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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 11-18 in the reply filed on 3/27/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-10, 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions.
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) 11-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakahara ( 2009/0324779) in view of Kageyama ( 2010/0009032).
For claims 11,12, Nakahara discloses a method for processing sprouted, cereal malt product. The malt is prepared from sprouted cereal including rice. Nakahara discloses sprouted cereal malt and the malt can be dry malt. The malt is heat-treated to reduce the enzyme activity. ( see paragraphs 0013, 0014,0019, 0017,0023, 0027,0058). The dry malt is equivalent to the claimed dried composition made from rice and water composition because sprouted rice is made by soaking rice in water. Malting is the same as the claimed mashing. The temperature is a processing parameter which does not determine the patentability of the product.
For claims 14-16, Nakahara discloses that malt contains a variety of enzymes and the activity and amount of each enzyme varies. For example, the potency (relative activity) of amylase which are saccharification enzymes is high in comparision to the potency of protease and lipoxygenase. Nakahara discloses the malt is treated to reduce the enzyme activity of different enzymes including alpha amylase, beta amylase. As shown in tables 1,4,11 the parameters such time, temperature and pressure of the treatment affect the amounts of enzyme and the percent of reduction. ( see also paragraphs 0032-0041,0055,0058,0076)
Nakahara does not disclose spray-dried and the amount of rice as in claim 11, the rice is a short-grained rice as in claim 13, the specific enzyme activity as in claims 14-16 and the amount as in claims 17-18.
Kageyama discloses a method for reducing oral cavity stimulating substance of sprouted grain. Kageyama teaches spray drying is known drying technique. ( see paragraph 0204)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use spray drying to form sprayed dry malt composition disclosed in Nakahara because spraying drying is a well known in the art as shown in Kageyama. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the rice content through routine experimentation depending on the amount of rice desired. Nakahara teaches that the enzyme activity can vary in different grain and malting. Nakahara also teaches to reduce the enzyme activity through heat treatment and difference percent of reduction can be obtained by varying processing parameters such as pressure, time and temperature. Thus, it would have been well within the skill of one in the art to obtain any varying amount of enzyme activity in the malted rice depending on the intended use of the composition and the enzyme activity desired in the product for the use. Such parameter can readily be determined through routine experimentation. It would have been an obvious matter of preference to use any type of rice grain.
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.
May 28, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights