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 .
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.
Claims 1-8, 11 and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, for part b), it is unclear whether the step of “drying the starch or flour” is necessarily subsequent to the step recited in part a) of soaking the starch or flour; and, in part c), it is unclear whether “dried starch or flour” refers back to “the starch” and “the flour” which has been subjected to the drying step of part b).
Each of claims 2 and 3 are ambiguous as to whether “the thermally inhibited starch or flour” refers back to, and is resultant to, the dried starch or flour which has been heated and dried as recited in claim 1;
In claims 2 and 3, “having no viscosity breakdown measured…” is an indefinite, relative term, since test conditions such as temperature and time duration of testing are not specified.
In claim 4, it is unclear whether recitation of “the dried starch or flour is heated…” refers back to and further limits the method step of heating using microwaves recited in claim 1, and the upper limit of the range of “up to about 30 minutes” is unclear.
In claim 6, the lower and upper limits of the range of “between about 4 and about 10 is unclear.
In claim 8, the lower and upper limits of the ranges of “from about 7 to about 10”, “from about 6 to about 8” and “from about 4 to about 7”, are unclear; and,
for option b) reciting adjusting pH to a range of “from about 6 to about 8”, is redundant to parts a) and c) which together cover the entirety of a pH range of from about 4 to about 10, thus is improperly reciting a narrow range within broader range(s).
In claim 11, the lower and upper limits of the range of “between about 1100C and about 1400C ”, and upper limit of the range of “up to about 60 minutes”, are unclear.
In claim 16, the lower and upper limits of the range of “from about 1100C to about 1200C is unclear.
In claim 17, the lower and upper limits of the range of “from about 1250C to about 1350C is unclear.
In each of claims 18-20, it is unclear whether “the thermally inhibited starch or flour” refers back to, and is resultant to, the dried starch or flour which has been heated and dried as recited in claim 1; and,
it is unclear whether “washed following step c) and “following washing to a moisture content…” refer to the same washing step, with each of “the equilibrium moisture” and “the native starch or flour” lacking in antecedent basis (does “the native starch or flour” refer to starch or flour prior to undergoing the soaking step of claim 1, part a)? ), the “native” also being unclear in meaning and of unclear scope (does “native” refer to starch or flour which has not undergone physical or chemical processing of any kind?).
In each of claims 21, 22 and 26, “the native starch or flour” is lacking in antecedent basis (does “the native starch or flour” refer to starch or flour prior to undergoing the soaking step of claim 1, part a)? ), the “native” also being unclear in meaning and of unclear scope (does “native” refer to starch or flour which has not undergone physical or chemical processing of any kind?).
In each of claims 23 and 24, it is unclear whether “the thermally inhibited starch or flour” refers back to, and is resultant to, the dried starch or flour which has been heated and dried as recited in claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11 and 16-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane et al PGPUBS Document US 2020/0207877 (Lane) in view of Jeffcoat et al patent 5,720,822 (Jeffcoat).
Referenced paragraph numbers of the Descriptions of the applied PGPUBS Document are identified with “[ ]” symbols.
For independent claim 1, Lane discloses: A method for making a thermally inhibited starch or flour [0030] comprising:
a) soaking a starch or a flour in an aqueous buffered solution [0030, 0045];
b) drying the starch or the flour to effect a moisture content of less than about 2% (wt.%) [0030, 0036 and 0045 regarding “dehydrating” the starch and dehydrating the starch to achieve a moisture content of less than 5, 4, 3, 20 or 1% moisture content]; and
c) heating dried starch or flour using drying techniques such as flash, oven, freeze or spray drying at a temperature for enough time for the starch to reach a temperature between 110°C to 140° C ([0036 re drying techniques such as flash, oven, freeze or spray drying at a temperature at a temperature below about 120 degrees C], and [0038-0040 re dry heating pH adjusted, dehydrated starch for thermal inhibiting for a time period of 20 minutes up to 2 hours, in the same or a separate apparatus as that used for drying step b)]).
Claim 1 differs by requiring the step c) of heating to be accomplished using microwaves.
Jeffcoat teaches a method for making a thermally inhibited starch or flour (column 2, lines 30-37) comprising: steps of drying of the starch or flour, followed by a step of heating to be accomplished using ovens including application of microwaves from microwave ovens (column 7, line 32-38 and 34-63).
Jeffcoat teaches that such types of ovens facilitate the heat treating, by venting moisture or vapor to the atmosphere so that moisture does not accumulate and precipitate onto the starch or flour.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of processing starch or flour to have operated the method of Lane, by conducting the step of heating to be accomplished using microwaves, as taught by Jeffcoat, in order to facilitate the thermal inhibition by venting moisture or vapor to the atmosphere so that moisture does not accumulate and precipitate onto the starch or flour.
For claims 2 and 3, Lane further discloses wherein the thermally inhibited starch has no viscosity breakdown using a micro-visco-amylograph test or “MVAG” or “MVU” at a pH of 6 or 3, respectfully ([0022-0026], see especially [0024, “In some embodiments a thermally inhibited starch having a moderate level of inhibition further has a steady viscosity (slurry at 6% solids and pH 3) from 95° C. to 95° C.+15 minutes or a viscosity that varies less than about 200 MVU, or less than about 150 MVU, or less than about 100 MVU, or less than about 50 MVU”] and [0025, “In any embodiments a thermally inhibited starch in slurry (6% solids and pH 6) having low inhibition, further has a steady viscosity from 95° C. to 95° C.+15 minutes or a viscosity that varies less than about 200 MVU, or less than about 150 MVU, or less than about 100 MVU, or less than about 50 MVU”]).
For claim 4, Lane further discloses: wherein the dried starch or flour is heated for a time up to about 30 minutes [0038, see “In various embodiments a method for making a thermally inhibited starch comprises dry heating a pH adjusted, dehydrated starch for less than about 0.5 hours, or about 0.05 to about 4 hours”].
For claim 5, Lane further discloses: wherein the buffer in the buffered solution is a carbonate or a citrate buffer [0030].
For claim 6, Lane further discloses: wherein following soaking in step a), the starch or flour has a pH of between about 4 and 10 [0032, regarding the soaking obtaining a pH of from about 5.0 to about 6.5].
For claim 7, Lane further discloses or suggests: wherein the method is further comprising recovering the starch or flour from the aqueous buffered solution and soaking the starch in an acidic or basic solution [0032].
For claim 8, Lane further discloses or suggests: wherein prior to drying in step b) the starch or flour has been adjusted to a pH in a range selected from the group consisting of: a) from about 7 to about 10, from about 6 to about 8, and from about 4 to about 7 [0032-0033, see especially buffering starch slurry to a pH of between about 4 to about 6 prior to thermal inhibition, dewatering and drying].
For claim 11, Lane further discloses or suggests: wherein the starch or flour is dried and heated may be as described in steps b) and c), at a constant temperature between about 110° C and about 140° C [0037] for a total time of up to about 60 minutes ([0038 concerning dry heating for a time period ranging from a fraction of an hour to plural hours], also see [0052 regarding heating for dehydrating and thermal inhibiting being at one or more temperatures and wherein such heating may be continuous]).
For claims 16 and 17, Lane further discloses or suggests: wherein in step c) the starch or flour is heated at a temperature from about 110° C to about 120° C, or at a temperature from about 125° C to about 135° C, respectfully [0037 regarding the dry heating to be conducted at a temperature of between about 120 to about 165 degrees C].
For claim 18, Lane further discloses or suggests: wherein the thermally inhibited starch or flour is washed following step c) and then dried following washing to a moisture content of about the equilibrium moisture of the native starch or flour [0042 re washing a starch in water or aqueous solution after thermal inhibiting (comprising dry heating) for one or more cycles].
Lane is silent regarding achieved moisture content or it’s correspondence to native starch or flour, however such moisture content parameter is deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to utilize the thermally inhibited starch into any of a wide variety of liquid, semi-liquid or solid food products.
The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
For claim 19, Lane further suggests: wherein the thermally inhibited starch or flour is remoistened following step c) in a single-phase process to obtain a remoistened starch having a moisture content equal to about the equilibrium moisture of the native starch or flour (suggested by [0036 regarding the starch having been dehydrated prior to thermal inhibition from a moisture content of greater than about 5 or 6%] and [0061 regarding addition of an aqueous component to produce a beverage, sauce or gravy food composition product, with the thermally inhibited starch constituting any amount of the food composition product]).
Lane is silent regarding achieved moisture content or it’s correspondence to native starch or flour, however such moisture content parameter is deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to utilize the thermally inhibited starch into any of a wide variety of liquid, semi-liquid or solid food products.
The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
For claim 20, Lane further suggests: wherein the thermally inhibited starch or flour following step c) is allowed to reach the equilibrium moisture of native starch or flour under ambient conditions without washing and drying or remoistening(suggested by [0036 regarding the starch having been dehydrated prior to thermal inhibition from a moisture content of greater than about 5 or 6%] and [0061 regarding addition of an aqueous component to produce a beverage, sauce or gravy food composition product, with the thermally inhibited starch constituting any amount of the food composition product; such addition of an aqueous component in the production of a food product deemed to not constitute washing, drying or remoistening of the thermally inhibited starch]).
Lane is silent regarding achieved moisture content or it’s correspondence to native starch or flour, however such moisture content parameter is deemed to constitute results-effective variables for which it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the prior art to have optimized by routine experimentation, so as to utilize the thermally inhibited starch into any of a wide variety of liquid, semi-liquid or solid food products.
The MPEP, Section 2144.05 includes court rulings that have determined that such types of parameter values or ranges do not support the patentability of such subject matter, particularly where the prior art contains similar ranges, amounts or proportions, or suggests such similarity, absent a finding of unexpected criticality or achieving of unexpected results.
For claim 21, the claim further differs from Lane by requiring the starting material being thermally inhibited to be a flour.
Jeffcoat further teaches: wherein the native starch or flour being thermally inhibited is a flour selected from the group consisting of rice flour, tapioca flour, waxy rice flour, waxy tapioca flour, and mixtures thereof (column 2, lines 30-33 and column 4, lines 15-21).
It would have been additionally obvious to have applied the Lane method to processing of the listed flours, as taught by Jeffcoat, since thermal inhibition is taught as improving the texture and flavor of both starches and flours and making these materials substantially free of off-tastes (Lane at column 2, lines 17-37).
For claim 22, Lane further discloses or suggests: wherein the native starch or flour is a starch selected from the group consisting of corn starch, waxy corn starch, rice starch, waxy rice starch, tapioca starch, waxy tapioca starch, potato starch, waxy potato starch, and mixtures thereof [0019 regarding various of these starch materials].
For claim 23, Lane further discloses or suggests: wherein the thermally inhibited starch is not further modified (see [0042 regarding there optionally being only one treatment cycle and additional washing being optional “may be washed…after thermal inhibiting for one or more cycles”].
For claim 24, Lane further discloses mixing of thermally inhibited starches in a wide range of proportions with pregelatinized starch or flour [0059-0060].
The claim differs by requiring wherein the method further comprises pregelatinizing, but not otherwise modifying, the thermally inhibited starch.
Jeffcoat further teaches providing a thermally inhibited starch or flour by steps of dehydrating and dry heating (Abstract, column 2, lines 45-53). Jeffcoat also teaches to thermally inhibit starches or flours, and subsequently to pregelatinize the starches or flours (column 2, lines 43-45).
Jeffcoat teaches at column 2, lines 3-45, that pregelatinizing ruptures the starch granules and causes the inhibited starch to have further improved viscosity and non-cohesive, salve-like textural characteristics, and to be dispersible in cold water.
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Lane process, by initially pre-gelatinizing, but not otherwise modifying, the thermally inhibited starch, so as to have further improved viscosity and non-cohesive, salve-like textural characteristics, and to be dispersible in cold water.
For claim 25, Lane further discloses mixing of thermally inhibited starches in a wide range of proportions with pregelatinized starch or flour [0059-0060].
The claim differs by requiring the starch or flour which is thermally inhibited having been a pregelatinized starch or flour.
Jeffcoat further teaches providing a thermally inhibited starch or flour by steps of dehydrating and dry heating pregelatinized starch or flour (Abstract, column 2, lines 30-54).
Jeffcoat teaches in column 2, lines 3-45 that pregelatinizing ruptures the starch granules and causes the inhibited starch to have further improved viscosity and non-cohesive, salve-like textural characteristics, and to be dispersible in cold water.
It would have been further obvious to the skilled artisan to have also modified the Lane process, by initially pre-gelatinizing, starch being made to be thermally inhibited, so as to have further improved viscosity and non-cohesive, salve-like textural characteristics, and to be dispersible in cold water.
For claim 26, Lane further discloses or suggests: wherein in step a) the starch or flour is a native starch or flour [0019 regarding thermally inhibited starches being made from a “base material”, such as commercially available corn starch].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner Joseph Drodge at his direct government formal facsimile phone number telephone number of 571-272-1140. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from approximately 8:00 AM to 1:00PM and 2:30 PM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Benjamin Lebron, of Technology Center Unit 1773, can reached at 571-272-0475.
The telephone number, for official, formal communications, for the examining group where this application is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from the Patent Examiner. Unpublished application information in https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https:///www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/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.
JWD
06/18/2026
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights