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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-14 filed on 12/13/2023 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/9/2024 was filed before the first Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Ethylenediamine is incorrectly spelled. Appropriate correction is required.
Duplicate Claims Warning
Claims 8 and 9 recite identical subject matter. Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 8 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claim 1 and dependent claims 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 1 recites a method of preparing non-roasted nut, seed, grain or legume base which includes feedstock with varied composition; and enzyme content, type and activity, as applied to amylases, proteases and PPO. The disclosure covers sunflower seed base alone as being treated to achieve results as claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. “Shelled seeds” include a broad range of oilseed and grain materials. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) .
Farag discloses that autoclaving does not completely destroy chlorogenic acid.
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.
Regarding 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.
Claims 1-14 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
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