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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the application
2. Claims 1-18 are pending in this office action.
Claims 1-18 have been rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 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.
Regarding independent claim 1 recites “about 60 wt.% to about 100 wt.% legume” ; and ‘low oxidation transglutaminase’. However, it is to be noted that if there is 100% legume how is there going to be any ‘low oxidation transglutaminase’ in the composition. This similar reason is applicable at least for independent claims 9 and 14 as well. This renders independent claims 1,9 and 14 indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, the term “tortilla-style” is unclear and indefinite. Applicants are advised to amend to overcome the 112 second paragraph rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
6. 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.
7. 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 non-obviousness.
8. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corwin et al. WO 2023/228574 A1 in view of Moon et al. KR 2010/0012361 A and further in view of Baumgartner et al. US 2006/0008563 A1 and as evidenced by Garay et al. US 2025/0255313 A1.
9. Regarding claims 1, 4 and 7, Corwin et al. discloses that plant protein -based food composition is legume (page 18, last paragraph), which plant protein can be present in an amount ranging from 15 to 85 wt.% (at least in Abstract and in [0020], [0021]) and also transglutaminase (TG) (at least in Abstract) in the food composition. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Corwin et al. is silent about “low oxidation transglutaminase”.
Moon et al. discloses that transglutaminase enzyme can be coated with palm oil (under “Second Process-Transglutaminase coating) in order to make coated Transglutaminase, enzyme which provides long-term stability to be used in food also (Under Tech-problem). It is evidenced by Garay et al. that low oxidation TG refers to a TG preparation that, includes other components to maintain the TG catalytic activity and to protect the TG against oxidation when used in the presence of oxygen in environments such as those when air is present (in PGPUB [0031]). Therefore, the disclosed coating provides stability because of protecting coated TG from air which would obviously protect from oxidation. Therefore, coated TG has “low oxidation property” to read on “low oxidation transglutaminase of claim 1.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Corwin et al. to include the teaching of Moon et al. to make coated transglutaminase in order to protect from aerial oxidation in order to make “low oxidation” TG.
Regarding “dough” formation and “dough is used to make a sheet” as claimed in claim 1 and its dependent claims, it should be noted that the claim is drawn to a dough for claim 1 and its dependent claims depend on claim 1. Therefore, whatever the dough is used for is considered as intended use.
However, Corwin et al. discloses that slurry is put in a vacuum bag and sealed under vacuum or may be poured or pressed into a slab or a mold (at least in [0070]). It is to be noted that even if there is no explicit disclosure that dough is machined to make a sheet, however, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to make desired slurry concentration in the form of dough in a way so that under vacuum (i.e. pressure) condition, in the sealable bag, or pressed into a slab or a mold (at least in [0070] last two lines), it takes its shape of desired thickness including the shape of a sheet of desired thickness. In this instance, the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, therefore, it meets at least the claim limitation of “dough is used to make a sheet” as claimed in independent claim 1 and also for sheet formation as claimed in claims 4 and 5, and claim tortilla-style chip of claim 7.
However, Corwin et al. does not explicitly disclose dough and sheet formation as claimed in claim 1 and sheet formation as claimed in claims 4,5 and “tortilla-style chip as claimed in claim 7.
Baumgartner et al. discloses that low carbohydrate, high protein mixture with water can be mixed to make dough can be made (Abstract) comprising 60-85% legume ([0019]), that can be sheeted form by reducing moisture content in dough composition ( Abstract, [0019]) forming and cutting said legume (e.g. can be soybean) to make low carbohydrate tortilla-like snack food snack product ( at least in Abstract and in claims 1-5, 17 of Baumgartner et al.) to meet dough and sheet formation as claimed in claim 1 and sheet formation as claimed in claim 4 and “tortilla-style chip as claimed in claim 7.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Corwin et al. to include the teaching of Baumgartner et al. to make dough from low carbohydrate high protein in order to make sheeted form ( [0019]) forming and cutting said legume (e.g. can be soybean) to make snack product ( at least in claims 1-5, 17 of Baumgartner et al.) and this legume -based tortilla-like snack product (at least in Abstract).
10. Regarding claim 2, Corwin et al. discloses the source of plant protein e.g. chickpeas, lentil etc. (at least in table 1, [0068], [0099]).
11. Regarding claim 3, Corwin et al. discloses that transglutaminase can be broad range values (at least in Abstract ) including the disclose amount of ideal range value of TG (at least in Table 3) which overlaps claimed range amount of claim 3 (at least in Table 3).
12. Regarding claim 6, Corwin et al. Moon et al. and Baumgartner et al. disclose that the plant protein- based food contains oil in an amount from 6 to 28 wt.% relative to a total weight of the plant protein-based food (at least in [0043]). Therefore, the dough sheet made from legume protein, low oxidation transglutaminase (oil coated form) would have obviously a hydrophobic environment which cannot allow sufficiently further oil absorption.
If we interpret “oil intake” of claim 6, as “absorption of oil when the final product is in oil e.g. during cooking, frying etc., then it can be considered as inherent property. The reason is the disclosed ingredients and their amounts are identical to the claimed ingredients and meet the claimed range amounts of the ingredients, therefore, the disclosed product will have identical claimed property including the property of oil absorption (i.e. oil intake) as claimed in claim 6.
13. Regarding claim 8, it is to be noted that Corwin et al. discloses the disclosed amounts of plant- based protein from legume source (at least in [0020], [0021]) and transglutaminase (Tables 1, 3) which meets claimed plant- based protein from legume source and also transglutaminase which are mixed with water ([0065]) and it can be in any desired shape including in sheet form to make desired type of food ([0066]) also.
Therefore, as the ingredients are identical and their amounts meet the claimed amounts, therefore, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize water amount in order to have dough consistency to make sheet form for its further use.
Absent showing of unexpected results, the specific amount of water is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the consistency of dough are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of water, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of water in Corwin et al., to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. desired dough with desired consistency to perform desired function (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
14. Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corwin et al. WO 2023/228574 A1 in view of Moon et al. KR 2010/0012361 A and further in view of Baumgartner et al. US 2006/0008563 A1 and as evidenced by Garay et al. US 2025/0255313 A1 as applied to claim 4 and further in view of Rowell et al. USPN 4054015 A.
15. Regarding claim 5, it is to be noted that Corwin et al. in view of Moon et al. and Baumgartner et al. are silent about the claimed thickness of the sheet made from dough. However, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to make desired thickness chip for desired purpose.
In addition, Baumgartner et al. discloses that the product can be made using an apparatus which is an equipment from a traditional corn tortilla chip line (at least [0023] of Baumgartner et al.). Therefore, it would have been obvious that the disclosed tortilla chip line (in Baumgartner et al. [0023]) will have obvious the conventional thickness of a chip and it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Baumgartner et al. to make desired thickness chip for desired purpose. It is also optimizable and addressed below.
(Additionally), Rowell et al. discloses that an apparatus has been employed successfully with tortilla chips with a thickness of about 3 mm (col 2 line 20).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Corwin et al. in view of Moon et al. and Baumgartner et al. to include the teaching of Rowell et al. to consider “tortilla chip line” of Baumgartner et al. ([0023]) to fix at desired chip thickness including the disclosed 3 mm thickness as disclosed by Rowell et al. (col 2 line 20) in order to make chip product having conventional thickness for tortilla chip for customer’s need.
Absent showing of unexpected results, the specific amount of chip thickness is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the thickness is variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of tortilla chip line apparatus to make chip , the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of thickness in Corwin et al. in view of Moon et al. and Baumgartner et al. to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. desired thickness appropriate for chip product (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
16. Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corwin et al. WO 2023/228574 A1 in view of Baumgartner et al. US 2006/0008563 A1.
17. Regarding claim 9, Corwin et al. discloses that plant protein -based food composition is legume ( page 18, last paragraph), which plant protein can be present in an amount ranging from 15 to 85 wt.% (at least in Abstract and in [0020], [0021]) .
Corwin et al. also discloses that the plant protein- based food contains oil in an amount from 6 to 28wt.% relative to a total weight of the plant protein-based food (at least in [0043]).
Corwin et al. also discloses that the plant protein- based food comprising plant protein with other ingredients including transglutaminase ([0069]) which is processed by heating to make the final product and this heating step inactivates transglutaminase enzyme ([0073]). Therefore, it meets claim limitation of “deactivated transglutaminase” of claim 9.
Corwin et al. does not explicitly disclose “snack” product.
Corwin et al. also discloses that slurry is put in a vacuum bag and sealed under vacuum or may be poured or pressed into a slab or a mold (at least in [0070]).
Baumgartner et al. discloses that low carbohydrate, high protein mixture with water can be mixed to make dough can be made (Abstract) comprising 60-85% legume ([0019]), that can be sheeted form by reducing moisture content in dough composition ( Abstract, [0019]) forming and cutting said legume (e.g. can be soybean) to make low carbohydrate tortilla-like snack food snack product ( at least in Abstract and in claims 1-5, 17 of Baumgartner et al.).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Corwin et al. to include the teaching of Baumgartner et al. to make dough from low carbohydrate high protein in order to make sheeted form ( [0019]) forming and cutting said legume (e.g. can be soybean) to make snack product ( at least in claims 1-5, 17 of Baumgartner et al.) and this legume -based tortilla-like snack product (at least in Abstract).
18. Regarding claim 10, Corwin et al. discloses the source of plant protein e.g. chickpeas, lentil etc. (at least in table 1, [0068], [0099]).
19. Regarding claim 11, Corwin et al. discloses that the plant protein- based food contains oil in an amount from 6 to 28wt.% relative to a total weight of the plant protein-based food (at least in [0043]).
20. Regarding claim 12, Corwin et al. discloses that the food product contains seasoning in an amount of 10 wt.% of the final product ([0045]) which meets claimed amount of claim 12.
21. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corwin et al. WO 2023/228574 A1 as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Baumgartner et al. US 2006/0008563 A1 as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Kazemzadeh et al. USPN 5871801.
22. Regarding claim 13, Baumgartner et al. US 2006/0008563 A1 discloses that low carbohydrate dough comprising 60-85% legume ( [0019]), that can be sheeted form ( [0019]) forming and cutting said legume (e.g. can be soybean) to make tortilla-like snack snack product ( at least in claims 1-5, 17 of Baumgartner et al.),
However, Corwin et al. in view of Moon et al. and Baumgartner et al. do not explicitly disclose “tortilla chip” as claimed in claim 13.
Kazemzadeh et al. discloses that legume source originated protein -based dough can mixed with cereal flour (Abstract) to be used to make sheet form (col 6 lines 20-35), with desired flavor (e.g. corn flour has corn flavor) to make similar type corn-based tortilla chips (at least in col 11 lines 30-35) which is obvious to have the nutritionally health benefit because it is low/no carbohydrate chip having tortilla flavor and texture suitable for specific customer consumption.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Corwin et al. in view of Moon et al. and Baumgartner et al. to include the teaching of Kazemzadeh et al. who discloses this legume-based snack product in sheet form (col 6 lines 20-35) can have similar type corn-based tortilla chips (at least in col 11 lines 30-35) which is obvious to have the nutritionally health benefit because it is low/no carbohydrate chip having tortilla flavor and texture suitable for specific customer consumption.
23. Claim(s) 14-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corwin et al. WO 2023/228574 A1 in view of Moon et al. KR 2010/0012361 A and as evidenced by Garay et al. US 2025/0255313 A1.
24. Regarding claim 14, the rejection made for the common claim limitation of claim 1 is applicable here for claim 14. Corwin et al. discloses that plant protein -based food composition is legume ( page 18, last paragraph), which plant protein can be present in an amount ranging from 15 to 85 wt.% (at least in [0020], [0021]) and transglutaminase can be broad range values including the disclose amount of ideal range value of TG (at least in Table 3 of Corwin et al.) which overlaps claimed range amount of claim 14.
Regarding dough formation of claim 14, it is to be noted that Corwin et al. discloses that slurry is put in a vacuum bag and sealed under vacuum or may be poured or pressed into a slab or a mold (at least in [0070]). Corwin et al. discloses that plant protein -based food composition is legume (page 18, last paragraph), which plant protein can be present in an amount ranging from 15 to 85 wt.% (at least in Abstract and in [0020], [0021]) and also transglutaminase (TG) in the food composition. Corwin et al. also discloses that transglutaminase can be broad range values including the disclose amount of ideal range value of TG (at least in Table 3) which overlaps claimed range amount of 0.5 wt.% to about 5.0wt.% transglutaminase (at least in Table 3). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Corwin et al. is silent about “low oxidation transglutaminase”.
Moon et al. discloses that transglutaminase enzyme can be coated with palm oil (under “Second Process-Transglutaminase coating) in order to make coated Transglutaminase, enzyme which provides long-term stability to be used in food also (Under Tech-problem). It is evidenced by Garay et al. that low oxidation TG refers to a TG preparation that, includes other components to maintain the TG catalytic activity and to protect the TG against oxidation when used in the presence of oxygen in environments such as those when air is present (in PGPUB [0031]). Therefore, the disclosed coating provides stability because of protecting coated TG from air which would obviously protect from oxidation. Therefore, coated TG has “low oxidation property” to read on “low oxidation transglutaminase of claim 14.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Corwin et al. to include the teaching of Moon et al. to make coated transglutaminase in order to protect from aerial oxidation in order to make “low oxidation” TG.
Regarding the method of reducing stickiness, it is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to make desired slurry concentration in the form of dough in a way so that under vacuum (i.e. pressure) condition, in the sealable bag, or pressed into a slab or a mold (at least in [0070] last two lines), it takes its shape of desired thickness including the shape of a sheet of desired thickness. Also, it is to be noted that the disclosed method using amounts of ingredients are identical to the claimed method using ingredients and their respective amounts, and therefore, it will have identical claimed property including the claimed property of “reducing the thickness” of claim 14.
Regarding the processing of dough, Corwin et al. discloses that the method involves mixing plant proteins as legume protein, with transglutaminase and with other ingredients including texturized vegetable protein ([0069]) and transferring to a vacuum bag or may be drawn to a vacuum bag or by other means like kneading, compressing under a press to remove bubbles and may be pressed into a slab or a mold ([0070]) followed by treating at a broad range temperature including 48-55 degree C which overlaps claimed 37.7 -54.5 degree C (i.e. 100-130 degree F) and at varying time e.g. 52 degree C for 30s to 72 hours to make plant protein based food ([0070], [0071]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
(Additionally), it can be addressed using Result Effective Variable.
Absent showing of unexpected results, the specific amount of time and temperature is not considered to confer patentability to the claims. As the amount of moisture content is variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of time and temperature, and also time and temperature can be optimized because they have inverse relationship, the precise amount of time and temperature would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed amount cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of time and temperature to have desired final amount of water in Corwin et al., to amounts, including that presently claimed, in order to obtain the desired effect e.g. desired food product with desired dryness (i.e. water content) having desired function (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
25. Regarding claim 15, as discussed above, Corwin et al. discloses that the method involves mixing plant proteins as legume protein, with transglutaminase and with other ingredients including texturized vegetable protein ([0069]) and transferring to a vacuum bag or may be drawn to a vacuum bag or by other means like kneading, compressing under a press to remove bubbles and may be pressed into a slab or a mold ([0070]). Therefore, trapped water is also released by this method. It is also to be noted that and as discussed above for claim 14 that the disclosed method using amounts of ingredients are identical to the claimed method using ingredients and their respective amounts, and therefore, it will have identical claimed property including the claimed property of “ wherein the transglutaminase crosslinks the protein present in legumes, including the soluble globulin and albumin fractions found in the legume dough resulting in water trapping within the aggregated protein matrix, and reduced stickiness of the legume dough”. This is also inherent property.
26. Regarding claim 16, Corwin et al. discloses the source of plant protein e.g. lentil etc. (at least in table 1, [0068], [0099]).
27. Regarding the claim limitation of “dough is used to make a snack product” as claimed in claim 17 and its dependent claims, it should be noted that the claim is drawn to a dough for claim 1 and its dependent claims depend on claim 1. Therefore, whatever the dough is used for is considered as intended use.
Corwin et al. and Moon et al. disclose that the plant protein- based food contains oil in an amount from 6 to 28 wt.% relative to a total weight of the plant protein-based food (at least in [0043]). Therefore, the dough sheet made from legume protein, low oxidation transglutaminase (oil coated form) can be used to make snack product and it would have obviously a hydrophobic environment which cannot allow sufficiently further oil absorption.
If we interpret “oil intake” of claim 17 as “absorption of oil when the final product is in oil e.g. during cooking, frying etc., then it can be considered as inherent property. The reason is the disclosed ingredients and their amounts are identical to the claimed ingredients and meet the claimed range amounts of the ingredients, therefore, the disclosed product will have identical claimed property including the property of oil absorption (i.e. oil intake) as claimed in claim 17.
28. Regarding claim 18, Corwin et al. discloses that the food product contains seasoning in an amount of 10 wt.% of the final product ([0045]) which meets claimed amount of claim 18.
29. Regarding claim 20, claim 20 depends on claim 17 which depend on claim 14. As discussed for claim 14, Corwin et al. discloses that the method involves mixing plant proteins as legume protein, with transglutaminase and with other ingredients including texturized vegetable protein ([0069]) and transferring to a vacuum bag or may be drawn to a vacuum bag or by other means like kneading, compressing under a press to remove bubbles and may be pressed into a slab or a mold ([0070]) followed by treating at a broad range temperature including 48-55 degree C which overlaps claimed 37.7 -54.5 degree C (i.e. 100-130 degree F) and at varying time e.g. 52 degree C for 30s to 72 hours to make plant protein based food ([0070], [0071]). Therefore, at the stage of making dough, the disclosed temperature range overlaps claimed temperature range to process the mixture which process and processing condition is similar to the claimed processing condition to make dough and therefore, it will have the identical claimed property including the “claimed 10% to 100% original protein in the legume used to make the legume dough” as claimed in claim 20.
30. Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corwin et al. WO 2023/228574 A1 in view of Moon et al. KR 2010/0012361 A as applied to claim 17 and further in view of Kazemzadeh et al. USPN 5871801.
31. Regarding claim 19, Corwin et al. in view of Moon et al. are silent about the claim limitations of claim 19.
Kazemzadeh et al. discloses that legume source originated protein -based dough can mixed with cereal flour (Abstract) to be used to make sheet form (col 6 lines 20-35), with desired flavor (e.g. corn flour has corn flavor) to make similar type corn-based tortilla chips (at least in col 11 lines 30-35) which is obvious to have the nutritionally health benefit because it is low/no carbohydrate chip having tortilla flavor and texture suitable for specific customer consumption.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Corwin et al. in view of Moon et al. to include the teaching of Kazemzadeh et al. who discloses this legume-based snack product in sheet form (col 6 lines 20-35) can have similar type corn-based tortilla chips (at least in col 11 lines 30-35) which is obvious to have the nutritionally health benefit because it is low/no carbohydrate chip having tortilla flavor and texture suitable for specific customer consumption.
Conclusion
32. Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bhaskar Mukhopadhyay whose telephone number is (571)-270-1139.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, examiner’s supervisor Erik Kashnikow, can be reached on 571-270-3475. The fax phone 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571 -272-1000.
/BHASKAR MUKHOPADHYAY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1792