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 9, and 12-16 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 9, 12, 13, 14, and 16-18 use the term “par-cooked”, “parfried” or “par-cooking”. It is not clear what this term means. The specification in [0003] states “Cooked and par-cooked food products such as hashbrowns and croquettes are popular food items for their convenience and taste. Their production on an industrial scale requires par-cooking (e.g. parfrying or oven-cooking) …”. It is not clear what the difference would be between parcooked and cooked based upon the specification referring to “oven cooking” as an example of “par-cooking”. The same issue arises for parfried and fried.
Claim 15 is included due to its dependence upon claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by El-Sebeay “Chemical and Biological Evaluation of Some Products from Quinoa-Based Blends for Celiac Disease”, 2018 (cited on IDS filed 07/24/2024).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 8, El-Sebeay discloses a flour mixture (premix) for making cake and toast (considered food products). The flour mixture comprises quinoa flour, corn flour and rice flour. Additional ingredients such as salt, baking soda and xantham gum may be included as listed in Table 1. Regarding claim 7, the food product formed using the premix further includes milk, thus considered a dairy product. Regarding claim 9, the food product is baked (cooked). Regarding claims 14 and 16, the premix (flour mixture) is combined with milk, sugar, eggs, xantham gum, butter and oil, which are considered to provide a matrix.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 113261665 (Xie).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Xie discloses a composition comprises grinding powder and uniformly mixing raw material components, the raw material component comprises 10 - 20 parts of lucid ganoderma dregs, 7 - 15 parts of oat rice, 7 - 15 parts of black wheat kernel, 7 - 15 parts of quinoa, black rice 3 - 8 parts, buckwheat 3 - 8 parts, corn bran 3 - 8 parts, black sesame 7 - 15 parts, wherein the parts are by weight (abstact). The “oat rice” is considered oat grain and not rice. The black rice is considered to meet the claimed rice. The raw material is ground into a powder which is considered to correspond to a flour.
Regarding claim 8, the premix may be considered the food product itself.
Regarding claim 10, the premix is freeze dried and crushed.
Regarding claims 9 and 11, the food product is reconstituted by heat by adding to hot water (more than 90C). The composition may also be used as a flour, such as for preparing a cake which is baked (i.e. cooked).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the premix may be combined with water (matrix) or used as flour to make a cake, where the inherent addition of materials to form a cake are also considered to be a matrix.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112825998 (Li).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Li discloses a wheat germ composite nutrition powder solid beverage, comprising the following components according to weight ratio: wheat germ powder 35-45 %, quinoa powder 0.5-1.5 %, black rice powder 0.5-1.5 %, corn powder 1-3 %, buckwheat powder 0.5-1.5 %, oat powder 0.5-1.5 %, apple powder 8-11 %; green tea powder 1-3 %, fructooligosaccharide 8.5-10.5 %, moringa powder 1-3 %, mung bean powder 1-3 %, grapefruit powder 8-12 %, konjak powder 7-9 %, cherry fruit powder 9-11 %, vitamin E 0.0005-0.0015 %; vitamin C 0.003-0.007 %, vitamin B1 0.001-0.003 % and vitamin B2 0.001-0.003 % (claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, the premix may be considered the food product itself.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 112450429 (Ge).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Ge discloses a cereal flour comprising wheat core powder: 30-40 parts, corn powder: 25-30 parts, soybean: 3-5 parts, oat powder: 5-7 parts, quinoa powder: 1-3 parts, yellow rice powder: 5-10 parts, puffing sorghum: 3-5 parts.
Regarding claim 8, the cereal flour may be considered the food product itself.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the premix may be combined with water (matrix) and sorghum to form a food product.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 111567799 (Mao).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Mao discloses a nutrition powder and preparation method thereof, the nutrition powder comprises main material and ingredients, wherein the main material comprises: rice, millet, wheat kernel, chickpea, corn, mung bean, highland barley, and quinoa.
An example has 10 g rice, 10 g corn and 10 g quinoa resulting in a wt ratio of 1:1:1 falling within the range of claim 4. The main materials are crushed and ground into a powder (flour).
Regarding claim 7, the powder may be used to prepare minced meat (considered a meat product) (claim 5).
Regarding claim 8, the powder may be considered the food product itself.
Regarding claim 9, the powder may be cooked in soup (claim 5).
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the premix may be combined with other materials (cleaned chicken and peeled pig elbow) to make minced meat and concentrated soup (claim 5).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-9, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110742240 (Liu).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Liu discloses quinoa oatmeal comprising 60-70 parts of oatmeal raw pieces, 10-20 parts of sucrose, 3-5 parts of skim milk powder, 2-3 parts of non-dairy creamer, 8-10 parts of walnut powder, 8-10 parts of Chinese yam powder and 8-10 parts of cashew nut powder. The oatmeal raw pieces consist of the following components in parts by weight: 70-80 parts of quinoa flour, 8-10 parts of brown rice flour, 8-10 parts of corn flour and 3-5 parts of table salt.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 14, and 16, the oatmeal raw pieces are mixed with skim milk powder and other ingredients (matrix). Regarding claims 8 and 9, the oatmeal raw pieces may be a food product in and of themselves and are heated to 170C which is considered “cooked”.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110584095 (Wang) (cited on the IDS filed 11/18/2025). Regarding claims 1 and 2, Wang discloses a nutrition powder composed of 6 parts of red bean powder, 6 parts of black rice powder, 6 parts sorghum powder, 6 parts of highland barley powder, 6 parts of red quinoa flour, 6 parts of red bean powder, 6 parts of corn grits powder, 6 parts lotus leaf powder, 3 parts of rhizoma alismatis powder, 3 parts of cactus powder, 3 parts of radix astragali powder, 3 parts of walnut powder, 3 parts of black jujube powder, 1 parts of black medlar powder, 1 parts of yam powder, 1 parts of sweet potato powder, and 1 parts of chia seed powder 1 parts (6th group). The wt ratio is 1:1:1, falling within the range of claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, the powder may be considered the food product itself.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, the premix may be combined with other materials (matrix).
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112825998 (Li).
Li discloses a wheat germ composite nutrition powder comprising quinoa flour, black rice flour, and corn powder (considered flour) as discussed above. Li further discloses the amount of each as quinoa powder 0.5-1.5wt%, black rice powder 0.5-1.5 wt% and corn powder 1-3wt%. These amounts overlap the weight ratio of claim 4, such as 1:1:1, and thus present a prima facie case of obviousness due to overlapping ranges.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0037484 (Cvetkovich) (cited on IDS filed 07/24/2024) in view of CN 112450429 (Ge).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Cvetkovich discloses a fried product comprising a binder comprising at least one of konjac flour or meal, soy flour or meal, wheat flour or meal, nut flour or meal, hempseed flour or meal, flax flour or meal, barley flour or meal, black chia seed flour or meal, rice flour or meal, brown rice flour or meal, corn flour or meal, oat flour or meal, coconut flour or meal, wheat germ meal, quinoa flour or meal, coffee flour or meal, buckwheat flour or meal, or the like [0030]. Cvetkovich does not disclose an example where rice, corn and quinoa flours are used in combination. Ge discloses a cereal flour comprising wheat core powder: 30-40 parts, corn powder: 25-30 parts, soybean: 3-5 parts, oat powder: 5-7 parts, quinoa powder: 1-3 parts, yellow rice powder: 5-10 parts which illustrates that it is known to combine rice, corn and quinoa to form a combined cereal product that has high nutritional value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to select corn, rice, and quinoa from the flours listed by Cvetkovich to provide a combined product that has high nutritional value.
Regarding claims 7-9, 14, and 16, Cvetkovich discloses forming a dough by combining the flour with potato flakes and whole milk and frying in canola oil.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Cvetkovich discloses that the extruded product (prior to frying) may comprise 0.025-90wt% of the premix [0031] which overlaps the claimed range of 1-25wt%, thus providing a prima facie case of overlap.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 15, Cvetkovich discloses that the extruded product may be flash-frozen and reheated or cooked [0043].
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0037484 (Cvetkovich) (cited on IDS filed 07/24/2024) in view of TR 201912967 (Hayati).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Cvetkovich discloses a fried product comprising a binder comprising at least one of konjac flour or meal, soy flour or meal, wheat flour or meal, nut flour or meal, hempseed flour or meal, flax flour or meal, barley flour or meal, black chia seed flour or meal, rice flour or meal, brown rice flour or meal, corn flour or meal, oat flour or meal, coconut flour or meal, wheat germ meal, quinoa flour or meal, coffee flour or meal, buckwheat flour or meal, or the like [0030]. Cvetkovich does not disclose an example where rice, corn and quinoa flours are used in combination. Hayati discloses that the main ingredient is quinoa and provides resistance to cancer and depression. Hayati discloses that the corn and rice may be added in different proportions and the mixture is extruded and fried (claim 5). Based upon the disclosure of Hayati that quinoa flour can be combined with rice and corn flour, one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to select these from the list of Cvetkovich with a reasonable expectation of success and to gain the health benefits thereof.
Regarding claims 4-6, 13 and 18, while Hayati does not give specific proportions per se, it does emphasize that quinoa is the main ingredient with benefits of cancer and depression resistance. Absent a showing of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to vary the proportions of the quinoa, corn and rice flours of Cvetkovick to maximize the health benefits thereof with the crispiness desired in a fried food as described by Hayati. Additionally, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to vary the amounts based upon the desired taste and texture of the fried component. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here 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 re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)” (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claims 7-9, 14, and 16, Cvetkovich discloses forming a dough by combining the flour with potato flakes and whole milk and frying in canola oil.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Cvetkovich discloses that the extruded product (prior to frying) may comprise 0.025-90wt% of the premix [0031] which overlaps the claimed range of 1-25wt%, thus providing a prima facie case of overlap.
Regarding claims 10, 11 and 15, Cvetkovich discloses that the extruded product may be flash-frozen and reheated or cooked [0043].
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Sebeay “Chemical and Biological Evaluation of Some Products from Quinoa-Based Blends for Celiac Disease”, 2018 (cited on IDS filed 07/24/2024) OR CN 113261665 (Xie) OR CN 112825998 (Li) OR CN 112450429 (Ge) OR CN 111567799 (Mao) OR CN 110742240 (Liu) OR CN 110584095 (Wang) OR US 2015/0037484 (Cvetkovich) (cited on IDS filed 07/24/2024) in view of CN 112450429 (Ge) OR US 2015/0037484 (Cvetkovich) (cited on IDS filed 07/24/2024) in view of TR 201912967 (Hayati) and further in view of Worley “What’s the Difference between White and Yellow Corn?”, 2016.
The references cited above disclose corn flour but do not specify yellow or white. Worley discloses that there isn’t much difference in taste between white and yellow corn and that yellow corn has a nutritional edge over white due to the beta carotene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select either yellow or white corn flour as they have similar taste or may select yellow corn for the presence of beta carotene.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C MCNEIL whose telephone number is (571)272-1540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
JENNIFER C. MCNEIL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1793
/Jennifer McNeil/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793