DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s reply dated 02 June 2026 to the restriction requirement mailed 08 April 2026 has been received. Applicant has elected claims 1 – 5 without traverse. Claims 6 – 19 have been withdrawn from further consideration and an action on the merits of claims 1 – 5 follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 recites “30-60% powdered cauliflower or powdered pea fiber” whereas the other ingredients are recited as “10% to 45% purified starch, 5% to 10% fat, and, 1% to 3% table salt and/or sea salt”. For the sake of consistency the claim should recite ‘30% to 60% powdered cauliflower or powdered pea fiber”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt US 2020/0060310 as further evidenced by Flaherty US 2006/0121168.
Regarding claim 1, Schmidt discloses a composition capable of use as an anti-boil-over composition capable of being used in cooking dried rice or dried pasta in a microwave oven, said composition comprise about 30% to about 60% (35%) dry, i.e., powdered pea fiber (paragraph [0032] – [0033]). As evidenced by Flaherty it was well known in the art that plant fibres in powdered form (paragraph [0030]) are a principal ingredient in anti-boil-over compositions suitable for use in cooking dried pasta in a microwave oven (paragraph [0029] – [0031). Therefore it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan that the composition of Schmidt would act as an anti-boil-over composition suitable for use in cooking dried pasta in a microwave oven and that an effective amount of the anti- boil-over composition would be capable of reducing or eliminating boil-over when dried rice or dried pasta is cooked in water in a limited volume container with microwave oven heating relative to cooking the dried rice or dried pasta in the same manner in the limited volume container without the anti-boil-over composition.
Regarding claims 2, 3, and 4, Schmidt as further evidenced by Flaherty disclose the composition additionally comprises purified starch (corn starch, tapioca starch) (paragraph [0030]) of about 10% to 45% (15%) (paragraph [0046]), about 5% fat (coconut oil) (paragraph [0044]), and 2.0% salt (calcium chloride) (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 5, Schmidt as further evidenced by Flaherty disclose the composition would consist essentially of 30 to 60% powdered pea fibre (35%) (paragraph [0032] – [0033]), 10% to 45% purified starch (15%) (paragraph [0046]), 5% to 10% fat (paragraph [0044]), and 1% to 3% salt (paragraph [0036]). Regarding the salt being table salt and/or sea salt Schmidt as further evidenced by Flaherty further disclose the salt would commonly be table salt and/or sea salt (sodium salts) (paragraph [0131]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAIM A SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7369. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 09:00-18:00.
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 please telephone the Examiner.
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.
/C.S./
Chaim SmithExaminer, Art Unit 1791 11 June 2026
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights