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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
Examiner notes that applicant has amended the claims to recite three separate groups of inventions.
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-3, drawn to a method for preparing a legume starch with a high slowly digestible fraction (SDS) content which method is a hydrothermal treatment method comprising the steps of preparing a starch milk with a dry matter content of between 30 and 40% by weight, heating the starch milk prepared to a temperature of between 50 and 60°C in a continuous reactor sot that the residence time of the starch milk is less than 5 minutes, and recovering, filtering, and drying the starch milk treated.
Group II, claim(s) 4, drawn to a pea starch with a high slowly digestible fraction content having an SDS content greater than 35% by weight.
Group III, claim(s) 5, drawn to a method for preparing a food product comprising incorporating a pea starch with a high slowly digestible fraction content having an SDS content greater than 35% by weight into an edible composition.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I, II, and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a pea starch with a high slowly digestible fraction content having an SDS content, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Chung et al. “Effect of single and dual hydrothermal treatments on the crystalline structure, thermal properties, and nutritional fractions of pea, lentil, and navy bean starches” (published 2010) (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed January 5, 2024) discloses a method for preparing a legume starch (pea) with a high slowly digestible fraction (SDS) content (Chung et al., Page 503) using a hydrothermal treatment method comprising the steps of preparing a starch slurry and heating the starch slurry (Chung et al., Page 502).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I: Claims 1-3 in the reply filed on May 8, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and II are related as a process of making a composition and the composition per se and all linked via linking Claim 4 which claims the pea starch. Applicant contends that searching for Claim 4 of Group II would automatically uncover the process of making the composition of Group I. Applicant contends that there are two criteria for a proper restriction that the inventions must be independent and distinct and searching the additional inventions must constitute an undue burden on the Patent Office if restriction is not required. Applicant continues that the instant groups are linked to form a general inventive concept and that the scope and search and examination of the invention overlaps amongst the groups and there is no serious search burden. Applicant continues that an application containing a claim which covers two or more possible divisible inventive groups does not make a requirement for restriction proper when there is present a properly allowable linking claim and that Claim 4 links both groups together. This is not found persuasive because the rationale with respect to an alleged undue search burden does not apply to a 371 Unity of Invention restriction. The instant applicant has been previously restricted under the 371 Unity of Invention rationale. Therefore, these arguments are not found persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-3 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a high slowly digestible fraction (SDS) content” in lines 1-2. The term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein it comprises the following steps” in lines 1-3. It is unclear what “it” refers to.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “prepared in this way” in line 5 as well as in line 8. It is unknown what “prepared in this way” means.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “preferably” in line 6 as well as in line 7. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “particularly” in line 2. The phrase "particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the high slowly digestible fraction (SDS) content” in lines 1-2. The term “high” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “preferably” in line 2. The phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the initial starch” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Clarification 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. “Effect of single and dual hydrothermal treatments on the crystalline structure, thermal properties, and nutritional fractions of pea, lentil, and navy bean starches” (published 2010) (herein referred to as “Chung et al.”) (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed January 5, 2024) in view of CN 103194508 and Berckmans et al. US 2007/0055058 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed November 4, 2025).
A human translation of CN 103194508 has been attached herein. All citations to CN 103194508 are with respect to the human translation of CN 103194508.
Regarding Claim 1, Chung et al. discloses a method for preparing a legume starch with a “high” slowly digestible fraction (SDS) content (increased SDS levels) (Chung et al., Page 507). The method is a hydrothermal treatment method (Chung et al., Page 502). The method comprises the steps of preparing a starch milk (slurry), heating the starch milk (slurry) to a temperature of 50°C (Chung et al., Page 502), which falls within the claimed heated temperature range of between 50 and 60°C. Chung et al. also discloses the starch milk slurry having 70% moisture (Chung et al., Page 502), which converts to 30% dry matter content by weight. Where the claimed heat treatment temperature and dry matter content ranges encompasses heat treated temperature and dry matter content ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Chung et al. also discloses drying (air drying) the treated starch milk (Chung et al., Page 502).
Chung et al. is silent regarding the heat treatment step occurring in a continuous reactor so that the residence time of the starch milk is less than 5 minutes and recovering and filtering the treated starch milk.
CN 103194508 discloses a method for preparing a legume starch (pea starch) with a high slowly digestible fraction (SDS) content (‘508 Machine Translation, Paragraphs [0012] and [0019]). The method comprises the steps of preparing a starch milk (pea starch milk) (‘508 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0019]) with a dry matter content of 5-45% (‘508 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0013]), which encompasses the claimed starch milk dry matter content of between 30 and 40% by weight. The preferred percentage of starch milk concentration is 10-40% by weight (‘508 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0020]) which also encompasses the claimed starch milk dry matter content of between 30 and 40% by weight. The starch is subjected to heat treatment (‘508 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0082]). The heat treated starch milk is recovered, filtered (sieved), and dried (‘508 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0010]). The starch milk is necessarily recovered. The claims do not specify any particular methods of “recovering” the starch milk. CN 103194508 discloses drying, pulverizing, and passing the dried milk through a sieve (‘508 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0043]). The dried starch milk is necessarily “recovered” in order to be able to pulverize the starch milk.
Both Chung et al. and CN 103194508 are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of preparing slow digesting starch. Both methods of Chung et al. and CN 103194508 used hydrothermal treatments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Chung et al. and prepare the legume starch and recover, filter, and dry the treated starch milk since CN 103194508 teaches that the claimed steps of “recovering,” filtering (via sieving), and drying were known and conventional steps in the legume making art.
Further regarding Claim 1, Chung et al. modified with CN 103194508 is silent regarding the heat treatment step occurring in a continuous reactor so that the residence time of the starch milk is less than 5 minutes.
Berckmans et al. discloses a method of modifying starch and starch derivatives in a continuous process using reactors (‘058, Paragraph [0001]). The method comprises the steps of preparing a starch composition (pea starch substrate) (‘058, Paragraphs [0020] and [0022]) and heating the starch milk to a temperature of between 50 and 220°C in a continuous reactor (‘058, Paragraph [0026]) so that the residence time in the reactor is between 1 and 60 minutes (‘058, Paragraph [0024]), which overlaps the claimed heated temperature in the continuous reactor of 50 and 60°C and the residence time of the starch milk is less than 5 minutes, respectively. Berckmans et al. also discloses adjusting the rotating speed and angle of blade in the reactor depending on the desired residence time of the substrate in the reactor (‘058, Paragraph [0023]) which residence time accounts for variable factors such as the nature of the substrate, temperature of reactor, quantity and nature of reagent, and speed of rotation wherein certain reactions have a preferred residence time of 4 minutes (‘058, Paragraph [0024]).
Both Chung et al. and Berckmans et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of preparing starch compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Chung et al. and heat the starch milk at the claimed temperature range for the claimed residence time as taught by Berckmans et al. since where the claimed heated temperature and residence time ranges overlaps heated temperature and residence time ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the heated temperature and residence times in the process will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such heated temperatures and residence times in the process is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the heating temperatures and residence times of the reactions of the starch composition of modified Chung et al. based upon the nature of the substrate, temperature of reactor, quantity and nature of reagent, and speed of rotation as suggested by Breckmans et al. (‘058, Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 2, Chung et al. discloses the legume starch to be pea starch (Chung et al., Page 502).
Regarding Claim 3, Chung et al. discloses the high slowly digestible fraction (SDS) content being increased (Chung et al., Conclusion on Page 507). Although Chung et al. does not explicitly state that the high slowly digestible fraction (SDS) content corresponded to an increase of 5 to 25% by dry weight with respect to the initial starch, CN 103194508 discloses SDS can continuously and slowly release energy to maintain stable postprandial blood glucose and reduces postprandial insulin secretion and improve the body’s sensitivity to insulin (‘508 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0006]). Differences in the amount of increase of the SDS content in the process will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such amount of increase of the SDS content in the process is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the degree to which the high slowly digestible fraction (SDS) content of Chung et al. increases with respect to the initial starch based upon the degree of improving the body’s sensitivity to insulin as taught by CN 103194508.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,588,696 in view of Berckmans et al. US 2007/0055058. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 1-4 of the ‘696 patent discloses a method for preparing a legume starch with a high slowly digestible fraction (SDS) content which method is a hydrothermal treatment method (heating starch milk). The method comprises the steps of preparing a starch milk with a dry matter content of between 30 and 40% by weight, heating the starch milk to a temperature of between 50 and 60°C (48 and 53°C), and recovering, filtering, and drying the starch milk. Although Claims 1-4 of the ‘696 patent does not explicitly disclose the heating step being conducted in a continuous reactor so that the residence time of the starch milk is less than 5 minutes, Berckmans et al. discloses a method of modifying starch and starch derivatives in a continuous process using reactors (‘058, Paragraph [0001]). The method comprises the steps of preparing a starch composition (pea starch substrate) (‘058, Paragraphs [0020] and [0022]) and heating the starch milk to a temperature of between 50 and 220°C in a continuous reactor (‘058, Paragraph [0026]) so that the residence time in the reactor is between 1 and 60 minutes (‘058, Paragraph [0024]), which overlaps the claimed heated temperature in the continuous reactor of 50 and 60°C and the residence time of the starch milk is less than 5 minutes, respectively. Berckmans et al. also discloses adjusting the rotating speed and angle of blade in the reactor depending on the desired residence time of the substrate in the reactor (‘058, Paragraph [0023]) which residence time accounts for variable factors such as the nature of the substrate, temperature of reactor, quantity and nature of reagent, and speed of rotation wherein certain reactions have a preferred residence time of 4 minutes (‘058, Paragraph [0024]).
Both the ‘696 patent and Berckmans et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of preparing starch compositions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of the ‘696 patent and heat the starch milk at the claimed temperature range for the claimed residence time as taught by Berckmans et al. since where the claimed heated temperature and residence time ranges overlaps heated temperature and residence time ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the heated temperature and residence times in the process will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such heated temperatures and residence times in the process is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the heating temperatures and residence times of the reactions of the starch composition of the ‘696 patent based upon the nature of the substrate, temperature of reactor, quantity and nature of reagent, and speed of rotation as suggested by Breckmans et al. (‘058, Paragraph [0024]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brown et al. US 2004/0137038 discloses a method for preparing a food product comprising incorporating a pea starch with a high slowly digestible fraction content into an edible composition (‘038, Paragraphs [0001] and [0052]).
Bhargava et al. US 2016/0192682 discloses a method for preparing a food product comprising incorporating a legume starch with a high slowly digestible fraction content into an edible composition for people with diabetes (‘682, Paragraph [0102]).
Sershon et al. US 2021/0212348 discloses a nutrient dense non-dairy food product (‘348, Paragraph [0001]) and a process for making the nutrient dense non-dairy product (‘348, Paragraph [0024]) wherein the non-dairy food product is a yogurt made of pea protein (‘348, Paragraph [0073]) and a highly dispersible oat flour prepared by combining whole oat flour starting mixture and a suitable enzyme solution in a mixer and then heating the mixture and subjecting the enzyme treated mixture to an extrusion process to hydrolyze, gelatinize, and cook the oat flour mixture using an extruder or other suitable continuous cooker (‘348, Paragraphs [0033]-[0034]) wherein the starting mixture and enzyme solution are mixed in any suitable vessel such as a high speed mixer that permits liquid to be added to free flowing flour wherein the output is a free flowing wetted flour mixture having a moisture content of about 25 to about 40% wherein the residence time is the time sufficient to obtain the desired result and is typically 1 to 5 min (‘348, Paragraph [0038]).
Segall et al. US 2016/0135482 discloses a dairy analogue product comprising a pulse protein product (‘482, Paragraph [0052]) made using a continuous process to extract protein from the pulse protein source for a residence time sufficient to effect the desired extraction (‘482, Paragraph [0057]) and subjecting the acidified aqueous pulse protein solution to a heat treatment to inactive heat labile anti-nutritional factors (‘482, Paragraph [0071])
Delrue US 5,100,679 discloses treatment of vegetable sources of nutrients of vegetable proteins and carbohydrates to improve the palatability and digestibility thereof to an extent that permits such foodstuffs to be utilized as nutrients for human and animal consumption (‘679, Column 1, lines 9-14) comprising the steps of heat treating a slurry of a vegetable source of protein and carbohydrate (‘679, Column 3, lines 16-40) wherein the slurry is pumped into a jet cooker and heated above 115°C and passed through a holding tube to give residence time of at least about 50 seconds to about 480 seconds wherein heating the pretreated slurry substantially inactivates unwanted proteinaceous antinutritional factors (‘679, Column 5, lines 50-56) wherein the process is continuous (‘679, Column 14, lines 27-39).
Pora et al. US 2021/0332155 discloses a process for preparing stabilized buckwheat starches comprising a specific heat treatment (‘155, Paragraph [0001]) comprising the steps of preparing a suspension of native buckwheat starch in an aqueous medium at a concentration of from 20 to 50% by weight at a temperature T1 between room temperature and 50°C, heating the aqueous suspension up to a temperature Ts that does not exceed 60°C (‘155, Paragraphs [0024]-[0026]) wherein the aqueous suspension is heated to a temperature Ts in the range from 50 to 60°C (‘155, Paragraph [0058]) wherein the heating impacts positively the crystalline structure of the starch and resists swelling at a higher temperature, e.g. a pasting temperature up to 93°C and prevents bursting (‘155, Paragraph [0061]) wherein heating at a temperature above 60°C impacts negatively the crystalline structure of the starch since the starch progressively loses its crystalline structure and eventually its granular structure (‘155, Paragraph [0064]) wherein heating aqueous suspension of pea starch or maize starch up to a temperature comprised between 50 and 60°C does not allow obtaining a modified starch with heat, shear, and acid resistance as good as the one of the buckwheat starch (‘155, Paragraph [0066]) wherein there are two common hydrothermal techniques known for modifying uncooked granular starch of heat moisture treatment and annealing wherein heat moisture treatment usually is carried out in a relative low moisture, e.g. < 35%, and high temperature, e.g. 90-120° conditions and annealing is performed above the glass transition and below the gelatinization temperature in excess of water (‘155, Paragraph [0011]).
Bassi US 2016/0374374 discloses a method of making gluten free starch (‘374, Paragraph [0002]) comprising the steps of treating a starch slurry by heating the starch slurry to a temperature that is greater than room or ambient temperature an less than the boiling point of the slurry wherein the starch slurry is heated to a temperature from about 80°F to about 120°F and the slurry is also stirred or otherwise agitated during the treating step for a period of time of about 10 minutes to about two hours (‘374, Paragraph [0045]).
Bock et al. US 2020/0308311 discloses a method of making a heat modified starch whose viscosity is stabilized following this heat treatment which heat modified starches are used as texturing agents and thickeners in numerous food applications (‘311, Paragraph [0001]) using pea starch (‘311, paragraph [0053]) wherein annealing consists of treating starch in excess water at temperatures below the gelatinization temperature in order to approach the glass transition temperature (‘311, Paragraphs [0020]-[0022])
Lane et al. US 2018/0192683 discloses annealing is a hydrothermal treatment commonly employed in modifying the physiochemical properties of starch to heat starches having specific levels of moisture for a specific period of time without causing a significant level of starch gelatinization, i.e. the starch granule retains its morphology wherein annealing the treatment of starch with excess or intermediate moisture, e.g. about 40 wt% to about 90 wt% moisture at a temperature above the glass transition temperature but below the gelatinization temperature which gelatinization temperature varies depending on the source of the starch with starch gelatinization typically occurring over a temperature range (‘683, Paragraph [0006]).
Shah US 2016/0376381 discloses annealed pea starch (‘381, Paragraph [0089]) exhibiting an increased onset of gelatinization temperature and controlled viscosity development while retaining significant viscosity (‘381, Paragraph [0004]) wherein the starch is annealed in excess water in the presence of a swelling inhibition agent in a suspension or slurry comprising an amylose containing starch in granule form, a swelling inhibition agent, and water wherein the suspension contains sufficient water to slurry the starch granules (‘381, Paragraphs [0025]-[0026]) wherein the aqueous slurry is heated at moderate temperatures of from 50° to 100° wherein the temperature is maintained low enough to prevent gelatinization but higher temperatures progress the annealing progress more quickly (‘381, Paragraph [0030]) and the starch slurry is heated for a time effective to anneal the starch to reach an effective functionality wherein the time needed depends on a verity of factors including the amylose content of the starch and the temperature of heating (‘381, Paragraph [0031]).
Macedo Galvaing US 2014/0005308 discloses a method of making plasticized starch compositions from granular starch derived from legumes such as peas (‘308, Paragraph [0018]) wherein the granular starch is a physico-chemically modified starch which has essentially kept the structure of native starch and the starch is treated in an aqueous medium at low temperature (annealing) which is known for increasing the crystallinity of starch (‘308, Paragraph [0019]).
Schmiedel et al. US 2003/0054501 discloses a method for making resistant starch (‘501, Paragraph [0001]) derived from peas (‘501, Paragraph [0018]) wherein the resistant starch is made by making a suspension from the starch and water in a concentration range of about 5-50% and gelatinization by heating (‘501, Paragraphs [0020]-[0022]) and annealing below the conversion temperature below about 65-70°C (‘501,Paragraph [0028]).
Chiu et al. US 2001/0017133 discloses most annealed and heat/moisture treated starches show an increased gelatinization temperature (‘133, Paragraph [0026]).
The prior art made of record, cited on a previous Information Disclosure Statement, and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CN 101117352 discloses a method for producing non-chemically modified high temperature stable slow digesting starch (‘352 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0002]) having a slow digesting starch content of ≥ 50% and the residual slow digesting starch after high temperature treatment during application and processing is ≥ 80% (‘352 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0017]) wherein a mung bean starch slurry is gelatinized and reacted with continuous stirring at 90°C for 24 hours (‘352 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0034]) wherein slowly digestible starch (SDS) is a low glycemic modified starch that balances nutrition and function and possesses unique physiological functions such as slow absorption, sustained energy release, helping to maintain blood sugar homeostasis, and prevents and treats various diseases such as diabetes, obesity, cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases, and cancer (‘352 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0006]) wherein slow digesting starch is widely use in food precursors, foods, or food compositions as a nutritional additive in food formulations and low glycemic foods made from slow digesting starch are ideal health foods for athletes with sustained energy release (‘352 Machine Translation, Paragraph [0007]).
Piecyk et al. “Effect of hydrothermal modifications on properties and digestibility of grass pea starch” (2018) discloses non-modified grass pea starch having a high total content of SDS (Piecyk et al., Page 2119) made by annealing starch by dispersing native starch samples in water and incubating at 10°C below the onset temperature of gelatinization for 24 hr in a water bath and drying the annealed starches wherein annealing modification changes starch structure leading to a decrease in swelling power and amylose leaching and to a decrease in the gelatinization temperature range and annealing also influences starch digestibility (Piecyk et al., Page 2114).
Chung et al. “Impact of annealing and heat moisture treatment on rapidly digestible, slowly digestible and resistant starch levels in native and gelatinized corn, pea, and lentil starches” (February 2009) discloses starch is classified into rapidly digestible starch (RDS), slowly digestible starch (SDS), and resistant starch (RS) according to the rate of glucose release and its absorption in the gastrointestinal tract wherein SDS is a starch fraction that is digested completely in the small intestine at a lower rate as compared to RDS (Chung et al., Page 436) wherein annealing is a hydrothermal method used to modify starch digestibility by physically treating starch granules in the presence of heat and water wherein starch granules in excess > 60% w/w or at intermediate water content of 40% w/w are held at a temperature above the glass transition temperature Tg but below the onset temperature of gelatinization for a set period of time wherein annealing increases granule stability, crystalline perfection, starch chain interactions within the amorphous and crystalline domains of the granule, formation of double helices, increases gelatinization temperatures, narrows the gelatinization temperature range, decreases granular swelling, and decreases amylose leaching (Chung et al., Page 437).
Ratnayake et al. “Pea starch: Composition, Structure, and Properties” (published 2002) discloses digestibility of native starches among and within species have been attributed to the interplay of many factors such as starch source, granule size, amylose-amylopectin ration, extent of molecular association between starch components, degree of crystallinity, amylose chain length, presence of amylose lipid complexes, and the amount of B polymorphs in C type starches wherein native legume starches are more digestible than potato or high amylose maize starch but less digestible than cereal starches (Ratnayake et al., Page 227) wherein annealing is a process whereby a material is held at a temperature somewhat lower than its melting temperature to permit molecular reorganization to occur and a more organized structure of lower free energy to form wherein annealing aims to approach the glass transition temperature to enhance molecular mobility without triggering gelatinization wherein annealing pea starches decreases granular swelling, amylose leaching, and the gelatinization temperature range (Ratnayake et al., Page 229).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, EST.
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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights