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 .
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 13 and 14 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.
Claims 13 and 14 recite a method wherein data is stored in a database and a machine learning model is utilized to determine a combination of ingredients.
It is unclear what is required to meet the limitations of Claim 13. Claim 13 depends from Claim 7, which recites a method of mixing specific ingredients for a specific temperature. Claim 13 therefore does not further limit the method of Claim 7.
Claim 14 depends from Claim 13 and is therefore also rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aurio (US 20060099324 A1)
Regarding Claims 1 and 2, Aurio teaches a composition for food [0057]. Note that the limitation of a “gum replacement system” is directed towards intended use, and does not further limit the claim.
Aurio teaches that the composition comprises “viscous soluble fiber”, which may be e.g., a mixture of mucilage and pectin [0019] at 0.5-60% by weight [0042]. Note that the composition of Aurio is sufficient to provide for both the mucilage and pectin of the claim. Additionally, note that where Aurio teaches combinations of viscous soluble fibers, it would have been obvious to have utilized mucilage and pectin as the viscous soluble fiber of Aurio.
Aurio additionally teaches the addition of, e.g., soy hull fiber [0031]. Given that soy hulls are taught in instant Claim 2 as a source of plant-derived polysaccharides, and given that Aurio teaches that fibers are polysaccharides [0015], Aurio is interpreted to teach a plant-derived polysaccharide source as claimed. Aurio teaches that the ratio of soluble to insoluble fiber may be 0.1-10. Aurio therefore teaches the addition of 5.45%-54.5% of a plant-derived polysaccharide source, which encompasses the claimed range.
Aurio additionally teaches that a plant-derived protein source such as pea protein [0005] is present at 1-60% [0045]. Note that pea protein contains some amount of starch; the pea protein of Aurio is therefore interpreted to be a “starch and protein source” as claimed.
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Aurio teaches a composition for food [0057]. Note that the limitation of a “gum replacement system” is directed towards intended use, and does not further limit the claim.
Aurio teaches that the composition comprises “viscous soluble fiber”, which may be e.g. a mixture of mucilage and pectin [0019] at 0.5-60% by weight [0042]. Note that the composition of Aurio is sufficient to provide for both the mucilage and pectin of the claim. Additionally, note that where Aurio teaches combinations of viscous soluble fibers, it would have been obvious to have utilized mucilage and pectin as the viscous soluble fiber of Aurio.
Aurio additionally teaches the addition of, e.g. soy hull fiber [0031]. Given that soy hulls are taught in instant Claim 8 as a source of plant-derived polysaccharides, and given that Aurio teaches that fibers are polysaccharides [0015], Aurio is interpreted to teach a plant-derived polysaccharide source as claimed. Aurio teaches that the ratio of soluble to insoluble fiber may be 0.1-10. Aurio therefore teaches the addition of 5.45%-54.5% of a plant-derived polysaccharide source, which encompasses the claimed range.
Aurio additionally teaches that a plant-derived protein source such as pea protein [0005] is present at 1-60% [0045]. Note that pea protein contains some amount of starch; the pea protein of Aurio is therefore interpreted to be a “starch and protein source” as claimed.
Aurio teaches that the mixture is heated from 20-60 degC [0090]. Aurio does not specifically address a time of heating. However, where Aurio speak to the effects imparted by incubation period i.e. viscosity [0090], one of ordinary skill would have been able to have adjusted the heating time to arrive at the time as claimed through no more than routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 4 and 10, Aurio teaches the use of apple and citrus pectin (which encompasses orange pectin) [0019].
Regarding Claim 6 and 12, Aurio teaches that the composition may be added to food products such as ice cream and cake [0065].
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, given that the methods of Claim 13 and 14 do not further limit the method of Claim 7, the limitations of Claim 13 and 14 are considered to have been met.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aurio as applied to Claims 1 and 7, above, and in view of Tosif (DOI: 10.3390/polym13071066, March 2021)
Regarding Claims 3 and 9, Aurio teaches the use of plant-derived mucilage [0019] but does not specifically address the plant sources as claimed.
Tosif teaches that quince seed (Page 7, Paragraph 2), basil seed (Page 7, Paragraph 1), chia seed (Page 7, Paragraph 2), yellow mustard (Page 15, Paragraph 1), and okra (Page 16, Table 5) are known sources of plant mucilages suitable for use in food (Page 2, Paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the plant-derived mucilage sources as claimed in the composition of Aurio. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Aurio teaches the use of plant-derived mucilages, and Tosif teaches the claimed mucilages are appropriate for use in food.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aurio as applied to Claims 1 and 7, above, and in view of Growing Naturals (https://growingnaturals.com/blogs/articles/14-myths-and-science-based-truths-about-pea-protein, March 2021)
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, Aurio teaches the use of pea protein but does not address the use of the claimed plant derived starch and protein source.
Growing Naturals teaches that both ground pea flour and pea protein contain protein (Page 2, Item 2.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to utilize pea flour as the protein source of Aurio. One would have been motivated to make such a modification since Growing Naturals teaches that both pea flour and pea protein contain protein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The references below were cited on the International Search Report of PCT/IB23/54924, to which the instant application claims priority.
Saha A, Tyagi S, Gupta RK, Tyagi YK. Natural gums of plant origin as edible coatings for food industry applications. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2017 Dec;37(8):959-973. doi: 10.1080/07388551.2017.1286449. Epub 2017 Apr 20. PMID: 28423942.
CN 110791539 A
WO 2007112504 A1
US-10583097-B2
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5685. The examiner can normally be reached 12-8 Eastern Time.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
/D.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791
Prosecution Insights