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 .
Application Status
Claim 13-23 are under examination.
Claim 24-33 are withdrawn from examination.
Claim 1-12 are cancelled.
Claim 13-23 are rejected.
Examiner notes: The non-final office action mailed on July 14, 2026 is erroneous, incomplete draft. This non-final action replaces and resets Applicant’s reply date.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim 13-23 in the reply filed on May 14, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 24-33 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 14, 2026.
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.
Claim 13-23 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the total number of aleurone cells" in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “coarse fiber” in claim 14, 15, 16 and 23, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “coarse” 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 15 recites the limitation "the total dry weight" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “insoluble high molecular weight dietary fibers” in claim 15, 17, 19, 21, 22 and 23, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high molecular weight” 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.
The term “fine fiber” in claim 17, 18, 21 and 22, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fine” 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 17 recites the limitation "the total dry weight" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the total dry weight" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation " the total dry weight " in line 4 and line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation " the total dry weight " in line 4 and line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation " the total dry weight " in line 5 and line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bohm et al. (US 2004/0258776).
Regarding claim 13 and 14, Bohm et al. (Bohm) discloses a composition comprising fractions of total cell content and entire destroyed cell walls of aleurone (‘776, [0017]) from wheat grains. The fraction of the total cell content comprises fiber and proteins (‘776, [0007], claim 15), whereas the fraction of cell walls without the proteins, is considered 100% of empty aleurone cells, based on the total number of aleurone cells. Bohm teaches the entire destroyed cell walls of aleurone (‘776, [0017]) (empty aleurone cells) which does not contain the cell content of aleurone cells which includes the proteins. With respect to claim 14, Bohm’s teaches the composition as recited in claim 13, hence Bohm’s composition meets the limitation of a “coarse fiber composition of cereal grains”.
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.
Claim(s) 15-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohm et al. (US 2004/0258776) as evidenced by Meziani et al. (Journal of Cereal Science 100 (2021) 103225).
Regarding claim 15, Bohm discloses the composition comprising the total cell content and entire destroyed cell walls of aleurone (‘776, [0017]), which includes 65% arabinoxylan (insoluble dietary fibers) as evidenced by Meziani et al. (pg. 2, col. 2, first paragraph) and approximately 15% to 20% of protein as evidenced by Meziani et al. (pg. 2, col. 2, second paragraph), wherein the ranges overlaps the cited ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding 16, 17 and 18, Bohm discloses the composition comprising cellulose (‘776, [0099]), the entire destroyed cell walls of aleurone (‘776, [0017]), which contains the arabinoxylan as evidenced by Meziani et al. (pg. 2, col. 2, first paragraph); wherein arabinoxylan (insoluble dietary fiber) is known as an dominant hemicellulose in the wheat aleurone cell walls; and lignan (‘776, [0007]). Bohm does not explicitly disclose amounts of the cellulose, the arabinoxylan (hemicellulose) and the lignan as recited; however Bohm recognizes health benefits and nutrition (‘776, [0012], [0099]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to adjust amounts of the cellulose, the arabinoxylan (hemicellulose) and the lignan including the cited amounts to provide a desired health benefits and nutrition (‘776, [0012], [0099]) as taught by Bohm.
Regarding claim 19, 20, 22, 22 and 23, Bohm discloses the composition comprising the total cell content and entire destroyed cell walls of aleurone (‘776, [0017]), which includes 65% arabinoxylan (insoluble dietary fibers) as evidenced by Meziani et al. (pg. 2, col. 2, first paragraph) which overlaps the cited ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Bohm does not explicitly disclose an amount of lignan (‘776, [0007]) as recited; however Bohm recognizes health benefits and nutrition (‘776, [0012]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to adjust amounts of the lignan including the cited amounts to provide a desired health benefits and nutrition (‘776, [0012], [0099]) as taught by Bohm.
Bohm discloses the composition comprising approximately 15% to 20% of protein as evidenced by Meziani et al. (pg. 2, col. 2, second paragraph). Additionally, Bohm discloses adding food components including meat (glutamine), a protein source (‘776, [0020]-[0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of protein to provide a desired health benefits and nutrition (‘776, [0012], [0099]) as taught by Bohm.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG THI YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM to 3PM.
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.
/HONG T YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights