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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The present specification does not include a Description of the drawing.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation “the first and second component . . . are mechanically linked (interconnected) to each other, thereby creating a texturization within the feed composition and making it dimensionally stable” renders the claim indefinite.
It is not clear what properties define mechanically linked or interconnected in terms of the mixture of grain protein and legume protein. Are the proteins crosslinked? Are they in close proximity to each other? Moreover, it is not clear what properties define “dimensionally stable.”
Claim 1 recites “the first and the second component add up to at least 95% by weight of the feed composition.” Claim 2 recites “providing a solid structure and a maximum moisture content of 10 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the solid components of the feed composition” and claim 3 recites “providing a soft structure and a minimum moisture content of 100 parts by weight per 100 parts by weight of the solid components of the feed composition.” It is not clear how the feed composition could comprise the recited moisture contents when claim 1 requires the grain and the legume components make up at least 95% by weight of the feed composition. Does Applicant intend to claim the first and second component add up to at least 95% by weight of the “solid components” or by dry weight?
Claim 6 recites various texturizing parameters, however, the units for adhesiveness that appear in brackets is not necessarily conventionally recognized units. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily know how to ascertain the claimed texturizing limitations and compare to the prior art.
Regarding claim 14, the recitation “An extruded feed composition according to claim 1” renders the claim indefinite. Does Applicant intend to claim an extruded feed composition comprising the feed composition of claim 1 or wherein the feed composition of claim 1 is extruded?
Claims 4, 5, and 7-13 are rejected because they depend from a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borders et al. (US 2007/0077345- IDS of May 16, 2025).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5 and 14, Borders et al. disclose an extruded high-protein crisp (i.e., feed composition) composition comprising soy protein isolate (PROFAM from Archer Daniels Midland Company – [0026]) and wheat protein isolate (PROLITE from Archer Daniels Midland Company-[0027]) or a hydrolyzed wheat protein (Abstract, [0006]-[0007], [0026]-[0027]). Borders et al. disclose where the soy protein is about 70-74% by weight of the dry mixture and the wheat protein isolate is about 23-27% by weight of the dry mixture ([0007]).
Given Borders et al. disclose soy protein isolate inherently the component would comprise at least 50% by weight protein. Moreover, given Borders et al. disclose wheat protein isolate, inherently the component would comprise at least 60% by weight protein.
Borders et al. disclose the extruded high-protein crisp is made with an extruder ([0033]). Borders et al. disclose the dry ingredient are mixed with water and the resulting material is extruded under high temperature and pressure ([0033]). Given Borders et al. disclose extruding a mixture (i.e., intimate blend) of soy protein isolate and wheat protein isolate, it necessarily follows the proteins would be mechanically linked to each other to create a dimensionally stable product.
Regarding claim 2, Borders et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Borders et al. disclose an extruded high-protein crisp having a moisture content of from about 1% to 8% ([0040]).
Regarding claims 6-9, Borders et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Borders et al. disclose an extruded composition comprising the claimed components in the claimed ratios, inherently the resulting extruded high-protein crisp would exhibit one of the claimed texture parameters, a bulk density in the claimed range, feature at least one of the claimed functionality parameters and exhibit the claimed hydration time for achieving maximum water hydration.
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Borders et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Borders et al. disclose a grain protein component, i.e., wheat protein isolate (i.e., PROLITE), it necessarily follows at least 80% of the wheat protein isolate would have a particle size of less than 500 µm. Moreover, given Borders et al. disclose a commercially available wheat protein isolate, i.e. PROLITE, it necessarily follows the wheat (i.e., grain) was milled (i.e., disintegrated by mechanical means) in the process of making the protein isolate.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Borders et al. disclose all of the claim limitations as set forth above. Given Borders et al. disclose a grain component than can be hydrolyzed wheat protein, it necessarily follows the wheat would have undergone an enzymatic treatment (i.e. biochemical treatment) to hydrolyze the protein in the wheat.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Akamittath et al. (WO 2020/092306) teaches a food composition (i.e., feed composition) that is texturized by extrusion and comprises a mixture of pea protein and wheat protein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH A GWARTNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3874. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
ELIZABETH A. GWARTNEY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/ELIZABETH GWARTNEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights