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
Claims 11-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/8/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the list of components have (a)-(d), followed by (f) thickener, there is no (e), which appears to be a typographical error as claim 7 designates thickener as component (e). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over IDS reference to JPH10191877 A to Nakano et al., hereinafter Nakano ( cited in IDS of 10/27/25 and document provided by applicant with Espace.net machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Nakano teaches, a dough composition for expanded food, the composition (abstract and para 17, 35-36, 43-44 and table 1) comprising at least the following ingredients and not substantially comprising a wheat-derived protein (Para 10 where without flour is taught and protein ingredient in para 14 is based on milk, also see para 18 and 23):
(a) a milk protein in a proportion of 90 mass% or more based on the total protein (Para 35, Table 1 and para 43, where all the protein is milk based protein and other than starch and water all the other listed ingredients are listed in para 29, where no added proteins are listed);
(b) a starch (in addition to Para 35-36 and 43, Table 1, see para 22 and 25-26); and
(d) water(in addition to Para 35-36, 43, see para 35 and Table 1), wherein the dough composition is expanded by heat treatment to form a support matrix.
Regarding the limitation that “dough is subjected to heat treatment to cause the dough to expand and form a support matrix”, see para 36 where baking is taught , also see figures 1(a) and (b), and para 38 where expanded dough based product is taught as recited in claim 1.
Regarding (c) a leavening agent Nakano teaches of including leavening agent in para 22 and swelling agent in para 15 and 29, but does not list it in the Table 1, especially examples B-E). Leavening agents are known in the art for their use in doughs as leavening agents produce gas and enable the dough to rise and expand to create porous, light and fluffy texture in baked goods.. Thus, inclusion of leavening agent in dough is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention at least as taught by Nakano in para 22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include leavening agent. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakano at least for the purpose of a desire to help expand the dough to make a puffed food.
Regarding claim 2, Nakano teaches the dough composition for expanded food according to claim 1, wherein (a) the milk protein is at least one member selected from the group consisting of casein and whey protein (see para 43, where cream cheese is taught and Para 28 where it is taught that casein is present in cream cheese).
Regarding claim 3, Nakano teaches the dough composition for expanded food according to claim 1,wherein (a) the milk protein contains a protein derived from a milk-fermented product (see para 27-28, coagulated milk or yogurt) .
Regarding claim 4, Nakano teaches a dough composition for expanded food according to claim 1, wherein the dough composition comprises one or more edible compositions that comprise (a) the milk protein, and at least one of the edible compositions is a milk-fermented product (para 27-28, yogurt and Para 43 of cream cheese and para 27 and 28 provides coagulation/ fermentation)
Regarding claim 5, Nakano teaches a dough composition for expanded food according to claim 1,wherein (b) the starch is at least one member selected from the group consisting of natural starches and processed starches (see para 25-26 and 43 where tapioca and sweet potato starches are taught).
Regarding claim 8, Nakano teaches a dough composition for expanded food according to claim 1, which does not substantially comprise a processed rice product, wherein the dough composition is expanded by heat treatment to form a support matrix (see para 25-26 where rice component is taught and para 35-36 where heating is taught, also see para 43 and Table 1).
Regarding claim 9, Nakano teaches a dough composition for expanded food according to claim 1,which does not comprise at least one member selected from the group consisting of eggs and egg-derived ingredients, or does not comprise all members in the group, wherein the dough composition is expanded by heat treatment to form a support matrix (see para 43 where egg is not taught, also see para 18 and 23 where it is clearly stated that no eggs are used as raw material so that people who are allergic to eggs can consume the product).
Claims 6-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakano et al. (Nakano) as applied to claim 1-5 above, and further in view of cited art to WO 2021/042162 A to Lewis et al., hereinafter Lewis.
Regarding claim 6, Nakano as applied to claim 1, teaches inclusion of leavening agent (Para 22, swelling agent, para 15 and 29). Nakano does not disclose a dough comprising a (c) leavening agent which is at least one member selected from the group consisting of yeast, baking powder, baking soda and is part a as in claim 6. However, leavening agents are known in the art for their use in doughs as leavening agents produce gas and enable the dough to rise and expand to create porous, light and fluffy texture in baked goods, as is taught by Lewis. Lewis para 12 and 72 teach leavening agents including sodium bicarbonate or baking soda, which falls in the clamed list of leavening agents for claim 6. In Example 7 on page 33, Lewis teaches a gluten free bread comprising whey protein, starch, leavening agents and thickeners. In para 8, Lewis discloses that whey protein provides heat setting functions similar to gluten and enables production of gluten-like textures (e.g. dough extensibility, gas-holding matrix and baked bread chewy textures). Thus inclusion of leavening agent, in dough is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention as taught by Nakano para 22. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include leavening agents like baking soda, sodium bicarbonate and baking powders including baking soda as alkali and an acid as is taught by Lewis. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakano at least for the purpose of including in its dough composition baking powder and/or baking soda as in Lewis to help expand the dough as is taught in para 12, 72 and 81 example 7, para 140-143.
Regarding claim 7, Nakano as applied to claim 1, teaches inclusion of thickening agent (Para 22, 35, 43 where starch is taught). Nakano does not designate any component as (e) thickener as recited in claim 7. However, thickening agents, like gelatinizing starches, gums etc., were known to be included in dough compositions for baked products as is taught by Lewis. Lewis in para 17 teaches adding thickeners including gums (para 16 of Lewis), In para 87, Lewis discloses that the gums help a dough to resist spreading before cooking occurs and that yeast flavors and leavens the bread product. Thus inclusion of gums, in dough is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include thickeners like gums as is taught by Lewis. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakano at least for the purpose of including in its dough composition gums to add to its dough composition to stabilize it against spreading or losing its desired shape before cooking or baking as is taught in para 87 of Lewis.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, the ordinary skilled artisan would have found it obvious in view of Lewis for Nakao to add any or all of a yeast, a baking powder, baking soda and a thickener agent to its dough composition to make an puffed expanded food. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakano at least for the purpose of including in its dough composition a yeast, baking powder and/or baking soda as in Lewis to help expand and flavor the dough; and, in addition, one reading Nakano would have desired to add the thickener of Lewis to its dough composition to stabilize it against spreading or losing its desired shape before cooking or baking.
Regarding claim 10, Nakano teaches a dough composition for expanded food according to claim 1, which comprises each of the ingredients in the following proportions:
Nakano teaches, a dough composition for expanded food, the composition (abstract and para 17, 35-36, 43-44 and table 1) comprising water, starch, milk protein.
Regarding component (d) water: 30 to 70 mass% ( Para 35, Table 1, compositions B-E where 47-48% moisture content of dough is taught, also Para 12, where general composition of dough has water content ranging from 35-60 % by weight of dough), which falls in the claimed range.
Regarding component (e) thickener 0-30 mass%, which includes 0 mass%, i.e., the thickener component is not required or is an optional ingredient. Further, thickening agents, like gelatinizing starches are present in the dough compositions as taught by Nakano.
Regarding components (a) and (b) of claim 10, based on the water content and extrapolation of para 12 and 35 and Table 1, it follows that milk product comprising protein and starch product as taught by Nakano total to a range from 40-65% from extrapolating from para 12 and 52-53% based on extrapolation of Table 1, compositions B-E.
Regarding the protein content, milk product that contains protein as applied to claim 1(Para 35, Table 1 and para 43, where all the protein is milk based protein and other than starch and water all the other listed ingredients are listed in para 29, where no added proteins are listed), thus the milk product which can be cream cheese, casein, casein sodium (Para 27-28), is being considered as a protein product.
Regarding the relative proportion of (a) and (b) as taught by Nakano, proportion of milk component, is 10-150 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of starchy raw material (Para 30-31). Also see Table 1 compositions B-E where the relative proportion of milk product varies from 25-150 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of starchy raw material, where the relative proportion of protein and starch both amount to a total of 40-65% and typically, 52-53% by weight (see extrapolation above from para 30-31 and table 1/para 35), and based on the relative amounts of protein and starch components, it follows that both protein and starch components are present in the dough of expanded food product in claimed proportions of 10 to 30 mass% of protein and 2 to 25 mass % of starch. Further attention is invited to para 31 of Nakano where the advantages of including starch and protein in desired ranges are related to fluidity, moldability, workability and puffability of dough. Too little protein the dough is less workable and less fluid so it has deteriorated puffability, but too much protein then the dough becomes easy to burn (Para 31 od Nakano). Therefore, it follows to adjust the protein and starch content to achieve a workable dough that also puffs and bakes well. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have knowledge to adjust the dough components where protein is 10-150 parts as for every 100 parts of starch, such that, the protein content in the range of 10 to 30 mass% and starch content in the range 2 to 25 mass % of starch. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakano at least for the purpose of including in its dough composition based on the teaching of para 31 of Nakano, at least to achieve a dough that is fluid, moldable, workable and puffs and does not burn during baking.
Regarding (c) a leavening agent Nakano teaches of including leavening agent in para 22 and swelling agent in para 15 and 29, but does not teach leavening agent: 0.05 to 5 mass%. Leavening agents are known in the art for their use in doughs as leavening agents produce gas and enable the dough to rise and expand to create porous, light and fluffy texture in baked goods, as taught by Lewis. Lewis para 12 and 72 teach leavening agents including sodium bicarbonate or baking soda, which falls in the clamed list of leavening agents for claim 6.Para 18 of Lewis teaches 1-6% by weight of , alkali, gas forming alkali, like sodium bicarbonate or baking soda, a leavening agent, which has values in the claimed range and overall range overlaps the claimed range. Thus, inclusion of leavening agent in dough in claimed ranges is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention at least as taught by Nakano in para 22 and Lewis, para 12, 72 and 18. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to include leavening agent in the range as claimed. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Nakano at least for the purpose of including in its dough composition baking powder and/or baking soda as taught by Lewis to help expand the dough as is taught in para 12, 72, 18.
Regarding the overlapping of ranges between the invention and prior art composition it is noted that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTI CHAWLA whose telephone number is (571)272-8212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30- 5:30.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/JYOTI CHAWLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791