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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I species II in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 6-7, and 10-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 3, in line 2 before “ACP” insert “the” to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claim 4, in line 2 delete “pH10.0” and amend to “10.0” since “alkaline pH” was previously recited and to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claim 6, after “claim 5” insert “,”.
Regarding claim 7, before “ACP” insert “the” to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claim 10, delete “comprising the further” and amend to “further comprising a” in order to place the claim in better form.
Regarding claim 11, after “claim 10” insert “,”.
Regarding claim 12, insert “,” after “claim 10” and “85oC”.
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 1-12 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 claim 1, the limitation “adjusting the pH back to neutral” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear if the initial pH, before shifting, was actually “neutral”. The claim does not recite or otherwise indicate that the pH prior to shifting was 7.0. The “back to neutral” limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rendered indefinite since it is unclear if “shifting to the alkaline pH” also includes “followed by adjusting the pH back to neutral” as recited by claim 1.
Claims 2 and 4-12 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. “Improvement of pea protein gelation at reduced temperature by atmospheric cold plasma and the gelling mechanism study”.
Regarding claim 1, it is noted that limitations (i)-(iii) are separated by the term “or”, which indicates alternatives. For the sake of examination, alternative (i) is chosen.
Zhang et al. teaches treating pea protein with atmospheric cold plasma to improve gelling properties of the protein (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang et al. teaches pea (Pisum sativum) protein (abstract; page 2 left column).
Regarding claim 7, the ACP treatment is performed for a total treatment time of 10 minutes (page 2 section 2.3).
Regarding claim 10, the ACP treated PPC is pH adjusted, then heated at 70, 80, and 90oC for 30 minutes followed by cooling in order to form the gels (page 2 section 2.4).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites alternatives. For the sake of examination, the alternative “1.0 kPa” is chosen.
The gel compressive strength increases based on gel formation temperature used, where temperatures of 80 and 90oC yield compressive strengths of 2.70 and 6.27 kPa, respectively (figure 1(B); page 4 section 3.1.1). The process does not recite or otherwise indicate incorporation of additional cross-linking agents or non-pulse protein (page 2 sections 2.1-2.4).
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites alternatives. For the sake of examination, the alternative “below about 95oC” is chosen. The gel is formed by heating at a temperature of 70, 80, and 90oC followed by cooling as stated for claim 10.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. as stated for claims 1-2 above, and in view of Fabre (US 4,287,219).
Regarding claims 3-6, in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) above, the limitation “shifting to the alkaline pH” is interfered to not require the “followed by adjusting the pH back to neutral” as recited by claim 1.
Zhang et al. does not teach the protein is treated by shifting to alkaline pH in the claimed range and the claim duration of treatment.
Fabre teaches preparing vegetable proteins by adjusting the pH to between 9 and 13.5 to form the protein gel, the duration being from 2-3 minutes to multiple hours (column 6 line 67 to column 7 line 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Zhang et al. to shift the pH to the claimed range for the claimed duration in order to provide a spinnable gel as taught by Fabre, since there is no evidence of criticality or unexpected results associated with the claimed range, and since the values would have been used during the course of routine experimentation and optimization procedures.
Regarding claims 8-9, the combination applied to claims 3-6 above teaches treatment with both ACP and pH shift.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Zhang et al. for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-0338. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (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 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.
/BRYAN KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 1792