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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the first paragraph of the specification should include the current status (eg. Abandoned) of the parent applications.
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.
Claims 1-2 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 a “uniform dispersion”. It is not clear what degree/level/amount of homogeneity would be considered “uniform”.
Claim 1 recites “elevated pressures”. It is not clear what amount of pressure would be considered “elevated”.
Claim 1 recites “close molecular proximity”. It is not clear how this would be determined or quantified. It is not clear amount of molecular proximity would be considered “close”. It is not clear what “molecular proximity” means.
Claim 1 recites “heat sufficient to denature the protein”. It is not clear what temperatures are required. There are many different types of proteins with many different temperature levels where they denature.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the protein matrix". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what material this is.
Claim 1 recites “a sizing step wherein particles smaller than about 200-mesh are created”. It is not clear what sizes would be considered “about” 200-mesh. It is not clear what material is being sized.
Claim 1 recites “a subsequent step”. It is not clear when this step should occur in the process. It is not clear which step(s) should occur before it.
Claims 1-2 recite the limitation "the composition". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what material is being used.
Claim 1 recites heating “to at least about 200°F for at least about 20 minutes”. It is not clear what temperatures would be considered “at least about” 200F. It is not clear what amount of time would be considered “at least about” 20 minutes.
Claim 2 recites heating “heated to between about 200°F and about 300°F for about 20 to about 30 minutes”. It is not clear what temperatures would be considered “about” 200-300F. It is not clear what amount of time would be considered “about” 20-30 minutes. It is not clear if this is referring to step c, or step e.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burgin [Pat. No. 5,861,178] in view of Merrill et al [US 2006/0204643A1].
Burgin teaches a method for preparing a protein-enriched soluble fiber composition (title) by mixing undenatured protein with soluble fiber to create a uniform dispersion (column 5, lines 18-21), the protein being egg white or skimmed milk (column 6, line 23), the fiber being guar gum or pectin (column 6, line 26), mixing via a ribbon blender for about 20 minutes or more (column 5, line 38), mixing the dispersion with water (column 5, line 50), an extrusion step with elevated pressure to force the material into close molecular proximity and entrap the fiber within a protein matrix (column 5, lines 58-62), a drying step which provides protein denaturation by using heat of about 300°F for about 15-20 minutes (column 5, line 64 to column 6, line 8), the denaturation occurring in plural steps such as a preliminary hot steam bath treatment followed by heating above 400F for 5-10 minutes followed by heating at 300F for 5-10 minutes (column 6, line 64 to column 7, line 3), a sizing step creating particles of 200-mesh or smaller (column 6, lines 10-14), and a final step of agglomerating with gum Arabic (column 6, line 15).
Burgin does not explicitly recite agitation using a ribbon blender or screw auger during the further denaturation (claim 1).
It is further noted that the claims do not require any specific order for steps b-f.
Merrill et al teach a method for making whey protein compounds (title) by heating and denaturing a slurry of whey protein at 140-300°F while agitating the slurry in a screw mixer (Figure 1, #104; paragraph 0019, 0032, 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the claimed ribbon blender or screw auger agitation during denaturation into the invention of Burgin, in view of Merrill et al, since both are directed to methods of denaturing proteins, since Burgin already included mixing via a ribbon blender for about 20 minutes or more (column 5, line 38) as well as the denaturation occurring in plural steps such as a preliminary hot steam bath treatment followed by heating above 400F for 5-10 minutes followed by heating at 300F for 5-10 minutes (column 6, line 64 to column 7, line 3) but simply did not mention what device was used; since proteins were commonly denatured by simultaneous heating and agitating in a screw mixer (Figure 1, #104; paragraph 0019, 0032, 0035) as shown by Merrill et al, and since agitation during the heat denaturation of Burgin would have better ensured that even and uniform amounts of heat were supplied to all parts of the protein material and thus reduced the chance of hot and/or cold spots.
In conclusion, all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jacobs, Bechtold, Aurio, Nieto, Lin, Inglett, Ohta, and Takao teach methods of processing protein and/or soluble fiber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DREW E BECKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1396. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm Monday-Friday.
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.
/DREW E BECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792