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 of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 6/16/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 12-14 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected invention.
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 1-6 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.
In claim 1, the limitation “ that forms a gelatinized protein cake” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended by gelatinization. Gelatinization is a process in which starch swells during heating. The claim does not recite any starch or heating. The limitation “ high protein pasta product” is vague and indefinite because the term “ high” is relative without any defining parameter. What would be considered as “ high”
In claim 2, the limitation “ low moisture” is vague and indefinite because it’s relative. What moisture would be considered as “ low”? The limitation “ high protein pasta” has the same problem as claim 1.
In claim 4, the use of the alternative “ or combination thereof” is vague and indefinite because the Markush grouping requires the closed language of “ selected from the group consisting of a, b…. and “ not or.
In claim 5, the limitation “ the holding mixture” is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what holding mixture applicant is referring to. Claim 1 does not recite any holding mixture or any holding step. The limitation “ gelatinized protein cake” has the same problem as claim 1.
In claim 6, the recitation of “ the ratio” does not have proper antecedent basis.
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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sozer ( WO 2015/158960) in view of Novak ( 2019/0297927).
For claims 1,3, 10,11, Sozer discloses a method of making high protein pasta blending coarse fraction of faba beans, water and transglutaminase to form an admixture and cold extruding the mixture to obtain pasta. The protein content in the coarse fraction is 10-35% which is considered high as the claims do not define any amount. Furthermore, Sozer discloses the pasta products have high protein content of 20-25%. Faba bean is a pulse protein ( see page 5 lines 21-29, page 6 lines 9-25, page 7 lines 5-30)
For claim 2, Sozer discloses the pasta is dried at temperature 40-80 degrees C. The pasta is dried as claimed; thus, it’s low moisture and shelf stable ( see page 7 lines 9-12)
Sozer does not disclose the protein is isolate or concentrate as in claim 1, the pulse is Psium sativum as in claim 4, the time as in claim 5, the ratio as in claim 6, the amount as in claims 7-8 and the transglutaminase is microbial as in claim 9.
Novak discloses gluten free pasta comprising high amount of protein selected from pulse including peas. The pasta product comprises pulse protein. The pulse protein can be pulse flour or pulse isolate. ( see paragraphs 0040,0041,0043,0050)
Sozer discloses the use of pulse flour coarse fraction comprising protein. However, as shown in Novak isolated pulse protein can be used in making gluten free pasta containing high protein. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use protein isolate or protein concentrate of pulse when desiring to have a purer and higher concentration protein pulse ingredient. The forming of gelatinized protein cake is indefinite as explained in the 112 rejection above. However, the cake is formed by mixing protein, water and transglutaminase. Sozer discloses the same step; thus, it’s obviously inherent the same cake is obtained. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pea as shown in Novak for faba beans when desiring a different flavor and taste. Both pea, faba beans are known to be used in high protein gluten free pasta. The selection of which would have been an obvious matter of choice depending the taste, flavor and nutrition desired. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the time between the mixing and the inputting of the mixture into an extrusion. The time claimed can be as short as 30 seconds. The transfer of the mixture from the mixing apparatus to the extrusion would cover such time. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the ratio of water to protein to obtain the desirable consistency of the dough. Such parameter can readily be determined through routine experimentation. It would have been within the skill of one ins the art to determine the amount of transglutaminase to obtain the desirable amount of crosslinking which affects the texture of the pasta. The amount is a result-effective variable which can be determined through routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use any known source of transglutaminase and microbial transglutaminase is known.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
July 30, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights