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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-38 filed on 9/24/2024 are pending in the application.
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 1,28,38 and dependent claims 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.
Regarding claim 1, the scope of the recited “plant-only composition” is unclear because the claim does not provide an objective basis for determining what constitutes each of the separately recited “polysaccharides source”, plant-derived mucilage”, “plant-derived protein” and “plant-derived fiber mucilage”.
The recited sources may comprise plant materials containing multiple such constituents. It is therefore unclear whether a single plant material may satisfy multiple recited component categories and, if so, whether the entire weight ofn the material or only the amount of the particular constituent is used in calculating the respective weight -by-weight percentages. Accordingly, the boundaries of the claimed composition and the basis for calculating the recited percentages cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claim 28, which recites a food product comprising the plant-only composition , it is additionally unclear how the claimed plant-only composition is identified in the food product. The recited plant-derived materials may themselves be ordinary ingredients of the food product , and the claim does not specify which ingredients constitute the claimed plant-only composition as distinguished from the remainder of the food product. Consequently, the denominator against which the weight percentages of the plant-only composition are calculated is unclear.
Regarding claim 38, it is additionally unclear what constitutes the recited “plant-only gum replacement system” as distinguished from the plant-only composition itself. The claim does not identify any structural, compositional, or objectively measurable characteristic that renders the recited composition a “gum replacement system”. The recitations “for a food product” and that the composition “substitutes a gum ingredient” in the food product do not clarify the boundaries of the claimed system or provide an objective basis for distinguishing the claimed system from an otherwise identical plant-derived composition.
Accordingly, the claims do not provide one of ordinary skill in the art with reasonable certainty as to the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Because it cannot be determined what materials or combinations of materials fall within the scope of the claims, a meaningful prior art search and comparison cannot be conducted.
In particular, the Office cannot determine whether a prior art food composition containing conventional plant derived ingredients satisfies the claimed component and weight percentage limitations without first determining which ingredient s Applicant regards as constituting each claimed component and, for claim 28, the claimed sub-composition.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached 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, 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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
