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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites “wherein said millet flour has a moisture content of less than 8% for at least 120 days”. However, this is not specifically recited in the specification. It is noted that Table 1 shows moisture content of processed jowar flour is 12.1%% at 120 days and 11.9% at 196 days, which does not provide support for “wherein said millet flour has a moisture content of less than 8% for at least 120 days”. It is additionally noted that “at least 120 days” is an open ended range including 120 days and any amount of days beyond 120 days. While it is noted that Applicant points to Table 3 for support for vacuum dried flours having a moisture content less than 8% after 120 days, Table 3 only shows moisture content up to 120 days, and does not include any information after 120 days. Therefore Table 3 also does not provide adequate support for “wherein said millet flour has a moisture content of less than 8% for at least 120 days”. Additionally, Table 3 only recites specific moisture contents that do not support the full range of “less than 8%” as it is noted that “less than 8%” includes moisture contents ranging from 0% - 7.99%. In other words, “less than 8%” is broader language than is supported by the specification. Additionally, table 3 only provides moisture content information for vacuum dried jowar and bajra flour and recites an upper limit of the vacuum dried jowar and bajra millet flour of 5.99 and 7.99% specifically, and not generically any millet.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites that “the shelf life of the millet flour is at least 4 months”. However, paragraph [0039] discloses that ragi is shelf stable for four months and only jowar and bajra are shelf stable for at least six months, it is not clear that “a shelf life of the millet flour is at least 4 months” is supported for generically any type of millet.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites that “the shelf life of the millet flour is at least 6 months”. However, paragraph [0039] discloses that ragi is shelf stable for four months and only jowar and bajra are shelf stable for at least six months. It is not clear that “a shelf life of the millet flour is at least 6 months” is supported for generically any type of millet.
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 2-4 and 8 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 2, claim 2 recites “wherein step b) comprises pressure steaming jowar grains for around 4 to 6 minutes to have a moisture content of 20% to 25%...”. It is unclear if jowar grains are required in addition to the millet grains already recited in claim 1 or if claim 2 is further limiting the millet grains of claim 1 to be jowar grains.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “wherein step b) comprises pressure steaming bajra grains for around 6 to 8 minutes to have a moisture content of 20% to 25%...”. It is unclear if bajra grains are required in addition to the millet grains already recited in claim 1 or if claim 2 is further limiting the millet grains of claim 1 to be bajra grains.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “wherein step b) comprises pressure steaming ragi grains for around 3 to 7 minutes to have a moisture content of 25% to 30%...”. It is unclear if ragi grains are required in addition to the millet grains already recited in claim 1 or if claim 2 is further limiting the millet grains of claim 1 to be ragi grains.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “a pregelatinized flour” in line 2. It is unclear if this is the same as or different from the “pregelatinized flour” already recited in claim 1, since claim 8 does not recite “the pregelatinized flour”.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malleshi US 2003/0185951 in view of Stamos US 3,387,383 in view of Bellaio WO 2014/147031 in view of Ishibashi JP 2004337095A (Espacenet Translation).
Regarding claim 1, Malleshi discloses a method for preparing a shelf stable pure millet flour comprising the following steps: a) cleaning millet grains to remove foreign material ([0020], [0054], Fig. 1); b) pressure steaming millet grains (Fig. 1); c) cooling of millet grains obtained from step b) (removal of the millets from the pressure steamer necessarily results in cooling of the millets); drying of millets obtained from step c) utilizing a mechanical drier to a moisture content of 8%, which is merely close to the claimed range and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05.I) ([0031]); e) milling the millet ([0019]).
Claim 1 differs from Malleshi in the recitation that the drying step is carried out by vacuum drying the millet grains. However, Malleshi discloses that the millet can be dried using a mechanical dryer ([0025])
Stamos discloses that a known mechanical dryer includes a vacuum dryer (col. 1, lines 35-38).
Bellaio discloses that known drying process for millet which has been treated hydrothermally and which can be milled into flour, includes vacuum drying (Pg. 9, lines 14-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the drying step by vacuum drying, since Malleshi discloses that the millet can be dried using a mechanical dryer ([0025]) and the prior art above recognizes that mechanical dryers include vacuum dryers and that vacuum dryers are suitable for drying millet.
Claim 1 differs from Malleshi in the recitation that the milling step comprises milling a mixture of the processed grains with pregelatinized millet flour wherein the mixture comprises 5% to 25% by weight of the pregelatinized millet flour.
Ishibashi discloses adding 10-15% by weight pregelatinized millet flour to millet flour (Abstract, Pg. 5, 1st paragraph) and pulverizing in order to provide a flour that exhibits a binding effect equivalent to that of wheat gluten (Abstract, Pg. 5, 1st paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Malleshi such that the milling step comprises milling with 10-15% by weight of pregelatinized millet flour in order to provide a flour that exhibits a binding effect equivalent to that of wheat gluten.
Regarding claim 6, Modified Malleshi discloses that step a) comprises cleaning of the grains, washing them in water and allowing them to soak in water to obtain 30% moisture ([0033]-[0036], [0058]).
Regarding claims 11-12, Modified Malleshi discloses that the flour has substantially high shelf life (‘595, [0045], [0046]) and since the product obtained by process of Modified Malleshi is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01.I,II).
Regarding claim 13, Malleshi discloses that the millet flour is ragi (finger millet) (‘951, Fig. 1) or jowar (sorghum) (‘095, Espacenet Translation, Abstract).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malleshi US 2003/0185951 in view of Stamos US 3,387,383 in view of Bellaio WO 2014/147031 in view of Ishibashi JP 2004337095A (Espacenet Translation) in view of IN 195188B (Application #IN306DE2002 Translation cited in IDS filed 05/22/2024) in view of Rathore et al.
Regarding claim 2, it is noted that as discussed in the 112b rejection above, it is unclear if jowar grains are required in addition to the millet grains already recited in claim 1 or if claim 2 is further limiting the millet grains of claim 1 to be jowar grains.
Regarding claim 2, Modified Malleshi discloses that step b) comprises pressure steaming millet for around 3 to 7 minutes (Fig. 1, [0058]). Regarding the drying time of step d), it is noted that the amount of product being dried influences the required drying time, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely adjust the drying time based on the amount of product being dried.
Claim 2 differs from Modified Malleshi in the recitation that the millet grains are jowar grains. It is noted that examples 1 and 2 ([0054]-[0055]) of Malleshi are generically directed to millet, while example 3 is directed to finger millet, therefore this suggests that the invention of Malleshi is not particularly limited to finger millet.
IN 195188B discloses a similar process as Malleshi and discloses that the process can be carried out on jowar (sorghum) grains (Pg. 5, second paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Modified Malleshi to other types of millet grains including jowar grains as suggested by IN 1951588B in order to provide an improved jowar flour (MPEP 2143.I.E).
Claim 2 differs from Modified Malleshi in the recitation that the pressure steaming of the grains is performed to have a moisture content of 20% to 25%.
Rathore discloses a similar process to Malleshi and discloses performing hydrothermal treatment (steaming in autoclave) on millet to achieve moisture from 6 to 21% (Pg. 1503, Left Col., Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Malleshi such the pressure steaming of the grains is performed to have a moisture content of 20-21% as suggested by Rathore, since it has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that as discussed in the 112b rejection above, it is unclear if bajra grains are required in addition to the millet grains already recited in claim 1 or if claim 2 is further limiting the millet grains of claim 1 to be bajra grains.
Regarding claim 3, Modified Malleshi discloses that step b) comprises pressure steaming millet for around 3 to 7 minutes (Fig. 1, [0058]). Regarding the drying time of step d), it is noted that the amount of product being dried influences the required drying time, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely adjust the drying time based on the amount of product being dried.
Claim 3 differs from Modified Malleshi in the recitation that the millet grains are bajra grains. It is noted that examples 1 and 2 ([0054]-[0055]) of Malleshi are generically directed to millet, while example 3 is directed to finger millet, therefore this suggests that the invention of Malleshi is not particularly limited to finger millet.
IN 195188B discloses a similar process as Malleshi and discloses that the process can be carried out on bajra (pearl) grains (Pg. 5, second paragraph, Pg. 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of Modified Malleshi to other types of millet grains including bajra (pearl) grains as suggested by IN 1951588B in order to provide an improved bajra (pearl) flour (MPEP 2143.I.E).
Claim 3 differs from Modified Malleshi in the recitation that the pressure steaming of the grains is performed to have a moisture content of 20% to 25%.
Rathore discloses a similar process to Malleshi and discloses performing hydrothermal treatment (steaming in autoclave) on millet to achieve moisture from 6 to 21% (Pg. 1503, Left Col., Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Malleshi such the pressure steaming of the grains is performed to have a moisture content of 20-21% as suggested by Rathore, since it has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malleshi US 2003/0185951 in view of Stamos US 3,387,383 in view of Bellaio WO 2014/147031 in view of Ishibashi JP 2004337095A (Espacenet Translation) in view of Rathore et al.
Regarding claim 4, Modified Malleshi discloses that step b) comprises pressure steaming millet for around 3 to 7 minutes (Fig. 1, [0058]). Malleshi discloses that the millet is ragi (finger millet) ([0002]). Regarding the drying time of step d) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely adjust the drying time based on the amount of product being dried.
Claim 4 differs from Modified Malleshi in the recitation that the pressure steaming of the grains is performed to have a moisture content of 25%- 30%.
Rathore discloses a similar process to Malleshi and discloses performing hydrothermal treatment (steaming in autoclave) on millet to achieve moisture from 6 to 21% (Pg. 1503, Left Col., Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Malleshi such the pressure steaming of the grains is performed to have a moisture content of 20-21% as suggested by Rathore merely close to the claimed 25%, since it has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malleshi US 2003/0185951 in view of Stamos US 3,387,383 in view of Bellaio WO 2014/147031 in view of Ishibashi JP 2004337095A (Espacenet Translation) in view of IN 195188B (Application #IN306DE2002 Translation cited in IDS filed 05/22/2024).
Regarding claim 5, Claim 5 differs from Modified Malleshi in the recitation that the method further comprises preparing a rollable dough from the millet flour and preparing roti from the rollable dough.
IN 195188B discloses using a similar type of product as Modified Malleshi in order to prepare roti from rollable dough obtained using the millet flour (Pg. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Modified Malleshi such that the method comprises utilizing the millet flour for preparing a roti from rollable dough obtained using the millet flour as suggested by IN 195188B, since it has been held that “Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness and “Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.A, D).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malleshi US 2003/0185951 in view of in view of Stamos US 3,387,383 in view of Bellaio WO 2014/147031 in view of Ishibashi JP 2004337095A (Espacenet Translation) in view of Hossen US 2017/0135375.
Regarding claim 7, Modified Malleshi discloses steaming the grains in a cooker at a pressure of 1-3kg/cm2 for 3 to 8 minutes, turning of the steam and taking the resultant grains out for cooling ([0037]).
Claim 7 differs from Modified Malleshi in the recitation that the cooker is specifically a rotary cooker. Hossen discloses that a known steam pressure cooker includes a rotary steam pressure cooker ([0030]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize known stream pressure cookers to carry out the pressure steaming step including rotary cookers. It has been held that “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malleshi US 2003/0185951 in view of in view of Stamos US 3,387,383 in view of Bellaio WO 2014/147031 in view of Ishibashi JP 2004337095A (Espacenet Translation) in view of Zhang CN 110122769 (Espacenet Translation) in view of Lipscomb US 2020/0296975.
Regarding claim 8, Modified Malleshi discloses step e) comprises milling with a pregelatinized flour at 10-15% by weight of processed grains of jowar (sorghum), wherein the pregelatinized flour is manufactured by extruding raw millet flour at 15% moisture through an extruder to produce an extrudate, the temperature of the tip of the barrel is in the range of 100 °C to 150 °C (‘095, Espacenet Translation, Pg. 4). It is noted that Ishibashi discloses powdering the extrudate to provide the pregelatinized flour before milling with millet grains (‘095, Espacenet Translation, Pg. 4, Abstract). It is noted that Modified Malleshi teaches heating the same flour at the same moisture to the same temperature in order to gelatinize the flour and therefore also obviously includes “to effect dextrinization of the extrudate”. It is noted that tip of the barrel of ‘095 has been interpreted as the claimed “third zone”, since “third zone” as claimed is a generic zone of the extruder which can be considered a third zone and applicant’s does not provide any further specificity.
Claim 8 differs from Modified Malleshi in the recitation that the method comprises drying the extrudate at 50 °C to 80 °C.
Zhang discloses drying a similar type of flour (Pg. 6) as taught by Ishibashi prior to mixing with other ingredients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify modified Malleshi to include a drying step as taught by Zhang and vary the temperature based on processing time, in order to ensure the product has a desired moisture content.
Claim 8 differs from Modified Malleshi in the recitation that the extruder is specifically a twin-screw extruder.
Lipscomb discloses that known extruders for pregelatinizing flour includes twin screw extruders ([0011]). It would have been obvious to modify the extruder of Modified Malleshi to be a twin-screw extruder, since Malleshi does not limit the particular extruder and Lipsocomb shows known extruders for gelatinizing flour include twin screw extruders. It has been held that “Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” supports a conclusion of obviousness (MPEP 2143.I.B).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malleshi US 2003/0185951 in view of in view of Stamos US 3,387,383 in view of Bellaio WO 2014/147031 in view of Ishibashi JP 2004337095A (Espacenet Translation in view of Ramashia et al. in view of King Arthur Baking (cited in 892 dated 01/21/2026).
Regarding claim 9, Modified Malleshi teaches a millet flour obtained by the method of claim 1. Claim 9 differs from Modified Malleshi in the recitation that the millet flour has a moisture content of less than 8% for at least 120 days.
Ramashia discloses providing finger millet flour with a moisture content less than 8% (Pg. 113, Left col. Results and Discussion). Ramashia discloses that moisture content is one of the important factors that govern the physical properties of grain. Ramshia discloses that it is also a good indicator as to whether the grains can be stored for a long or short period and the higher the moisture content, the shorter the storage life of the grain as high moisture content can cause a rapid growth of mould on grains (Pg. 113, Left col. Results and Discussion). Thus, Ramashia suggests that the moisture content and storage time of millet flour can be routinely adjusted.
King Arthur Baking discloses that the storage time of grain flour is influenced by the storage conditions and that for example grain flour can be stored up to six months in the freezer (182 days) (Pg. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely adjust the moisture content of the millet flour of Modified Malleshi including to values less than 8% as suggested by Ramashia based on the desired storage life of the millet flour (MPEP 2144.05.II).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to routinely adjust the storage conditions of the flour as suggested by King Arthur Baking in order to ensure a desired storage time of the flour (MPEP 2144.05.II).
Regarding claim 10, Modified Malleshi discloses that the millet flour is ragi (finger millet) (‘951, Fig. 1) and jowar (sorghum) (‘095, Espacenet Translation, Abstract). It is additionally noted that claims 9 and 10 are product by process limitations and “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”. “[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” (MPEP 2113.I,II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicants arguments regarding the step of drying of millets, it is noted that a moisture content of 8%, is merely close to the claimed range and “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close” (MPEP 2144.05.I) ([0031]).
On Pg. 7 of the remarks Applicant argues that that Malleshi does not suggest the use of a vacuum dryer.
While Applicant’s remarks have been considered, it is noted that Stamos has additionally been relied upon for disclosing that a known mechanical dryer includes a vacuum dryer (col. 1, lines 35-38), and Malleshi teaches that the drying step can be carried out using a mechanical dryer ([0025]). Additionally, Bellaio discloses that known drying process for millet which has been treated hydrothermally and which can be milled into flour, includes vacuum drying (Pg. 9, lines 14-21). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to carry out the drying step by vacuum drying, since Malleshi discloses that the millet can be dried using a mechanical dryer ([0025]) and the prior art above recognizes that mechanical dryers include vacuum dryers and that vacuum dryers are suitable for drying millet.
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 ASHLEY AXTELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00- 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, 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.
/A.A/
Ashley AxtellExaminer, Art Unit 1792
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights