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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim 1-3 and 7-8 in the reply filed on May 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 9 and 10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 30, 2026.
Application Status
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are under examination.
Claim 9-10 are withdrawn from examination.
Claim 4-6 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 15, 2024 and February 3, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of in claim 1, line 5, recites “microwave cooking” should be “the microwave cooking” since antecedent has been established in claim 1, line 3;
in claim 1, line 8, “soaking” should be “the soaking” since antecedent has been established in claim 1, line 3;
in claim 1, line 9 and line 10, “enzymatic hydrolysis” should be “the enzymatic hydrolysis” since antecedent has been established in claim 1, line 7;
in claim 2, line 2 “flaxseed” should be “the flaxseed” since antecedent has been established in claim 1, line 1;
in claim 2, line 2 “interface” should be “the interface” since antecedent has been established in claim 1, line 1;
in claim 3, line 2 “flaxseed” should be “the flaxseed” since antecedent has been established in claim 1, line 1;
in claim 3, line 2 “interface” should be “the interface” since antecedent has been established in claim 1, line 1;
in claim 3, line 5, “slag removal” should be “the slag removal” since antecedent has been established in claim 1, line 7;
in claim 7, line 2 “flaxseed” should be “the flaxseed” since antecedent has been established in claim 1, line 1;
in claim 7, line 2 “interface” should be “the interface” since antecedent has been established in claim 1, line 1;
in claim 7, line 3 “enzyme inactivation” should be “the enzyme inactivation” since antecedent has been established in claim 1, line 12.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 7-8 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.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “a microwave temperature is 115-145°C” in line 5, however it is not clear if Applicant is claiming a value or a range. Hence the claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “a microwave time is 3-12 min” in line 5-6, however it is not clear if Applicant is claiming a value or a range. Hence the claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “a water control range of the flaxseed is 8-20%” in line 6, is confusing. It is not clear what how “water control” is obtained in a flaxseed. It is not clear the percentage value of 8-20% correlates to water control and flaxseed. Additionally, it is not clear if Applicant is claiming a value or a range. The claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the phrase “an addition amount is 0.01-2%” in line 11 is unclear. It is not clear what Applicant intend “an addition amount is 0.1-2%” correlates with to meet the limitation. Additionally, it is not clear if Applicant is claiming a value or a range. Hence the claim is indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the phrase to high-pressures in homogenization in line 15-16, however it is not clear if Applicant is claiming a value or range. Hence the claim is indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the phrase “a soaking time is 2-24 h”, it is not clear if Applicant is claiming a value or range. Hence the claim is indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the water" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “a colloid grinding time in step (2) is 10-210 min” in line 3, it is not clear if Applicant is claiming a value or range. Hence the claim is indefinite.
Claim 3 recites the phrase “a rotating speed is 2500-3000 rpm” in line 5-6, it is not clear if Applicant is claiming a value or range. Hence the claim is indefinite.
Claim 7 recites the phrase “a temperature is 90-115°C” and “a time is 15-300 s” in line 3, it is not clear if Applicant is claiming a value or range. Hence the claim is indefinite.
Claim 8 recites the phrase “a filling temperature is 24-40°C” in line 4, it is not clear if Applicant is claiming a value or range. Hence the claim is indefinite.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-3, 7-8 are free of prior art rejection.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tang et al. (CN-106857868, Machine Translation English), the closest prior art is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Tang et al. discloses a method with steps of pretreating flax seeds in microwave (dry degumming process) (‘868, pg. 3, bottom half of page), soaking, grinding, filtering (slag removal) and high pressure homogenization in two stages (‘868, pg. 4). However, Tang et al. fail to teach or suggest enzymatic hydrolysis with cited temperatures and time. Additionally, Tang et al. fail to teach or suggest a combination of obviousness on the temperature, time and pressure ranges in steps as recited in claim 1-3, 7 and 8.
Deng et al. (CN-113785881, Machine Translation English) while cited in Applicant’s IDS with only Abstract Translation; the Examiner has provided an full Machine Translation English the reference for the record.
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