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 1-21 filed on 4/29/2025 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/20/2025 was filed before the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: A typographic error in Claim 9 “KilojoulesJ” needs correction.
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 3,8 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.
Claims 3 and 8 recite “wherein the second enthalpy is less than the first enthalpy”. However the ranges for first and second enthalpy overlap in subsequent respective dependent claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US4888180A) in view of generally known methods in the art, and further in view of Rabe et al. (US20140348991A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a process of preparing a finished food product from grains, said process comprising the steps of: a first step of heating the grains to pre-gelatinize the grain starch, in the absence of added water. In particular, Wu discloses (page 2 line 67 through page 3 line 20) that the moisture content of the cereal grains is first adjusted by adding any water needed to bring the desired cereal grains or to a moisture content in the range of about 12% to about 18%. Alternatively, the cereal grains may be stored at a moisture in the desired range and will not require the addition of water, meeting the limitation of “no added water”. While the cereal grains are in an unpressurized container, steam is applied to the grains. Steam at a pressure of about 35 psi could be used to initially raise the temperature of the grains into the desired range followed by steam at a pressure of about 15 psi to continue the steaming of the cereal grain for the desired period of time. The steaming takes place for a period of time and at a temperature required to partially gelatinize the starch in the grain. That time and temperature depends on the particular cereal grain which is being steamed, the moisture content of the cereal grain and the desired degree of expansion in the final product. For example, wheat at a moisture content of 14% could be steamed at about 205 degrees F. for about four minutes to produce a highly expanded product. Also, for example, corn at a moisture content of 15% could be steamed at about 205 degrees F. for about 20 minutes to produce a highly expanded product. As the type of grain, time, temperature and properties of the final product are identified as result effective variables, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to suitably optimize process conditions, including heat content/enthalpy to obtain a desired degree of gelatinization in a grain, with a reasonable expectation of success. Wu discloses that preferred steaming temperatures are in the range of about 190 degrees F. to about 210 degrees F. since these temperatures are adequate to provide a short processing time and since they are the highest temperatures that can be readily achieved by steaming in inexpensive unpressurized equipment. Higher or lower temperatures can, however, be used, as desired (column 6 lines 60-66). Wu further discloses the effective temperature for partial gelatinization of grain starch is a temperature above about 190 degrees F. and the effective period of time is in the range of about 2 minutes to about 30 minutes, falling within or overlapping the claimed range (claims 3 and 4).
Regarding the process conditions in claims 2,4,6,8,10 as applied to the first step, as the type of grain, time, temperature and properties of the final product are identified as result effective variables, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to suitably optimize process conditions, including heat content/enthalpy to obtain a desired degree of gelatinization in a grain, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Wu discloses that either preceding or following steaming, the cereal grains may be mixed with seasonings to produce a desired flavor, texture or appearance in the final product (column 7 lines 55-60).
Wu does not specifically require a second step of heating the grain and flavor mixture to fully gelatinize the grain starch and allow flavor and color development via the Maillard reaction and to formed cooked grains. Wu discloses maintaining the cereal grains at the effective temperature for an effective period of time to produce desired degree of expansion in the final product; drying the steamed cereal grains to a moisture content of less than about 14% to 17% (corresponding to a water activity of 0.65 -0.82); and puffing the dried cereal grains in a rice cake machine. The pre-steamed grains with retained heat from the steaming are tumbled in the dryer for 15-20 minutes, (column 10 lines 10-20) effectively simulating the claimed lower enthalpy second step.
It was known at the time of the invention that Maillard reaction with flavor generation from a composition having carbonyl and amino groups capable of undergoing a Maillard reaction takes place optimally at a water activity in the range of 0.5-0.8 at a temperature in the range of 120 deg C-150 deg. C (248 deg F-302 deg F) (Rabe [0019]-[0021]).
As the type of grain, time, temperature and properties of the final product are identified as result effective variables, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to suitably optimize process conditions, including heat content/enthalpy to obtain a desired degree of gelatinization in a grain, with a reasonable expectation of success. Based on known conditions to effect Maillard reaction as above, one of ordinary skill in the art looking to develop flavor and color in the grain product comprising added flavor composition, through Maillard reactions, would have logically selected a process temperature in this range, in optimizing the process conditions in Wu, to enable Maillard reaction product development in the grains with a reasonable expectation of success.
The time temperature selections in claims 2-11 are therefore an obvious modification of the method in Wu.
Regarding claim 12 and 13, tempering the cooked grains prior to milling, optionally drying the cooked grains after milling, and further optionally applying a second step of tempering after drying, are routine steps in the art for the purpose of equilibrating moisture and stabilizing the product.
Wu discloses temperature in the range of 190-210 deg F in steaming and tumble drying without further heat addition, for 15-20 min. The final constant temperature of the dried grain is in the range of 70deg to 90 deg F with a moisture content of 14%-17% in an unheated dryer (column 10 lines 22-23). Tempering and equilibration of moisture occurs herein. In modified Wu, a second heating step is carried out in the range of 248deg or above to effect Maillard browning. It is expected that the heated, tumbled, tempered grain would have a temperature of 120deg-180deg F upon tumble drying to a desired moisture content.
Regarding claim 14, Wu discloses drying the cooked grains, with or without further heat input (column 10 lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 16-21 milling, toasting, puffing either before or after milling as summarized in Fig 1 of this disclosure, are routinely practiced in processing grains [0003], to produce different types of grain products.
Claims 1-21 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
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
Prosecution Insights