Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/396,072

HIGH PROTEIN POWDER MIX

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Dec 26, 2023
Priority
Oct 11, 2018 — provisional 62/744,292 +2 more
Examiner
O'HERN, BRENT T
Art Unit
1793
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Kellanova
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
1056 granted / 1355 resolved
+12.9% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+20.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
54 currently pending
Career history
1392
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
68.7%
+28.7% vs TC avg
§102
5.3%
-34.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.6%
-22.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1355 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Abstract The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not directed to this application but rather a parent application. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Specification The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use. Arrangement of the Specification As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading: (a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION. (b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS. (c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT. (d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. (e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM. (f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. (g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION. (1) Field of the Invention. (2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. (h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. (i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S). (j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION. (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet). (l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet). (m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system. When there are drawings, there shall be a “brief description of the several views of the drawings” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.74.). The section heading “(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S)” is missing. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: please update the priority statement at the beginning of the Specification. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase "whey protein blend" in line 1 is stated instead of "the whey protein blend". The phrase "the whey protein blend" is suggested as the phrase "whey protein blend" was previously set forth. Appropriate correction 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 26-45 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 26 recites the limitation "the protein blend" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the whey protein blend". Claim 26 recites the limitation "the vegetable powder" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the vegetable and/or fruit powder". The term “high” in claim 30, line 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret a powder as high fat while another could interpret the same powder as not high fat. The phrase “percent” in Claim 34, line 2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the percent is weight percent, volume percent or something else. Applicant is advised to consider stating “weight percent”. The phrase “percent” in Claim 35, line 2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the percent is weight percent, volume percent or something else. Applicant is advised to consider stating “weight percent”. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 38 recites the broad recitation 1:1 to about 2:1, and the claim also recites 1:1 to about 1:5:1 and about 1.2:1 which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The phrase “1:1 to about 1:5:1” in Claim 38, line 3 is vague and indefinite as the ratio “1:5:1” is written as if there are three ingredients instead of two. Claim 41 recites the limitation "the hydrocolloid powder systems” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the hydrocolloid powder system” as there are not plural systems. Claim 45 recites the limitation "the protein blend" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the whey protein blend". Claim 45 recites the limitation "the hydrocolloid system” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the hydrocolloid powder system”. Clarification and/or correction required. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm. 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 on 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. /BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 October 29, 2024
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 26, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 26, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection (signed) — §112
May 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12667114
METHOD FOR PRODUCING POWDERED OIL AND/OR FAT COMPOSITION
2y 10m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12648580
Scalable Methods for Manufacturing Alternative Meat Cuts
2y 9m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12635716
DRINKABLE EGG WHITE
3y 5m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12635703
DAIRY-LIKE COMPOSITIONS AND RELATED METHODS
2y 10m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12628850
ENZYMATICALLY STABILIZED PASTA STRUCTURE AND METHOD OF PREPARING THE SAME
3y 2m to grant Granted May 19, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+20.5%)
2y 8m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1355 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month