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 with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 8/19/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that since the non-elected claims depend from the elected claims the are related. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons of record. Just because the claims literally refer to another claim does not make the claims related. If one were to agree with Applicant’s position then all inventions must be examined together no matter what the limitations of the claims stated. This position is not tenable. As stated in the record the flour can be made by different methods. Patentability of the flour is based on the flour composition. The method does not impart any specific structure to the flour that can only be made by a single method.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: please update the priority statement at the beginning of the Specification.
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 1-7 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 sufficient period of time to increase soluble protein content of the bran by at least 10%” in Claim 1, lines 2-3 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear this time can be any time including 4 hours or 10 hours or 100 hours if this amount of time is required as the Specification appears to limit the time to 3 hours.
The phrase “a sufficient period of time to increase soluble protein content of the bran by at least 10%” in Claim 1, lines 2-3 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear if this increase in soluble protein can be achieved at all temperature conditions including 0 oC, 50 oC, 90 oC, 100 oC, 150 oC and varying temperature conditions 10 oC for 1 minute followed 100 hours at -20 oC. If the temperature is not set forth and the temperature is held at 90 oC or 100 oC the acid would evaporate and the increase in protein content would never happen. If the temperature is at -20 oC the increase in protein content would never happen. It is also unclear if the bran must be subject to mixing and or the addition of any particular acid of any particular pH or will the increase in protein automatically take place.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the acidified bran" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "acidified bran".
Claim 2 recites the limitation "step b" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier in Claim 1 preceding “b” by the term “step” and in claim 2 stating “the step b”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the acidifying step" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “acidifying step”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "step b" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier in Claim 1 preceding “b” by the term “step” and in claim 2 stating “the step b”.
The phrase “drying the treated bran after step b” in Claim 6, line 2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether Claim 6 is optional or required as Claim 1 states [a] method of producing a treated bran … to produce the treated bran” and appears the produced bran has already been produced at the conclusion of step b and thus any further steps is for an additional invention with different properties produced by an additional set of method steps.
The phrase “milling the dried bran” in Claim 7, line 1 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear whether Claim 7 is optional or required as Claim 1 states “[a] method of producing a treated bran … to produce the treated bran” and appears the produced bran has already been produced at the conclusion of step b and thus any further steps is for an additional invention with different properties produced by an additional set of method steps.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the dried bran" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating “dried bran”.
Clarification and/or correction required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamamoto et al. (JP 2000186044).
The claims are interpreted as being directed to a method of producing a treated bran and not a method of using a produced treated bran. Any language beyond the method of producing a treated bran is interpreted to the extent that it further limits the method of producing a treated bran.
The method steps in Claims 6 and 7 are use steps after the bran has been produced and thus do not further limit the method of Claim 1. Applicant is advised to consider cancelling claims 6 and 7. Per claim 1, the treated bran has been produced at the completion of b.
Regarding Claims 1, 6 and 7, Yamamoto (‘044) teaches a method of producing a treated bran (See Abs., para. 39.), the method comprising: a. acidifying a bran to a pH of less than 5 (See Abs., para. 39, pH of 1-4/(1-3).) for a sufficient period of time to increase soluble protein content of the bran by at least 10% (See Abs., para. 39, where the time is 3-120 minutes which is within the time of at least 1 hour as Applicant describes as being sufficient at paragraph 25 of the Specification as being sufficient. Claim 1+ does not set for processing conditions including temperature, vapor pressure above the processed material including whether it is under a vacuum and how much and whether there is any agitation. The Claims do not set forth a narrow pH. Like 4.9, 4, 3, 1, 0.1 or anything of precision. These parameters are absent.), and b. after the period of time, increasing the pH of the acidified bran to a pH of at least 5.5 to produce the treated bran (See Abs., para. 39, where the bran is neutralized, thus pH of 7.).
Regarding Claim 2, Yamamoto (‘044) teaches wherein the pH in step b is increased to a pH of from 5.5 to about 8 (See Abs., para. 39, where the bran is neutralized, thus pH of 7.).
Regarding Claim 3, Yamamoto (‘044) teaches wherein the period of time is at least 1 hour (See Abs., para. 39, where the time is 3-120 minutes which is within the time of at least 1 hour as Applicant describes as being sufficient at paragraph 25 of the Specification as being sufficient.).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamamoto (‘044) teaches wherein the acidifying step results in a pH of 4.5 or less (See Abs., para. 39, pH of 1-4/(1-3).).
Regarding Claim 5, Yamamoto (‘044) teaches wherein the bran is a wheat bran (See Abs., para. 39.).
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
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights