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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, The term “high shelf life” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high shelf life” 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “milling with 5 to 25% by weight of pregelatinized millet flour”. It is unclear what is milled with 5 to 25% by weight of pregelatinized millet flour since the claim does not provide any specificity.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “wherein step b) comprises pressure steaming jowar grains for around 4 to 6 minutes whereby moisture content is 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. Additionally, it is unclear what moisture content “whereby moisture content is 20% to 25%” is referring to. For example, it is unclear if it is referring to the moisture of the grains or something else and it is the moisture of the grains it is unclear if it is the moisture of the grains before or after pressure steaming.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “wherein step b) comprises pressure steaming bajra grains for around 6 to 8 minutes whereby moisture content is 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. Additionally, it is unclear what moisture content “whereby moisture content is 20% to 25%” is referring to, for example it is unclear if it is referring to the moisture of the grains before or after pressure steaming.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites “wherein step b) comprises pressure steaming ragi grains for around 3 to 7 minutes whereby moisture content is 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. Additionally, it is unclear what moisture content “whereby moisture content is 25% to 30%” is referring to, for example it is unclear if it is referring to the moisture of the grains before or after pressure steaming.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “The method of claim 1, further consisting of packaging of the obtained millet flour and cooling it down for preparing roti from the rollable dough so obtained”. Since claim 1 is a comprising claim and claim 5 recites “further consisting of” the scope of claim 5 is unclear. Additionally, it is unclear what “it” is referring to, the packaged millet flour, the millet flour or something else. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the rollable dough so obtained”.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “packaging of the obtained millet flour and cooling it down for preparing a roti from the rollable dough so obtained”. It is unclear how the active method steps of “packaging of the obtained millet flour” and “cooling it down” are “for preparing a roti from the rollable dough so obtained”. it is unclear if this requires a step of preparing roti from a rollable dough since “for preparing a roti from the rollable dough so obtained” not specifically an active method step
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “cleaning of the grains, washing them in water and allowing them to soak in water”. It is unclear what “them” is referring to.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “wherein steps b) and c) comprise steaming the grains…”. While step b) in claim 1 recites “millet grains”, step c) only recites “millets”, therefore there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the grains” of step c).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “wherein step e) comprises milling with a pregelatinized flour at 5 to 25% by weight of processed grains of jowar/bajra/ragi as applicable”. It is unclear if the “a pregelatinized flour at 5 to 25% by weight of processed grains of jowar/bajra/ragi as applicable” is the same as or different from the “pregelatinized millet flour” recited in line 7 of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “the temperature”, “the third zone” and “the extrudate” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “the raw millet flour at 5 to 25% moisture” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “milling with the hydrothermally treated millet grains”. First there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the hydrothermally treated millet grains”. Second, it is unclear if “milling with the hydrothermally treated millet grains” is the same milling step already recited in step e) of the claim 1 or is different.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “wherein step e) comprises milling with a pregelatinized flour at 5 to 25% by weight of processed grains of jowar/bajra/ragi as applicable”. It is unclear what is meant by “wherein step e) comprises milling with a pregelatinized flour at 5 to 25% by weight of processed grains of jowar/bajra/ragi as applicable”. It is unclear if processed grains of jowar/bajra/ragi as applicable is further limiting the type of pregelatinized flour, or if “processed grains” is referring to the millet grains processed in claim 1 or some other processed grains. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by “processed grains of jowar/bajra/ragi as applicable.” It is unclear if this is requiring the pregelatinized millet flour or millet flour to be one jowar or bajra or ragi, or a mixture of jowar, bajra and ragi. Additionally, it is unclear if “as applicable” is referring to “processed grains of jowar/bajra/ragi as applicable”. Additionally, it is unclear if the entire limitation “wherein step e) comprises milling with a pregelatinized flour at 5 to 25% by weight of processed grains of jowar/bajra/ragi as applicable” is optional because “as applicable” language can be interpreted as optional language. “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure”. (MPEP 2144.04.I,II.)
Regarding claim 9, The term “high shelf life” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term ““high shelf life” 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 10 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on a rejected base claim.
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, 4, 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malleshi US 2003/0185951 in view of Ishibashi JP 2004337095A (Espacenet Translation) in view of the Definition of Oven.
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 millets obtained from step b) (removal of the millets pressure steamer necessarily results in cooling of the millets); drying of millets obtained from step c) utilizing a mechanical drier ([0031]); e) milling the millet ([0019]).
Claim 1 differs from Malleshi in the recitation that the mechanical drier is specifically an oven.
However, Malleshi teaches drying by conventional mechanisms ([0030]) using temperatures such as 30-60°C ([0038]). It is noted that shown by Oven Definition, the plain meaning of an oven is a chamber for drying and Malleshi teaches carrying out the drying step using conventional, mechanical driers used at 60°C for drying. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Malleshi is therefore suggesting a drying chamber (i.e. an oven). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used an oven because an oven is a known and conventional mechanism for drying.
Claim 1 differs from Malleshi in the recitation that the milling step comprises milling with 5 to 25% by weight of 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 4, Modified Malleshi discloses that step b) comprises pressure steaming ragi (finger millet) for around 3 to 7 minutes whereby moisture content is 30% (Fig. 1, [0058]). Modified Malleshi discloses that step d) involves oven drying of millets at 60 °C ([0038], [0002]). It is noted that the claim has been interpreted as requiring either of oven drying of millets at 60°C or vacuum drying for 2 hours.
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 9 and 10, Modified Malleshi teaches a millet flour obtained by the method of claim 1. It is noted that that the product implied by the steps of claim 1 is a milled mixture of millet flour and pregelatinized millet flour. Regarding claim 9, Modified Malleshi discloses that the flour has substantially high shelf life (‘595, [0045]). Regarding the rollability of the millet flour, 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 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).
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malleshi US 2003/0185951 in view of Ishibashi JP 2004337095A (Espacenet Translation) in view of the Definition of Oven in view of IN 195188B (Application #IN306DE2002 Translation cited in IDS filed 05/22/2024).
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. Additionally, it is unclear what moisture content “whereby moisture content is 20% to 25%” is referring to. For example, it is unclear if it is referring to the moisture of the grains or something else and it is the moisture of the grains it is unclear if it is the moisture of the grains before or after pressure steaming. For examination purposes the moisture content has been interpreted as the moisture content of the millets prior to steaming.
Regarding claim 2, Modified Malleshi discloses that step b) comprises pressure steaming millet for around 3 to 7 minutes whereby moisture content is near 30% (Fig. 1, [0058]) (near 30% allows for moisture slightly less than 30%, which is merely close the claimed 25%, see MPEP 2144.05.I). Modified Malleshi discloses that step d) involves oven drying of millets at 60 °C ([0038]).
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). It is noted that the claim has been interpreted as requiring either of oven drying of millets at 60°C or vacuum drying for 2 hours.
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. Additionally, it is unclear what moisture content “whereby moisture content is 20% to 25%” is referring to, for example it is unclear if it is referring to the moisture of the grains before or after pressure steaming. For examination purposes the moisture content has been interpreted as the moisture content of the millets prior to steaming.
Regarding claim 3, Modified Malleshi discloses that step b) comprises pressure steaming millet for around 3 to 7 minutes whereby moisture content is near 30% (Fig. 1, [0058]) (near 30% allows for moisture slightly less than 30%, which is merely close the claimed 25%, see MPEP 2144.05.I). Modified Malleshi discloses that step d) involves oven drying of millets at 60 °C ([0038]).
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). It is noted that the claim has been interpreted as requiring either of oven drying of millets at 60°C or vacuum drying for 2 hours.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malleshi US 2003/0185951 in view of Ishibashi JP 2004337095A (Espacenet Translation) in view of the Definition of Oven in view of IN 195188B (Application #IN306DE2002 Translation cited in IDS filed 05/22/2024) in view of King Arthur Baking.
Regarding claim 5, Claim 5 differs from Modified Malleshi in the recitation that the method further consists of packaging the obtained millet flour and cooling it down for preparing roti from the rollable dough so obtained.
Regarding the limitation of “for preparing a roti from the rollable dough so obtained” as discussed in the 112b rejection above, it is unclear how the active method steps of “packaging of the obtained millet flour” and “cooling it down” are “for preparing a roti from the rollable dough so obtained”. It is unclear if this requires a step of preparing roti from a rollable dough since “for preparing a roti from the rollable dough so obtained” not specifically an active method step.
IN 195188B discloses packaging millet flour after processing to obtain the millet flour (Pg. 8, example 1). IN195188B also discloses using a similar type of product as Modified Malleshi in 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 further consists of packaging the obtained millet flour in order to preserve the product until use by a consumer, and additionally utilize 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).
King Arthur Baking discloses that whole grain flour will keep better in colder storage environments (Pg. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Modified Malleshi to include a step of cooling the millet flour in order to better preserve the millet flour until use.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malleshi US 2003/0185951 in view of Ishibashi JP 2004337095A (Espacenet Translation) in view of the Definition of Oven 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 Ishibashi JP 2004337095A (Espacenet Translation) in view of the Definition of Oven 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), such that the pregelatinized flour is manufactured by applying extrusion, wherein millet flour at 15% moisture is extruded through an extruder, the temperature of the tip of the barrel is in the range of 100 °C to 150 °C (‘095, Espacenet Translation, Pg. 4) and powdering 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”.
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).
Conclusion
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