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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 12 December 2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. There is no English translation for the “Written Opinion of the International Search Authority issued in corresponding International Application No.: PCT/JP2021/004661; dated April 20, 2021 (6 pages)”
Claim Status
Claims 21-33, 35, 39-44 are pending in the current application. Claims 1-20, 34, and 36-38 are cancelled
Claim Objections
Claim 35 objected to because of the following informalities: “6% suspension” should be “6% water suspension” as shown in paragraph [0040] of the applicant specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21, 24-29, 30, 31, 35, and 41-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108041459 A) in further view of May et al. (herein referred to as May, WO 2019094585 A1), Fang et al. (herein referred to as Fang, “Effects of the specific mechanical energy on the physicochemical properties of texturized soy protein during high-moisture extrusion cooking”) Hsieh et al. (Herein referred to as Hsieh, “Isolation and identification of objectionable volatile flavor compounds in defatted soybean flour”) Wang et al. (herein referred to as Wang, US 5989620 A) and Albin (“PROTEIN FUNCTIONALITY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN, AND DOES IT MATTER?”)
With regard to Claim 21, Liu teaches a soybean silk instant noodle and the preparation method thereof (title, abstract). Liu teaches a method for producing an oil-and-fat containing composition ([0004] Liu reads such that the composition contains soybeans and Every 100 grams of soybeans contains 40% protein, 9% fat, 32% carbohydrates, 380 calories, 210mg calcium, 21mg iron, 230mg magnesium, 680mg phosphorus, 1900mg potassium, 155mg arsenic, 1.36mg phospholipids, 340mg saponins, and 163mg isoflavones) The method comprising kneading a first dough composition at a temperature of 130-200℃ and obtaining a solid state composition ([0013] Liu reads such that the mixed raw materials are continuously fed into the transmission screw hot press, and the transmission screw is driven by the power system to rotate. The spiral teeth on the transmission screw push the powder forward, pass through the high temperature heating zone, and are heated to 130-200℃. Under high temperature and high pressure, the powder is squeezed to the gap platform, and is squeezed into a sheet after passing through the platform). Liu teaches crushing the solid composition to obtain a crush composition ([0013] Liu reads such that after being squeezed out of the platform, it (the sheet) is crushed). After being crushed, Liu teaches the crushed composition is agglomerated to obtain an agglomerate of the crush composition as the oil-and-fat-containing composition ([0013] Liu reads such that after being squeezed out of the platform, it is crushed. In the process of being pushed forward, the powder is repeatedly squeezed and crushed, and enters the forming mold under the conditions of high temperature, high pressure, high shear force and the advancement of the screw and it is extruded into filaments).
Liu reads such that the purpose of the invention is to produce a method for producing bean products by a dry process ([0006]). Liu teaches since soybeans contain high protein; it is difficult to eat them immediately after being formed by just mixing them with boiling water like wheat instant noodles. Therefore, it is very necessary to process the shreds produced by this dry method into convenient, fast, nutritious and delicious instant foods ([0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that because Liu teaches a dry process and the solid-state composition is exposed to high heat and pressure during the processing of the solid-state composition ([0013]) than the prior to crushing, the solid-state composition would be a solid dry composition.
However, Liu is silent to kneading the first dough with a specific mechanical energy of 350 kJ/kg or more.
Fang teaches the effects of extrusion specific mechanical energy on the physiochemical properties of texturized soy protein (Abstract). Fang teaches specific mechanical energy is the amount of work input from driver motor into the extruded raw material Specific mechanical energy is an important factor for design engineering and directly affects the final product quality (1. Introduction). Fang investigated specific mechanical energy values from 819.70 to 1258.70 kJ/kg and observed increasing the specific mechanical energy reduced the viscosity of the dough at the die (4. Conclusion). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading step taught by Liu to include the specific mechanical energy as taught by Fang to advantageously create a soybean dough with the desired physiochemical properties such a viscosity of the dough which changes with increasing specific mechanical energy (4. Conclusion).
In addition, Liu is silent to the composition containing hexanal, 1- hexanol, and 1-pentanol.
Hsieh teaches the isolation and identification of objectionable volatile flavor compounds in soybean flour (title, abstract). Hsieh teaches soybeans are potentially the most abundant and economical source of food proteins. In order to develop new food items with soybean products, it is desirable to first eliminate the objectionable flavor of soybean protein products to obtain a truly bland taste. (Introduction). In defatted soy flour, Hsieh identified hexanal, 1-pentanol, and 1-hexanol as volatile flavor compounds with a beany, grassy, and green odor (Results and Discussion).
Therefore, because identified hexanal, 1-pentanol, and 1-hexanol are volatile flavor compounds found within soybean flour, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention that the composition taught by Liu also contains hexanal, 1-pentanol, and 1-hexanol because it produced from soybean flour.
Furthermore, Liu is silent to the method step of adjusting hexanal, 1- hexanol, and 1-pentanol contents so as to satisfy requirements (A) and (B):(A) a hexanal content of 10 mass ppb or more to 100 mass ppm or less; and(B) an α/β ratio of 1 or more to 10000 or less and/or an α/ϒ ratio of 1 or more to 10000 or less, where α refers to a peak area of hexanal (m/z=82), β refers to a peak area of 1-hexanol (m/z=84), and ϒ refers to a peak area of 1-pentanol (m/z=70) obtained by measuring the first dough composition at a sample temperature of 80°C with solid- phase micro-extraction gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.
May teaches stabilized whole-grain flour food products and the methods of making the same (abstract). May teaches the food product is an oil-and-fat containing composition with whole-grain flour containing bran, germ, and endosperm and delivering the same rich balance of nutrients found in the original grain (page 2, lines 24-28). May teaches adjusting the hexanal, 1- hexanol, and 1-pentanol contents (page 31, lines 7-9, May reads such that samples (unstabilized or heat treated), milled either hot or under ambient conditions and stored fresh (frozen) or under accelerated storage conditions (35°C for 1 month) were analyzed for volatiles content). 1-heaxanol and 1-pentanol are volatile compounds that may be a source of objectionable flavors (Page 33, lines 7-10).
May teaches the volatiles were obtained by measuring the first dough composition with solid- phase micro-extraction gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (page 31, lines 15-27). It is important to note that this step is merely recited in the claim and not positively claimed but the examiner notes May read on the limitation. Continuing, May is silent with regard to the hexanal, 1-pentanol, and 1-hexanol being measured at 80℃. However, May teaches the solid-phase micro-extraction and further teaches that it was known that the treatment (i.e., heating) adjusts the concentrations required such that it would have been well within the ability of one with ordinary skill in the art and within the guidance provided by May to adjust the temperature of the GC/MS to 80℃. The temperature of the sample is easily adjusted through routine optimization and would include the temperature parameter of the instant claim. in See MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”
May teaches the concentration of hexanal ranges from 3.92 mg/kg to 2.22 mg/kg depending on if the flour is treated and the method of treatment (Page 31, Table 12 because 1 mg/kg is equivalent to 1 pm, May reads such that the range of hexanal is 3.92 ppm to 2.22 ppm) May teaches suitable levels of hexanal, 1-hexanol, and 1-pentanol such that the ratios claimed for the relative proportions of these components are encompassed. May reads such that the α/β ratios read on the instant claims varying based on treatment; 21.8 (raw), 41.5 (raw), 115.7 (heated treated 140℃/10min), 55.5 (heated treated 140℃/10min), 81.3(heated treated 180℃/10min), and 77.8 (heated treated 140℃/10min). May teaches α/ϒ ratios varying based on treatment; 32.7 (raw), 67.5 (raw), 173.5 (heated treated 140℃/10min), 24.7 (heated treated 140℃/10min), 30.5 (heated treated 180℃/10min), and 38.9 (heated treated 140℃/10min). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
As mentioned above, Hsieh imparts reasoning for obviousness because it identifies hexanal, 1-pentanol, and 1-hexanol as volatile flavor compounds found within soybean flour (Hsieh, Results and Discussion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of May to adjust the hexanal, 1-pentanol, and 1-hexanol in the soybean oil and fat composition via treatment of the flour to control the concentration of are volatile compounds that may be a source of objectionable flavors (Page 33, lines 7-10).
In addition, Liu is silent to the composition comprising peas.
Wang teaches a high temperature extrusion process is provided for the production of legume pasta products (abstract). Wang teaches Wang teaches starchy legume flours are advantageous, because they are higher in protein and lysine content (compared to wheat and semolina) and are completely gluten-free (Col 1, lines 35-37). Wang teaches legume flours include whole pea flour, dehulled pea flour, air-classified pea flour fractions and pretreated pea flours, or may be similar flours from other starchy legumes, such as navy bean, chickpea, pinto bean, lentil, etc. (Col 3, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Wang because both prior art references teach gluten free pasta and/or noodle products one with soy and one with pea. It would be advantageous to include pea in the soy pasta product because pea would provide additional protein and lysine to the composition.
Lastly, Liu is silent to the protein dispersibility index (PDI) being less than 50 mass %.
Albin teaches a protein dispersibility index (PDI) test is used to measure how functional proteins are. Albin teaches to produce texturized protein ingredients a flour should contain proteins with some functionality and uses the example of textured soy protein with a PDI typically ranging from 25-50%. Albin teaches when an ingredient is primarily or only being used to supply protein in a diet, often a low PDI is required. Another example with soy – raw soybeans require thorough heat processing to maximize feeding value in a diet, and when appropriate techniques, like high-shear dry extrusion, are used, the resulting PDI of the meal can (and should) be 15% or lower. In this case, protein functionality can be low because the soy ingredient is being used to supply amino acids, not to be converted into a texturized product (whole document).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Albin to utilize a PDI less than 50% to achieve the desired texturized product with the appropriate protein functionality and supply of amino acids. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to Claims 24 and 25, Liu teaches the oil-and-fat-containing composition is Chinese noodles ([0002] Liu reads such that the invention relates to long-filament instant pure soybean filament noodles).
With regard to Claim 26, Liu teaches all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
However, Liu is silent to the α/( β+ϒ) and the β/ ϒ ratio.
May teaches the concentration of hexanal ranges from 3.92 mg/kg to 2.22 mg/kg depending on if the flour is treated and the method of treatment (Page 31, Table 12 because 1 mg/kg is equivalent to 1 pm, May reads such that the range of hexanal is 3.92 ppm to 2.22 ppm) May teaches suitable levels of hexanal, 1-hexanol, and 1-pentanol such that the ratios claimed for the relative proportions of these components are encompassed. May reads such that the α/( β+ϒ) ratios read on the instant claims varying based on treatment; 13.1 (raw), 25.7 (raw), 69.4 (heated treated 140℃/10min), 17.1 (heated treated 140℃/10min), 22.2 (heated treated 180℃/10min), and 25.9 (heated treated 140℃/10min) (Page 32, Table 13). May read such that May reads such that the β/ ϒ ratios read on the instant claims varying based on treatment; 1.5 (raw), 1.6 (raw), 1.5 (heated treated 140℃/10min), 0.4 (heated treated 140℃/10min), 0.4 (heated treated 180℃/10min), and 0.5 (heated treated 140℃/10min) (Page 32, Table 13). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of May to adjust the hexanal, 1-pentanol, and 1-hexanol in the soybean oil and fat composition via treatment of the flour to control the concentration of are volatile compounds that may be a source of objectionable flavors (Page 33, lines 7-10).
With regard to Claim 27, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh discloses all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
However, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh is silent to the solid-state composition having an insoluble dietary fiber content of 1 mass % or more in terms of dry mass basis.
Wang teaches a high temperature extrusion process is provided for the production of legume pasta products (abstract). Wang teaches a pea flour composition containing 7.0% dietary fiber (Col 5, Example 1, lines 44-46). The pea flour is dry therefore Wang reads on the percent being in terms of a dry weight basis.
Therefore, Wang imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that the claimed amount of dietary fiber was known for such a thing to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select the amount of dietary fiber, because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh to include an insoluble dietary fiber content of 1 mass % or more, as claimed, because Wang provides that it was known for encompassing amount to be successfully used and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed amount, because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use (see MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to Claim 28, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh discloses all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
However, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh is silent to the solid-state composition has a starch content of 10 mass % or more in terms of dry mass basis.
Wang teaches a high temperature extrusion process is provided for the production of legume pasta products (abstract). Wang teaches a pea flour composition containing 48.2% starch (Col 5, Example 1, lines 44-46). The pea flour is dry therefore Wang reads on the percent being in terms of a dry weight basis.
Therefore, Wang imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that the claimed amount of starch was known for such a thing to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select the amount of starch, because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh to include a starch content of 10 mass % or more, as claimed, because Wang provides that it was known for encompassing amount to be successfully used and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed amount, because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use (see MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to Claim 29, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh discloses all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
However, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh is silent to the solid-state composition has a protein content of 5.5 mass % or more in terms of dry mass basis.
Wang teaches a high temperature extrusion process is provided for the production of legume pasta products (abstract). Wang teaches a pea flour composition containing 23.8% protein, (Col 5, Example 1, lines 44-46). The pea flour is dry therefore Wang reads on the percent being in terms of a dry weight basis.
Therefore, Wang imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that the claimed amount of protein was known for such a thing to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select the amount of protein, because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh to include a protein content of 5.5 mass % or more, as claimed, because Wang provides that it was known for encompassing amount to be successfully used and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select the claimed amount, because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use (see MPEP 2144.07).
With regard to claim 30, Liu teaches the solid state composition has a total oil-and-fat content of 0.01 mass % or more in terms of dry mass basis ([0004] Liu reads such that the composition contains soybeans and Every 100 grams of soybeans contains 40% protein, 9% fat, 32% carbohydrates, 380 calories, 210mg calcium, 21mg iron, 230mg magnesium, 680mg phosphorus, 1900mg potassium, 155mg arsenic, 1.36mg phospholipids, 340mg saponins, and 163mg isoflavones) Liu teaches that the purpose of the invention is to produce a method for producing bean products by a dry process ([0006]). Thus, in combination with the ingredients being dry, it would be obvious that the mass percent is in terms of a dry mass basis.
With regard to Claim 31, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh discloses all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
However, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh is silent to the solid dry composition has a dry basis water content of 60 mass % or less.
Wang teaches a high temperature extrusion process is provided for the production of legume pasta products (abstract). Wang teaches the pasta as it emerges from the extruder barrel is cooled and dried to a moisture content of about 8 to 12% (Col 5, lines 32-38). The pasta in this step is equivalent to the instant claim solid dry composition as it’s been kneaded by an extrusion barrel, cooled, and then dried. See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Therefore, Wang imparts reasoning for obviousness because the teaching shows that the claimed water content was known for such a thing (i.e., legume pasta) to have been successfully achieved and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of one with ordinary skill in the art to select the water content, because it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious. In addition, the moisture content taught by Wang of about 8 to 12% (Col 5, lines 32-38) is within the range of the claimed invention of 60 mass % or less. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh to include a water content of 60 mass % or less , as claimed, because in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
With regard to Claim 41, Liu is silent to the protein dispersibility index (PDI) being less than 45 mass %.
Albin teaches a protein dispersibility index (PDI) test is used to measure how functional proteins are. Albin teaches to produce texturized protein ingredients a flour should contain proteins with some functionality and uses the example of textured soy protein with a PDI typically ranging from 25-50%. Albin teaches when an ingredient is primarily or only being used to supply protein in a diet, often a low PDI is required. Another example with soy – raw soybeans require thorough heat processing to maximize feeding value in a diet, and when appropriate techniques, like high-shear dry extrusion, are used, the resulting PDI of the meal can (and should) be 15% or lower. In this case, protein functionality can be low because the soy ingredient is being used to supply amino acids, not to be converted into a texturized product (whole document).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Albin to utilize a PDI less than 45% to achieve the desired texturized product with the appropriate protein functionality and supply of amino acids. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to Claim 42, Liu teaches the solid dry composition has a dry basis water content of less than 12% (Example 1). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to Claim 43, Liu is silent to the composition containing starch wherein the starch consists of a starch derived from peas.
Wang teaches a high temperature extrusion process is provided for the production of legume pasta products (abstract). Wang teaches a pea flour composition containing starch (Col 5, Example 1, lines 44-46). The pea flour is dry therefore Wang reads on the percent being in terms of a dry weight basis. And because the starch is in the pea flour, Wang reads such that the starch is derived from peas. Wang teaches the use of starchy legume flours is advantageous, since they are not only higher in protein and lysine content but are completely gluten-free (Col 1, lines 35-37)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Wang to use starch derived from peas, in the form of a legume flour, because of the high protein and lysine content as well as the source being gluten-free.
With regard to Claim 44, Liu teaches an oil-and-fat composition comprising oil-and-fat and protein (Claim 1)
However, Liu is silent to a starch derived from peas and the protein derived from peas.
Wang teaches a high temperature extrusion process is provided for the production of legume pasta products (abstract). Wang teaches a pea flour composition containing starch and protein (Col 5, Example 1, lines 44-46). Wang teaches the use of starchy legume flours is advantageous, since they are not only higher in protein and lysine content but are completely gluten-free (Col 1, lines 35-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu in view of Wang to use peas, starch derived from peas, and protein derived from peas because of the high protein and lysine content as well as the source being gluten-free.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108041459 A) in further view of May et al. (herein referred to as May, WO 2019094585 A1), Fang et al. (herein referred to as Fang, “Effects of the specific mechanical energy on the physicochemical properties of texturized soy protein during high-moisture extrusion cooking”) Hsieh et al. (Herein referred to as Hsieh, “Isolation and identification of objectionable volatile flavor compounds in defatted soybean flour”) Wang et al. (herein referred to as Wang, US 5989620 A) and Albin (“PROTEIN FUNCTIONALITY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN, AND DOES IT MATTER?”) and Manser et al. (herein referred to as Manser, EP 0426766 B2).
With regard to Claim 22, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh discloses all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
However, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh are silent to the agglomerating of the crushed composition including mixing the crushed composition as a raw material with water to obtain a second dough composition.
Manser teaches a mixing kneader device for the production of raw dough ([0001]). Water is dosed into a mixing kneader with the dry ingredients. The dry raw materials are moistened, mixed into the entry area and then fed into, multiple kneading zones. The mixing kneader worked the raw material into a crumbly dough. The dough after this step is a dry dough ([0049]). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize a “crumbly dough” reads on the product being an agglomerate of crushed particles. The “crushed particles” being the crumbs which can be compacted together to form the dough. After the mixing kneader, the crumbly dough is conveyed into the kneading zone ([0050]). The kneading zone is designed to provide a slight accumulation yet conveying effect ([0052]). In addition, the kneading zone includes the shear zone where the formation of protein scaffold is complete ([0052]) The quantity of water is calculated precisely for the dosing capacity of the dry component and is added to the dry components or the feed screw pair via a pump depending on the type of desired end product ([0044]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the agglomerating of the crushed composition as taught by the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh to include mixing the crushed composition as a raw material obtain a second dough composition to advantageously ensure the formation of the protein scaffold is complete.
However, Manser is silent to the raw material being mixed with water and the second dough composition having a dry mass basis water content of more than 47 mass %.
The combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh already teach adding 50-60% water to soybean flour by weight, stirring evenly, and mixed with a transmission screw (i.e., kneaded) (Liu, [0012]). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
Because Liu already teaches adding water to create a first dough composition with 50-60% water content, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Liu imparts reasoning for obviousness because the prior art already teaches a first dough with the claimed amount of water content to be successfully achieved and therefore it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that a second dough composition for the same purpose would contain the same water content and step of adding water on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
With regard to Claim 23, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh discloses all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
However, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh are silent to the agglomerating of the crushed composition further includes kneading the second dough composition.
Manser teaches a mixing kneader device for the production of raw dough ([0001]). Water is dosed into a mixing kneader with the dry ingredients. The dry raw materials are moistened, mixed into the entry area and then fed into, multiple kneading zones. The mixing kneader worked the raw material into a crumbly dough. The dough after this step is a dry dough ([0049]). One with ordinary skill in the art would recognize a “crumbly dough” reads on the product being an agglomerate of crushed particles. The “crushed particles” being the crumbs which can be compacted together to form the dough. After the mixing kneader, the crumbly dough is conveyed into the kneading zone ([0050]). The kneading zone is designed to provide a slight accumulation yet conveying effect ([0052]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh to include kneading a second dough composition as taught by Manser to provide a slight accumulation yet conveying effect to the second dough composition and advantageously ensure the formation of the protein scaffold is complete.
The combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh read on the claim’s limitation of kneading the second dough composition at a temperature of 100 °C or more and 200 °C or less and with a specific mechanical energy of 350 kJ/kg or more. The combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh teaches the limitations above for a first dough compositions, therefore it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that because the claimed limitations above are suitable for the first dough composition, that it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use on the second dough composition. See MPEP 2144.07 that discussed that when the prior art recognizes something is suitable for a similar intended use/purpose, such a thing is obvious.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108041459 A) in further view of May et al. (herein referred to as May, WO 2019094585 A1), Fang et al. (herein referred to as Fang, “Effects of the specific mechanical energy on the physicochemical properties of texturized soy protein during high-moisture extrusion cooking”) Hsieh et al. (Herein referred to as Hsieh, “Isolation and identification of objectionable volatile flavor compounds in defatted soybean flour”) Wang et al. (herein referred to as Wang, US 5989620 A) and Albin (“PROTEIN FUNCTIONALITY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN, AND DOES IT MATTER?”) and Tinsley (“Cooling Some Foods After Cooking Increases Their Resistant Starch”)
With regard to Claims 32 and 33, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh discloses all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
Tinsley teaches resistant starch is a carb that is also considered a type of fiber .Increasing your intake of resistant starch can be beneficial for the bacteria in your intestines as well as for your cells. Interestingly, research has shown that the way you prepare common foods like potatoes, rice and pasta may change their resistant starch content. (Paragraphs 1-3). Resistant starch is a prebiotic, meaning it is a substance that provides “food” for the good bacteria in your intestines (“Why is it good for you?”) Tinsley teaches one type of resistant starch is formed when foods are cooled after cooking. This process is called starch retrogradation. It occurs when some starches lose their original structure due to heating or cooking. If these starches are later cooled, a new structure is formed (“Cooling some foods after cooking increases resistant starch”). In addition to potatoes, rice and pasta, resistant starch in other foods or ingredients can be increased by cooking and then cooling them. Some of these foods include black beans, pinto beans, and chickpeas (“Other foods”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh in view of Tinsley to age the starch in order to modify the resistant starch within the pasta composition because resistant starches act as a prebiotic (“Why is it good for you?”). The method described by Tinsely works for pasta and legumes, thus a pasta made from legumes would obviously be impacted by aging in the same manner.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108041459 A) in further view of May et al. (herein referred to as May, WO 2019094585 A1), Fang et al. (herein referred to as Fang, “Effects of the specific mechanical energy on the physicochemical properties of texturized soy protein during high-moisture extrusion cooking”) Hsieh et al. (Herein referred to as Hsieh, “Isolation and identification of objectionable volatile flavor compounds in defatted soybean flour”) Wang et al. (herein referred to as Wang, US 5989620 A) and Albin (“PROTEIN FUNCTIONALITY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN, AND DOES IT MATTER?”) and Corn Refiners Association (STARCH IDENTIFICATION”)
With regard to Claim 35, Liu is silent to the number of starch grain structures.
The corn refiners association teaches a methodology which is applicable to all starches and is intended for the identification of separated, unmodified, native or commercial starches (“Scope”). The corn refiners association teaches an iodine staining method using a suspension of product consisting of 1 gram starch, 14.0 mL of purified water and 1 mL of buffer (pH 5.0). Therefore the solution contains ~6.67% starch (“iodine staining (high amylose)”). The corn refiners association teaches adding an iodine indicator to the suspension and counting the different starch granules; Common starch granules will be blue, while the high amylose granules will appear reddish or red variegated with blue (“iodine staining (high amylose)”). In one example, the corn refiners association teaches counting 500-600 granules and calculating the composition as percent high amylose (“iodine staining (high amylose)”). However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that the number of starch structures would vary based on the sample type and dilution and therefore the number of starch structures would vary and desired number could be achieved through routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) which states "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Liu to utilize the methodology taught by the corn refiners association for the identification of separated, unmodified, native or commercial starches. Parameters can be modified to achieve the desired results through routine optimization.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108041459 A) in further view of May et al. (herein referred to as May, WO 2019094585 A1), Fang et al. (herein referred to as Fang, “Effects of the specific mechanical energy on the physicochemical properties of texturized soy protein during high-moisture extrusion cooking”) Hsieh et al. (Herein referred to as Hsieh, “Isolation and identification of objectionable volatile flavor compounds in defatted soybean flour”) Wang et al. (herein referred to as Wang, US 5989620 A) and Albin (“PROTEIN FUNCTIONALITY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN, AND DOES IT MATTER?”) and Lechthaler (US 4544563 A).
With regard to Claim 39, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh discloses all the limitations in the claims set forth above.
However, the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh is silent to the solid-state composition has a degree of gelatinization of 30% or more.
Lechthaler teaches a process for the production of pasta based on starchy materials by gelatinization, extrusion and drying (abstract). Lechthaler described a process which soya flour and corn flour are used to replace most of the wheat flour in the production of pasta (Col 2, lines 3-5). Lechthaler teaches a composition containing 50% soya flour that has a degree of gelatinization of 55% (Col 6/Col 7, lines 60-19). Lechthaler teaches the degree of gelatinization the sufficiency or insufficiency of the gelatinization are practical ideas which are linked with the sufficient or insufficient cohesion of the dough at the outlet of the extruder on the one hand and of the reconstituted and cooked dough on the other hand (Col 3, lines 45-49).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Liu, May, Fang and Hsieh in view of Lechthaler to modify the composition to have a gelatinization of 30% or more because Lechthaler teaches a soya composition with 50% soya has a gelatinization of 55% and modifying the percent gelatinization is link to cohesion of the dough during processing (Col 6/Col 7, lines 60-19, Col 3, lines 45-49). Therefore, the percent gelatinization can be optimized through routine experimentation to achieve the desired dough cohesion.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 108041459 A) in further view of May (WO 2019094585 A1), Fang “Effects of the specific mechanical energy on the physicochemical properties of texturized soy protein during high-moisture extrusion cooking”), Hsieh ( “Isolation and identification of objectionable volatile flavor compounds in defatted soybean flour”), Manser (EP 0426766 B2), Wang (US 5989620 A), and Albin (“PROTEIN FUNCTIONALITY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN, AND DOES IT MATTER?”).
With regard to Claim 40, Liu teaches a soybean silk instant noodle and the preparation method thereof (title, abstract). Liu teaches a method for producing an oil-and-fat containing composition ([0004] Liu reads such that the composition contains soybeans and Every 100 grams of soybeans contains 40% protein, 9% fat, 32% carbohydrates, 380 calories, 210mg calcium, 21mg iron, 230mg magnesium, 680mg phosphorus, 1900mg potassium, 155mg arsenic, 1.36mg phospholipids, 340mg saponins, and 163mg isoflavones) The method comprising kneading a first dough composition at a temperature of 130-200℃ and obtaining a solid state composition ([0013] Liu reads such that the mixed raw materials are continuously fed into the transmission screw hot press, and the transmission screw is driven by the power system to rotate. The spiral teeth on the transmission screw push the powder forward, pass through the high temperature heating zone, and are heated to 130-200℃. Under high temperature and high pressure, the powder is squeezed to the gap platform, and is squeezed into a sheet after passing through the platform). Liu teaches crushing the solid composition to obtain a crush composition ([0013] Liu reads such that after being squeezed out of the platform, it (the sheet) is crushed). After being crushed, Liu teaches the crushed composition is agglomerated to obtain an agglomerate of the crush composition as the oil-and-fat-containing composition ([0013] Liu reads such that after being squeezed out of the platform, it is crushed. In the process of being pushed forward, the powder is repeatedly squeezed and crushed, and enters the forming mold under the conditions of high temperature, high pressure, high shear force and the advancement of the screw and it is extruded into filaments).
Liu reads such that the purpose of the invention is to produce a method for producing bean products by a dry process ([0006]). Liu teaches since soybeans contain high protein; it is difficult to eat them immediately after being formed by just mixing them with boiling water like wheat instant noodles. Therefore, it is very necessary to process the shreds produced by this dry method into convenient, fast, nutritious and delicious instant foods ([0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that because Liu teaches a dry process and the solid-state composition is exposed to high heat and pressure during the processing of the solid-state composition ([0013]) than the prior to crushing, the solid-state composition would be a solid dry composition.
However, Liu is silent to kneading the first dough with a specific mechanical energy of 350 kJ/kg or more.
Fang teaches the effects if extrusion specific mechanical energy on the physiochemical properties of texturized soy protein (Abstract). Fang teaches specific mechanical energy is the amount of work input from driver motor into the extruded raw material Specific mechanical energy is an important factor for design engineering and directly affects the final product quality (1. Introduction). Fang investigated specific mechanical energy values from 819.70 to 1258.70 kJ/kg and observed increasing the specific mechanical energy reduced the viscosity of the dough at the die (4. Conclusion). See MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges, Amounts, and Proportions.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the kneading step taught by Liu to include the specific mechanical energy as taught by Fang to advantageously create a soybean dough with the desired physiochemical properties such a viscosity of the dough which changes with increasing specific mechanical energy (4. Conclusion).
In addition, Liu is silent to the composition containing hexanal, 1- hexanol, and 1-pentanol.
Hsieh teaches the isolation and identification of objectionable volatile flavor compounds in soybean flour (title, abstract). Hsieh teaches soybeans are potentially the most abundant and economical source of food proteins. In order to develop new food items with soybean products, it is desirable to first eliminate the objectionable flavor of soybean protein products to obtain a truly bland taste. (Introduction). In defatted soy flour, Hsieh identified hexanal, 1-pentanol, and 1-hexanol as volatile flavor compounds with a beany, grassy, and green odor (Results and Discussion).
Therefore, because identified hexanal, 1-pentanol, and 1-hexanol are volatile flavor compounds found within soybean flour, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention that the composition taught by Liu also contains hexanal, 1-pentanol, and 1-hexanol because it produced from soybean flour.
Furthermore, Liu is silent to the method step of adjusting hexanal, 1- hexanol, and 1-pentanol contents so as to satisfy requirements (A) and (B):(A) a hexanal content of 10 mass ppb or more to 100 mass ppm or less; and(B) an α/β ratio of 1 or more to 10000 or less and/or an α/ϒ ratio of 1 or more to 10000 or less, where α refers to a peak area of hexanal (m/z=82), β refers to a peak area of 1-hexanol (m/z=84), and ϒ refers to a peak area of 1-pentanol (m/z=70) obtained by measuring the first dough composition at a sample temperature of 80°C with solid- phase micro-extraction gas chromatography/mass spectrometry.
May teaches stabilized whole-grain flour food products and the methods of making the same (abstract). May teaches the food product is an oil-and-fat containing composition with whole-grain flour containing bran, germ, and endosperm and delivering the same rich balance of nutrients found in the original grain (page 2, lines 24-28). May teaches adjusting the hexanal, 1- hexanol, and 1-pentanol contents (page 31, lines 7-9, May reads such that samples (unstabilized or heat treated), milled either hot or under ambient conditions and stored fresh (frozen) or under accelerated storage conditions (35°C for 1 month) were analyzed for volatiles content). 1-heaxanol and 1-pentanol are volatile compounds that may be a source of objectionable flavors (Page 33, lines 7-10).
May teaches the volatiles were obtained by measuring the first dough composition with solid- phase micro-extraction gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (page 31, lines 15-27). It is important to note that this step is merely recited in the claim and not positively claimed but the examiner notes May read on the limitation. Continuing, May is silent with regard to the hexanal, 1-pentanol, and 1-hexanol being measured at 80℃. However, May teaches the solid-phase micro-extraction and further teaches that it was known that the treatment (i.e., heating) adjusts the concentrations required such that it would have been well within the ability of one with ordinary skill in the art and within the guidance provided by May to adjust the temperature of the GC/MS to 80℃. The temperature of the sample is easily adjusted through routine optimization and would include the temperature parameter of the instant claim. in See MPEP 2144.05(II) Routine Optimization, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)”
May teaches the concentration of hexanal ranges from 3.92 mg/kg to 2.22 mg/kg depending on if the flour is treated and the method of treatment (Page 31, Table 12 because 1 mg/kg is equivalent to 1 pm, May reads such that the range of hexanal is 3.92 ppm to 2.22 ppm) May teaches suitable levels of hexanal, 1-hexanol, and 1-pentanol such that the ratios claimed for the relative proportions of these components are encompassed. M