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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment and response filed 4/30/2026. Claims 1-14 are pending in the application. Claims 1,9 and 13 were amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Karwowski et al. US8916224B1 in view of Singh et al, (cited in an IDS), Farag (J Sci Food Agric 79:1565-1570 (1999)), and Atonfack et al. (J Sci Food and Agriculture 99(5): 2186-2193(2018)).
Regarding claim 1-3 and 7-9, Karwowski (Example 1) discloses a method of preparing non-roasted grain kernels by cooking feedstock at a temperature of 268 deg. F to 275 deg F for 15 to 30 minutes at 12-26psig, which overlaps the claimed ranges, and edible compositions, as claimed in claim 14.
Singh confirms inactivation of enzymes for example PPO at temperatures higher than 70 deg C (160 deg F). PPO enzymes are therefore destroyed under the conditions disclosed in Karwowski. Farag discloses that autoclaving does not completely destroy chlorogenic acid even in heated sunflower seed flour, pointing to the retention of at least a portion of the chlorogenic acid even in seed flour treated at 121 deg C (249.8deg F) for 30 min. These observations would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the conditions in Karkowski as claimed to retain a part of the chlorogenic acid activity and inactivate one or more of amylases, proteases, PPO, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding using acidulants in claims 10 and 11, and chelating agents in claim 12 and 13:
Atonfack discloses that acidulants such as citric acid prevent greening due to chlorogenic acid as chlorogenic quinone-amino acid greening requires alkaline pH.
Chelating agents such as citric acid and EDTA are known to bind metal ions for example that promote oxidation.
Therefore the limitations in claims 10-13 are obvious modifications of the art. One of ordinary skill in the art looking to retain at least a part of the chlorogenic acid without greening, and reduced oxidation in a cooked feedstock, would therefore have applied an acidulant and chelating agent in a method in Karwowski, with a reasonable expectation of success
Regarding claims 4-6 and 9, the limitation of water to feedstock ratio, the broad ratio claimed is common in culinary practice, in pressure cooking grains, seeds and legumes, and is optimizable by experimentation. Applicant has not pointed to unexpected effects of any specific ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have optimized time, temperature combinations in pressure cooking, and pH conditions to obtain a desired level of residual chlorogenic acid with inactivation of enzymes, with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining a low color sunflower seed base exemplified/claimed in claim 8 and 9.
Claims 1-14 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and are partially persuasive. Claim amendments and arguments render the previous rejection under 35 USC 112(b) moot.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103, applicant has incorrectly equated “tempering” in the primary reference with “roasting”.
Tempering is routinely practiced in the industry as a resting stage for cooked grains or legumes. As pointed out in Karwowski “The cooked whole grain particles may then be tempered or cured for a sufficient period of time to provide a uniform distribution of the water throughout the cooked whole grain particles. Tempering may be conducted at a temperature of less than about 135° F., preferably from about 60° F. to about 100° F., more preferably from about 80° F. to about 90° F. Tempering times may range from about 0.5 hours to about 5 hours, preferably from about 1 hour to about 4 hours.”
Tempering is a post-cooking holding operation that allows moisture and temperature to equilibrate within cooked grains or pellets and promotes structural changes in starch. It is distinct from toasting (roasting) which is a separate high-temperature thermal process used primarily for flavor, color, texture development and moisture reduction. It is defined as “the period during which the cooked grain mass or cereal pellets are held in collection bins to allow the equilibration of moisture within and among the particles and the development of desired flakability or shredability as a result of starch retrogradation. See for example: https://www.cerealsgrains.org/publications/onlinebooks/references/Cereals/Pages/Chapter05Abstract.aspx .
Furthermore, the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising” in the independent claims does not preclude additional steps.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., a quantified content of chlorogenic acid) is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally “at least a portion of the chlorogenic acid” is not quantified. As the conditions in Karwowski are the same, the retention of a portion of chlorogenic acid and inactivation of one or more of amylases, proteases PPO enzymes as claimed is inherent.
Karwowski discloses the method in the limitations in the claimed invention, therefore applicant’s arguments regarding the secondary references are not persuasive.
Further, it has been previously held that “[T]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
Additionally, the Supreme Court has made clear that an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). That is because “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. It is also well established that a reference is good for all it fairly teaches a person having ordinary skill in the art, even when the teaching is a cursory mention. E.g., In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972).
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights