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 II in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: please update the priority statement at paragraph [0001].
PNG
media_image1.png
276
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
When there are drawings, there shall be a “brief description of the several views of the drawings” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.74.).
The section heading “brief description of the several views of the drawings” as set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.74 is missing. Please correct.
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 23-29 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.
The phrase “a food product” in Claim 23, line 6 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether this “food product” is the same “food product” in line 3. If it is the same food product then a proper antecedent basis is lacking and the phrase in line 6 should state “the food product”.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the amount of acrylamide" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "an amount of acrylamide".
The phrase "the amount of acrylamide in the cooked food product is reduced" in claim 23, line 8 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear what is the “reduced” being compared to.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the adding step" in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim earlier does not refer to anything as being a “step”. Applicant is advised to consider stating “the adding” without the term “step” or earlier use the language “step” or “steps” if this is what Applicant means.
The term “%” in claim 23, line 10 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear if this is weight % or volume % or something else.
The phrase “[a]n acrylamide inhibitor composition comprising for thermal processing … bran composition” in claim 9, lines 1-2 is vague an indefinite as it is unclear whether the bran is part of acrylamide inhibitor composition or a secondary composition. Applicant is advised to precisely set forth what is the acrylamide inhibitor composition.
The phrase "the amount of acrylamide … level of acrylamide … level of acrylamide” in claim 23, lines 8-11 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether the terms “amount” and “level” have the same or different meaning. Furthermore, it is unclear whether level is a weight amount or a % amount or something else.
The phrase “the food product” in Claim 27, line 2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear which food product this is referring to as there appears to be 2 different food products in claim 23.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the thermally processing step" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims earlier does not refer to anything as being a “step”. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the thermally processing " without the term “step” or earlier use the language “step” or “steps” if this is what Applicant means.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the step of thermally processing " in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims earlier does not refer to anything as being a “step”. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the thermally processing " without the terms “step” and “of” if this is what Applicant means.
Clarification and/or correction 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.
Claim(s) 23-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotz et al (US 2010/0166939) in view of Bhaskar et al. (US 2010/0143540) and Monsalve-Gonzalez et al. (US 2003/0104103).
Regarding claim 23, Lotz (‘939) teaches a method of using an acrylamide inhibitor composition for reducing the amount of acrylamide in a cooked food product (See Abs., paras. 14-19, Example 5, claims 1, 12-18.), the method comprising: providing a food product having free asparagine and a reducing sugar (See Abs., paras. 14-19, Example 5, claims 1, 12-18 where potatoes contain free asparagine and a reducing sugar. See para. 6 of Bhaskar (‘540) where potatoes, like those described by Lotz (‘939) are known to contain free asparagine and about 40% of the total free amino acids in raw potatoes.); having a bran composition having an arabinoxylan complex (See para. 14 where the bran forms an arabinoxylan complex, wherein the bran can be from wheat, rye and barley, which is the same as Applicant uses as an arabinoxylan complex.); adding the acrylamide inhibitor composition to a food product (See Example 5, claims 1, 12-18 where the acrylamide inhibitor composition as part of the bran is added to the potato food.); thermally processing the food product to form a cooked food product (See Example 5, claims 1, 12-18 where the food is thermally cooked/processed.) wherein the amount of acrylamide in the cooked food product is reduced, and wherein the adding step adds an amount of the acrylamide inhibitor composition that is sufficient to produce a final level of acrylamide in the cooked food product that is lower than a final level of acrylamide in the same cooked food product made without the acrylamide inhibitor composition (See Example 5, claims 1, 12-18.), wherein the adding step adds an amount of the acrylamide inhibitor composition that is sufficient to produce a final level of acrylamide in the cooked food product that is at least about 20% lower than a final level of acrylamide in the same cooked food product made without the acrylamide inhibitor composition (See Example 5, Table 3 where the acrylamide dropped from 131 µg/kg to less than 40 µg/kg, which is far lower than 20% as required by the claims.), however, fails to expressly disclose washing a bran composition having an arabinoxylan complex in an amount of about 10% to about 40% by weight of the bran composition to form an acrylamide inhibitor composition; and wherein the amount of acrylamide in the cooked food product is reduced.
Regarding the washing, Monsalve-Gonzalez (‘103) teaches washing bran, liked that used by Lotz (‘939) to remove or inactivate transition metals for the addition to other foods in milled form (See para. 22, 29 and 64, where the bran used by Monsalve-Gonzalez (‘103) is of the same type as used by Lotz (‘939). It was known in art that transitional metals can take part in undesired reactions/complexes and interfere with leaving agents as taught by Monsalve-Gonzalez (‘103) and the washing as taught by Monsalve-Gonzalez (‘103) eliminates the undesired reactions/complexes.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to wash Lotz’s (‘939) bran as taught by Monsalve-Gonzalez (‘103) to provide a clean bran that can be added to other ingredients to provide a food product having predictable properties.
Regarding the amount of arabinoxylan complex of the bran, it is noted the claimed range is very broad and Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for proving one amount over another. As discussed above, Lotz (‘939) teaches using the same bran as Applicant uses for the same general purpose. Lotz (‘939) further teaches the fibrous material can be less than 50% by weight of the total fibers (See claims 1, 12-15.) and the fibers do not contain any reducing sugars they proportionally reduce the acrylamide in the potato product and finished products made from them (See para. 19.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that Lotz’s (‘939) bran as washed by Monsalve-Gonzalez (‘103) would have an arabinoxylan complex within the very broad claimed range that provides a healthy food product with low levels of acrylamide. The selection of amount and consistency or ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 24, Lotz (‘939) teaches wherein the bran composition comprises wheat, rye, barley (See para. 14.).
Regarding claim 25, Lotz (‘939) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the arabinoxylan complex further comprises an acid selected from cinnamic acid, ferulic acid, diferulic acid, caffeic acid, methoxyphenol, and mixtures thereof.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date since Lotz’s (‘939) composition is the same as claimed it would also have on the same acids.
Regarding claim 26, Lotz (‘939) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the bran composition has an average particle size of less than about 2000 microns.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date since Lotz’s (‘939) composition is the same as claimed it would also have bran with a particle size within the same size as claimed.
Regarding claim 27, Lotz (‘939) teaches further comprising a step of mixing the bran composition and the food product before the thermally processing step (See Abs., paras. 14-19, Example 5, claims 1, 12-18.).
Regarding claim 28, Lotz (‘939) teaches wherein the step of thermally processing uses a temperature of about 120° F. to about 600° F. for a time of about 0.5 to about 30 minutes (See claims 1-5, paras. 45-46.).
Regarding claim 29, Lotz (‘939) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose wherein the free asparagine is present in an amount of about 0.5 mg/g to about 60.0 mg/g of the food product and wherein the reducing sugar is present in an amount of about 0.5 mg/g to about 50.0 mg/g of the food product on a dry weight basis.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date since Lotz’s (‘939) composition is the same as claimed it would also have the same free asparagine and reducing sugar. The selection of amount and consistency or ingredients would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
January 14, 2026