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 .
Response to Amendment
In applicant’s reply on 09/10/2025, the claims and specification were amended. Objections to the specification and rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn. Revised rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 can be found below, as well as new rejections under 35 USC 112.
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 1-12 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.
Claim 1 as amended recites “directly circulating the paste-like product within the tank and over a heat exchanger through which a cooling media flows”. It is unclear what the term directly is conveying. According to Page. 8 of applicant’s remarks filed 09/10/2025, it seems that what is intended is that the paste-like product is cooled with a direct heat exchanger. It is noted that there does not seem to be support for this amendment. However, as amended, the claim does not read that the heat exchanger is direct. It either reads that the circulating step happens directly after the transferring step, or that the circulating step involves the paste-like product moving directly from the tank to the heat exchanger. For examination purposes it will be assumed to mean the circulating step involves the paste-like product moving directly from the tank to the heat exchanger.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh (WO 9703575), in view of Frorup (US 2020/0120965 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Walsh teaches a method for processing seeds into a paste-like food product (milling legumes to form paste, cooking resulting paste Pg. 3 lines 5-11)
said method comprising mixing the seeds into the paste-like product (milling with liquid Pg. 5 lines 27-29; milling to form a slurry or paste Claim 1)
heating the paste-like product using the mixer (combined with heated water (9) Pg. 11 line 2)
transferring the paste-like product to a tank (surge tank (11) Pg. 11 line 4)
directly circulating the paste-like product within the tank and over a heat exchanger through which a cooling media flows, such that the paste-like product is cooled (the slurry then passes through a swept surface heat exchanger (16) where the slurry is cooled Pg. 11 lines 9-11).
Walsh does not teach mixing the seeds into the paste-like product by using a mixer, and the heating is batch.
Frorup, in the same field of endeavor, mixing seeds by using a mixer (mixing seeds into a paste in a mixer unit Par. 0007)
and batch heating (one single mixer unit is provided, heating the seeds to a predetermined temperature to thereby soften the seeds Par. 0007). Though Frorup does not explicitly call the process a batch process, the ingredients are all added to one vessel and then the steps are performed while the ingredients are still in the vessel, producing the final product. This describes a batch process.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of Walsh with the mixer unit of Frorup. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce processing time (Frorup Par. 0008).
Regarding claim 3, Walsh does not teach a temperature of the paste-like product fed from the mixer is in the range of 40 to 100 °C, or is in the range of 60 to 90 °C.
Frorup further teaches a temperature of the paste-like product fed from the mixer is in the range of 40 to 100 °C, or is in the range of 60 to 90 °C (80-100°C Par. 0030). When applying the mixer of Frorup to the process of Walsh, the temperature of the product within the mixer can be assumed to be the temperature of the product that is fed from it.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of Walsh with the mixer temperature of Frorup. One would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce processing time (Frorup Par. 0008).
Regarding claim 5, Walsh teaches a tubular heat exchanger (shell-in-tube Pg. 7 lines 10-11; water jacketed tube Pg. 7 lines 26-29).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh in view of Frorup, evidenced by Gurin (US 2016/0100616 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Walsh and Frorup teach the limitations of claim 1. Walsh further teaches the seeds are chickpeas (garbanzo beans Claim 2)
and the paste-like food product is a mixture (other ingredients may be added to the beans at any time during the process including fats and flavoring Pg. 6 lines 28-Pg. 7 line 2).
Walsh does not teach tahina.
Frorup teaches the paste-like food product is hummus (Par. 0003).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of Walsh with the hummus of Frorup. One would have been motivated to make this modification to produce a known paste-like chickpea food product (Frorup Par. 0003).
Regarding tahina, as evidenced by Gurin, the composition of hummus is readily known to one having ordinary skill in the art, and includes tahini (Par 0230). Therefore, the hummus of Frorup would lead one having ordinary skill in the art to assume the addition of tahini.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh in view of Frorup, further in view of Kim (US 2016/0007788 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Walsh and Frorup teach the limitations of claim 1 but fail to teach moving the paste-like product horizontally in the tank by using an agitator.
Kim, in the same field of endeavor, teaches moving the paste-like product horizontally in the tank by using an agitator (cooling tank 220 and second agitator 230 Fig. 1 Par. 0048). As seen in fig. 1, the location of agitator 230 of tank 220 would create movement in a circular path along a horizontal axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of Walsh and Frorup with the agitator of Kim. One would have been motivated to make this modification to provide efficient mixing (Kim Par. 0020)
Claim 6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh in view of Frorup, further in view of Frechette (US 2019/0360756 A1) and Brogan (“Shell and Tube Heat Exchangers”).
Regarding claim 6, Walsh and Frorup teach the limitations of claim 5, but do not teach the tubular heat exchanger is a multitube heat exchanger having multiple inner tubes provided in an outer tube, the paste-like product flowing in the inner tubes and the cooling media flowing in outer tube.
Frechette, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a multitube heat exchanger having multiple inner tubes provided in an outer tube (heat exchanger assembly, one or more heat exchanger tubes Par. 0004 Fig. 1B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of Walsh and Frorup with the heat exchanger tubes of Frechette. One would have been motivated to make this modification to promote a uniform velocity field for uniform temperature distribution Par. 0042).
Frechette does not teach the product flowing in the inner tubes and the cooling media flowing in outer tube.
Brogan teaches allocating the fluid likely to cause the most severe cleaning problems to tubeside (Pg 14 No. 3 under “Fluid Allocation”). This would motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to select the product to flow in the inner tubes and the cooling media to flow in outer tube in the invention of Walsh, Frorup, and Frechette, to prevent any cleaning problems.
Regarding claim 9, Walsh, Frorup, and Frechette do not teach the paste-like product is fed through the inner tubes of the heat exchanger with a velocity that is in the range of 0,1 to 0,6 m/s.
Brogan teaches allocating the fluid likely to cause the most severe cleaning problems to tubeside (Pg 14 No. 3 under “Fluid Allocation”). This would motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to select the product to flow in the inner tubes and the cooling media to flow in outer tube in the invention of modified Walsh, to prevent any cleaning problems.
Brogan does not teach the product is fed with a velocity that is in the range of 0,1 to 0,6 m/s.
Regarding the product is fed with a velocity that is in the range of 0,1 to 0,6 m/s, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to supply the product at a velocity that provides sufficient time within the heat exchanger for desired cooling.
Regarding claim 10, Walsh and Frorup do not teach each of the inner tubes has a straight section having a length that is less than 8 meters.
Frechette teaches each of the inner tubes has a straight section having a length that is less than 8 meters (tube length 1.016 m Pg. 16 Table above Par. 0190)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of modified Walsh with the tube length of Frechette. One would have been motivated to make this modification to promote a uniform velocity field for uniform temperature distribution Par. 0042).
Regarding claim 11, Walsh and Frorup do not teach each of the inner tubes has a cross-sectional area that is less than 5 cm2
Frechette teaches each of the inner tubes has a cross-sectional area that is less than 5 cm2 (tube outside diameter 0.5 inches Pg. 16 Table above Par. 0190; Fig. 1B). As the tubes of Frechette are cylindrical, a diameter of 0.5 inches would have an area of 5 cm2. As this is the outside diameter, the inner diameter would be less than 5 cm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of modified Walsh with the tube area of Frechette. One would have been motivated to make this modification to promote a uniform velocity field for uniform temperature distribution Par. 0042).
Claims 7-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh in view of Frorup, further in view of Oestengaard (US 2016/0000103 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Walsh and Frorup teach the limitations of claim 1.
Walsh teaches heating a second batch of seeds by using the mixer (in a parallel process, legumes are cooked in a batch format Pg. 4 lines 15-16)
while at the same time circulating over the tank and the heat exchanger the paste-like product previously mixed, heated and transferred to the tank (in a parallel process Pg. 4 lines 15-16)
Walsh does not teach mixing a second batch of seeds into a second batch of paste-like food product by using the mixer.
Frorup does not teach mixing a second batch of seeds into a second batch of paste-like food product by using the mixer.
Oestengaard, in the same field of endeavor teaches mixing a second batch of seeds into a second batch of product by using the mixer (mixing in vacuum mixer Par. 0024; blending and heat treating may be continuous Par. 0006; the function of the buffer tanks is to supply a continuous supply of slurry to the subsequent units Par. 0027). Though Oestengaard is silent regarding the mixing step being a batch process, by specifying that the subsequent steps are continuous one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the mixing step in comparison would be a batch process.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of Walsh and Frorup with the batch mixing of Oestengaard. One would have been motivated to make this modification to allow for downstreat standardization or recipe changes (Oestengaard Par. 0041, 0042).
Regarding claim 8, Walsh and Frorup teach the limitations of claim 7, but they fail to teach comprising transferring the second batch of paste-like product to an alternate tank.
Oestengaard teaches transferring the second batch of paste-like product to an alternate tank (upon completion of the mixing step, the slurry is pumped to one or several intermediate buffer tanks Par. 0027; storage tanks Par. 0032).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of Walsh and Frorup with the storage tanks of Oestengaard. One would have been motivated to make this modification to supply a continuous supply of slurry to the subsequent units Par. 0027)
Regarding claim 12, Walsh teaches passing the paste-like food product through a holding cell placed downstream the mixer to secure that the paste-like food product is kept at a predetermined temperature for a minimum period of time (holding tube (15) Pg. 7 lines 8-9).
Walsh does not teach prior to the step of transferring the paste-like product to the tank, passing the paste-like food product through a holding cell upstream the tank.
Frorup does not teach prior to the step of transferring the paste-like product to the tank, passing the paste-like food product through a holding cell upstream the tank.
Oestengaard teaches prior to the step of transferring the paste-like product to the tank, passing the paste-like food product through a holding cell upstream the tank (Upon completion of the mixing step, the slurry is pumped with a high capacity pump to one or several intermediate buffer tanks Par. 0027; storage tank 320 Par. 0033 Fig. 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of Walsh and Frorup with the storage tanks of Oestengaard. One would have been motivated to make this modification to supply a continuous supply of slurry to the subsequent units Par. 0027).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would have not been obvious to modify Walsh with Frorup, as Walsh teaches away from cooking prior to mixing (milling) and using the mixer of Frorup would require cooking or soaking prior. It is noted that Walsh teaches wet and heated milling (Pg. 5 line 27-Pg. 6 line 13). As such, it is taught that the legumes are heated prior to the “cooking” step and therefore Walsh cannot teach away from cooking/soaking prior to mixing. Walsh discloses a process where the legumes are heated during milling, and then cooked. It would be within reason that one having ordinary skill in the art would apply the mixing of Frorup to the invention of Walsh and have a reasonable expectation of success. It is further noted that an invention in which the seeds are preheated or presoaked prior to mixing would be within the scope of the current claim.
Applicant argues that Walsh teaches away from batch cooking. Even though Walsh teaches benefits of continuous cooking, it is merely a preferred embodiment and does not teach away from batch cooking.
Applicant argues Walsh does not teach directly circulating the product within the tank and over a heat exchanger for cooling, as claimed. The rejection above under 35 USC 112 clarifies that the amended use of “directly” is unclear and lays out the assumed meaning for examination purposes. As such the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 seen above shows that Walsh does teach directly circulating the product within the tank and over a heat exchanger for cooling, as claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL M RODGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 5712703475. 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.
/A.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights