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 of Group II in the reply filed on 8/31/2026 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)).
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) 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bialek et al. (WO 2014/095180).
Regarding claim 4, Bialek (‘180) teaches a method of forming a pea starch particle product, comprising: (a) drying a pea starch product to form a powder (See Abs., p. 5, ll. 7-13, p. 10, ll. 3-36, p. 11, l. 4.); (b) mixing the powder with water, producing a mixture (See p. 10, l. 34 to p. 11, l. 8.); (c) extruding the mixture thru an extruder producing an extrudate (See p. 10, l. 34 to p. 11, l. 8.); and (d) grinding the extrudate producing the pea starch particle product (See p. 10, l. 34 to p. 11, l. 8.).
Regarding claim 5, Bialek (‘180) teaches wherein the pea starch is not treated to any chemical or enzyme reaction (See p. 8, l. 35 to p. 9, l. 1.).
Regarding claim 6, Bialek (‘180) teaches wherein the powder comprises at least about 4% by weight fiber (See p. 8, l. 35 to p. 9, l. 2, 1-40%.).
Regarding claim 7, Bialek (‘180) teaches wherein the powder has been subjected to milling prior to the extruding (See p. 5, ll. 6-13.).
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) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bialek et al. (WO 2014/095180).
Regarding claims 8-11, Bialek (‘180) teaches the product discussed above, however, fails to expressly disclose the type of extruder, operating temperature and screw speed.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for selecting any particular type of extruder the operating temperature and speed.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to select any known extruder known in the art and the operating parameters thereof, including those set forth in the claims, that are effective for extruding pea materials.
The selection of extruders and operating conditions thereof 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
September 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights