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 .
The amendment filed 6/15/2026 has been entered. Claims 3-6 are pending. Prior objections and rejections not included below are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments.
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 3-6 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.
Claims 3 and 5 recite the limitation “the pea seeds” in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim(s).
Claims 3 and 5 additionally recites a limitation of preparing a water-soluble polysaccharide derived from beans, and additionally recites that the water-soluble polysaccharide is from “a fruiting part of the pea seeds or of soybean seeds”. It is unclear whether the polysaccharide is derived from any bean, or from the fruiting part of peas and soybeans.
Claims 4 and 6 depend from independent Claim(s) 3 and 5 and are therefore also rejected.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 5104674) in view of Nakamura (US 2014/0134310 A1), taken with evidentiary reference of Zhang (doi: 10.1016/j.fgb.2011.06.002, The D-galacturonic acid catabolic pathway in Botrytis cinerea, June 2011).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen teaches a method for producing a food product which comprises eggs (Column 45, Example 3), which is an “egg processed food”.
The polysaccharide is prepared with egg protein (Column 45, Lines 15-16) in a weight ratio of 2:5 (Column 45, Lines 16-17), which lies within the claimed range of polysaccharide:protein. The mixture of polysaccharide and eggs is heated (Column 45, Line 20).
Chen teaches the use of water soluble polysaccharides such as pectin (Column 6, Line 48), but does not teach a source of the pectin.
Nakamura teaches that soybean cotyledons [0003] and pea seeds (Page 2, Claim 7) are known sources of pectin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a soybean seed or pea seed-derived pectin in the method of Chen. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to utilize a pectin from a known source.
Note that pectin is known to contain galacturonic acid (see evidentiary reference of Zhang, Abstract, Line 1). The pectin of Nakamura is therefore interpreted to comprise galacturonic acid as claimed.
Regarding Claim 4, Chen teaches heating to 110 °F, which is 43.4 °C (Column 45, Line 20).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen teaches a method for producing a food product which comprises eggs (Column 45, Example 3), which is an “egg processed food”. The polysaccharide is prepared with egg protein (Column 45, Lines 15-16) in a weight ratio of 2:5 (Column 45, Lines 16-17), which lies within the claimed range of polysaccharide:protein. The mixture of polysaccharide and eggs is heated (Column 45, Line 20).
Regarding the limitation that the method be for “promoting egg coagulation”, Chen teaches that the composition comprising egg proteins (Page 7, Line 40) forms stable, entangled complexes with denatured proteins and expelled water (Column 6, Line 65-Column 7, Line 3). Chen is therefore interpreted to teach an “egg coagulation promoter” as claimed.
Chen teaches the use of water soluble polysaccharides such as pectin (Column 6, Line 48), but does not teach a source of the pectin.
Nakamura teaches that soybean cotyledons [0003] and pea seeds (Page 2, Claim 7) are known sources of pectin.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a soybean seed or pea seed-derived pectin in the method of Chen. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to utilize a pectin from a known source.
Note that pectin is known to contain galacturonic acid (see evidentiary reference of Zhang, Abstract, Line 1). The pectin of Nakamura is therefore interpreted to comprise galacturonic acid as claimed.
Regarding Claim 6, Chen teaches heating to 110 °F, which is 43.4 °C (Column 45, Line 20).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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.
/D.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights