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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is too short. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 11,15,17,19 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.
In claim 11, the recitation of “ the particles” does not have antecedent basis; it’s not clear what particles the claim is referring to.
Claim 15 has the same problem as claim 11.
Claim 17 is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended by “ a protein composition comprising a protein composition”. The difference between the preamble and the body of the claim is unclear. ( For prior art application, the claim is treated as “ a protein composition comprising a protein blend and a gum blend).
Claim 19 has the same problem as claim 11.
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) 17,18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Bertocco ( WO 2022/046608).
For claim 17, Bertocco discloses a protein composition comprising a protein blend of a first plant protein ingredient and a second plant ingredient and a gum blend. Bertocco discloses adding ingredients such as gum Arabic and stabilizers including xanthan gum, pectin, cellulose which are all gum. ( see paragraphs 0008,0031)
For claim 18, Bertocco discloses the protein composition comprising flavorant, sweetener, salt etc.. ( see paragraph 0032)
For claim 20, Bertocco discloses the composition is a powder. ( see paragraph 0038)
Claim(s) 1-8,10,12-14,16-18,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by hakim ( GB 2578450).
For claims 1-2, 17, hakim discloses a protein composition comprising a protein blend of a first plant ingredient and a second plant ingredient, a gum blend and lecithin. ( see page 5 line 26, page 6 lines 34-36, line 7 lines 1-3, page 11 lines 34-35,page 16 lines 11-12, page 15 lines 8-10.). Kahim discloses a composition containing the same ingredients as claimed. It’s inherent the PDCAAS is in the claimed range.
For claim 3, the Hakim discloses the first protein including pea protein, rice protein, etc.. ( see page 6)
For claim 4, Hakim discloses the first protein is in amount of 10-70%. ( see page 8 lines 23-25)
For claims 5,7, Hakim discloses the first protein is pea protein in amount of 10-70% and a second protein at concentration of 1-50% and the second protein is rice. While the claim recite that the first protein is the blend of rice and pea. However, the difference is only in the wording because all the proteins are mixed to form the composition. There is no feature to distinguish which is first or second. The critical part is it’s a blend of pea and rice and Kahim discloses the blend. ( see page 8 lines 23-30)
For claim 6, Hakim discloses the second protein including rice protein, pumpkin protein, pea protein etc.. (page 6 lines 11-17,page 8 lines 23-30)
For claim 8, Hakim discloses the composition comprising sunflower lecithin in amount of .1-3%. ( see page 15 lines 8-15)
For claims 10,18, Hakim discloses the composition comprising sweetener, creamer, flavor etc.. ( see pages 15)
For claim 12, Hakim discloses a protein beverage comprising the protein composition and a liquid. The protein composition comprising a protein blend of a first plant ingredient and a second plant ingredient, a gum blend and lecithin. ( see page 5 line 26, page 6 lines 34-36, line 7 lines 1-3, page 11 lines 34-35,page 16 lines 11-12, page 15 lines 8-10, page 18 lines 5-10)
For claim 13, Hakim discloses the composition comprising sweetener, creamer, flavor etc.. ( see pages 15)
For claim 14, .). Hakim discloses a composition containing the same ingredients as claimed. It’s inherent the PDCAAS is in the claimed range.
For claim 16, Hakim discloses the liquid is water. ( see page 18 lines 5-10)
For claim 20, Hakim discloses forming the composition into tablets. Thus, it’s inherent the composition is in powder form to be able to form into tablets. ( see page 17 lines 5-11)
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) 1-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertocco ( WO2022/046608) in view of Hakim ( GB 257450).
For claims 1-2, Bertocco discloses a protein composition comprising a protein blend of a first plant protein ingredient and a second plant ingredient and a gum blend. Bertocco discloses adding ingredients such as gum Arabic and stabilizers including xanthan gum, pectin, cellulose which are all gum. Bertocco discloses adding emulsifying agent . Bertocco discloses that when the proteins are mixed in the proper ratios, the composition forms a complete protein achieving a PDCAAS of 1. ( see paragraphs 0008,0031,0032,0070)
For claim 3, Bertocco discloses first protein comprising pea protein. ( see paragraph 0008)
For claim 4, Bertocco discloses first protein in amount of 50-80%. ( see paragraph 0009)
For claim 5, Bertoccos discloses pea protein in amount of 50-80% and 5-20% rice protein. ( paragraph 0009) . While the claim recite that the first protein is the blend of rice and pea. However, the difference is only in the wording because all the proteins are mixed to form the composition. There is no feature to distinguish which is first or second. The critical part is it’s a blend of pea and rice and Bertoccos discloses the blend having the concentration within the ranges claimed.
For claims 6-7, Bertoccos discloses the second protein is rice protein in amount of 5-20%. ( see paragraph 0009)
For claim 8, Bertoccos discloses adding emulsifying agents in amount of .1 up to 10%. ( see paragraph 0032)
For claim 9, Bertoccos discloses adding gum Arabic and stabilizers such as xanthan gum, carrageenan etc.. in amount of .1-10%. ( see paragraph 0031)
For claims 10,13, Bertocco discloses the protein composition comprising flavorant, sweetener, salt etc.. ( see paragraph 0032)
For claim 12, Bertoccos discloses a protein beverage comprising the protein composition and a liquid. The protein composition comprising a protein blend of a first plant protein ingredient and a second plant ingredient and a gum blend. Bertocco discloses adding ingredients such as gum Arabic and stabilizers including xanthan gum, pectin, cellulose which are all gum. Bertocco discloses adding emulsifying agent ( see paragraphs 0008,0015,0031,0032,0070)
For claims 14,19, Bertocco discloses that when the proteins are mixed in the proper ratios, the composition forms a complete protein achieving a PDCAAS of 1. ( see paragraph 0070)
For claim 16, Bertocco discloses the liquid comprising water. ( see paragraph 0015)
Bertocco does not disclose lecithin as in claim 1, the kind of lecithin as in claim 8, guar gum as in claim 9 and the particle size as in claims 11,15,19.
Hakim discloses a protein composition comprising a protein blend of a first plant ingredient and a second plant ingredient, a gum blend and sunflower lecithin. Hakim discloses stabilizer including guar gum ( see page 5 line 26, page 6 lines 34-36, line 7 lines 1-3, page 11 lines 34-35,page 16 lines 11-12, page 15 lines 8-10.)
Bertocco discloses adding emulsifying agents. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use lecithin as taught in Hakim because it’s a known emulsifier to be used in protein composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a blend of the gum depending on the extent of stabilizing desired. Such parameter can readily be determined through routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art. All the gums claimed are known as shown in Hakim and Bertocco. It would have been obvious to use the gum within the range of .1% up to 10% disclosed in Bertocco. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the particle size depending on the textural feel and solubility desired. Such parameter can readily be determined through routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakim ( GB 257450) in view of Bertocco ( WO 2022/046608).
Hakim does not disclose the gum blend as in claim 9.
Bertocco discloses a protein composition comprising stablizers such as xanthan gum and gum Arabic. (see paragraph 0031)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a blend of the gum depending on the extent of stabilizing desired. Such parameter can readily be determined through routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art. All the gums claimed are known as shown in Hakim and Bertocco. It would have been obvious to use the gum within the range of .1-2% disclosed in Hakim.
Claim(s) 11,15,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakim ( GB257450).
Hakim does not disclose the sizes as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the particle size depending on the textural feel and solubility desired. Such parameter can readily be determined through routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
September 18, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793