with the teaching of millet in the prior art, the limitation of Claims 32-33 have also been met.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen taken with evidentiary reference of Seitz (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/what-is-millet, May 2023)
Regarding Claim 10, note that Hansen teaches the use of “millet flour” [0038], which contains both “edible parts” and a “dietary fiber localized portion”. Note that millet is known to be high in fiber (see evidentiary reference of Seitz, Page 6, “May help control blood sugar levels”, Paragraph 1).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen taken with evidentiary reference of Stroem-Hansen (WO 9600094 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Hansen teaches the use of psyllium gum (which is the same as fleawort seed coat, see evidentiary reference of Strom-Hansen, Page 6, Lines 30-32).
Claims 34, 35, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen in view of Brijwani (US 2017/0273337 A1).
Regarding Claims 34, 35, and 37, Hansen teaches the puffed food composition as discussed above in regards to Claim 1, but does not discuss the use of a soluble carbohydrate obtained from enzymatic decomposition of a pulse starch.
Brijwani teaches that a composition comprising pulses [0005] such as peas [0164] that has undergone enzymatic treatment [0165] results in a product with a reduced viscosity, improved texture, and better mouthfeel [0026]. Brijwani teaches that the process converts some amount of the starch present (including a pulse starch, [0438-0440] in the composition to monosaccharides and disaccharides [0485].
Note that where the instant claim teaches that pea starch can be enzymatically treated to yield glucose and maltose (which is a monosaccharide and a disaccharide), the composition of Brijwani is therefore interpreted to contain glucose and maltose as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hansen to include an enzymatically treated pulse starch as taught by Brijwani. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve the texture and mouthfeel of the resulting product.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen taken with evidentiary evidence of Stroem-Hansen in view of Yu (US 6248373 B1).
Regarding Claim 36, Hansen teaches the use of psyllium gum (which is the same as fleawort seed coat, see evidentiary reference of Strom-Hansen, Page 6, Lines 30-32), but does not address the use of an enzymatically treated fleawort seed coat, as in (5) of the claim.
Yu teaches that enzymatically treated psyllium husk reduces the manufacturing and handling difficulties of using unmodified psyllium (Column 3, Lines 38-39), such as unpleasant texture and mouthfeel (Column 2, Lines 27-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an enzymatically treated psyllium husk in the composition of Hansen. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to produce a product with improved manufacturing and handling difficulties.
Claims 38 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen taken with evidentiary reference of Stroem-Hansen, and in view of Yu and Brijwani.
Regarding Claims 38 and 39, Hansen teaches a food composition comprising peas [0044] which is leavened [0037]. Note that the instant Specification teaches that a food that has undergone “heating or fermentation with a puffing agent, yeast or the like”, is puffed according to the claim [0012 of the instant Specification].
Regarding (1)-(3), the food comprises 1-40% dietary fiber [0035], and 0-50% protein [0044], which overlaps the claims range(s). The dough may comprise, e.g. 5.2% starch [0061], which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding (5), Hansen teaches that the dough comprises pea flour [0044], which is an edible part of a pulse.
Regarding (6) and (7), Hansen teaches the use of particles with an average size below 60 µm [0063], but does not address the number average diameter of all the particles within the food composition or the maximum particle diameter. However, given that the instant Specification teaches that “finely ground” powders of edible plants [0136] are sufficient to meet the limitations of the Claim, and given that Hansen teaches the composition and ingredients as claimed, the product of Hansen is interpreted to meet the limitations of the Claim.
Regarding (4), Hansen teaches the use of pulses [0044] but does not discuss use of a soluble carbohydrate obtained from enzymatic decomposition of starch in the pulse.
Brijwani teaches that a composition comprising pulses [0005] such as peas [0164] that has undergone enzymatic treatment [0165] results in a product with a reduced viscosity, improved texture, and better mouthfeel [0026]. Note that Brijwani teaches that the process converts some amount of the starch present (including a pulse starch, [0438-0440] in the composition to monosaccharides and disaccharides [0485], which are soluble carbohydrates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulse of Hansen to include an enzymatically treated pulse starch as taught by Brijwani. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to improve the texture and mouthfeel of the resulting product.
Regarding (5), Hansen teaches the use of psyllium gum (which is the same as fleawort seed coat, see evidentiary reference of Strom-Hansen, Page 6, Lines 30-32), but does not address the use of an enzymatically treated fleawort seed coat.
Yu teaches that enzymatically treated psyllium husk reduces the manufacturing and handling difficulties of using unmodified psyllium (Column 3, Lines 38-39), such as unpleasant texture and mouthfeel (Column 2, Lines 27-34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an enzymatically treated psyllium husk in the composition of Hansen. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to produce a product with improved manufacturing and handling difficulties.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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.
/D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791