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 .
Application Status
Amended claim 1, 5-9, 11-17, 19 and 21-23 are under examination.
Claim 2-4, 10, 18 and 20 are cancelled.
Claim 1, 5-9, 11-17, 19 and 21-23 are rejected.
Withdrawn Rejections
The objection over claim 11 as set forth in previous office action has been withdrawn.
The 112 first and second paragraph rejections over claim 1-9, 11-17, 19 and 21-23 as set forth in previous office action have been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12, line 12, recites “aquafaba” and should be “the aquafaba” since antecedent basis have been established in line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) as being anticipated by Carter (US 2020/0046001).
Regarding claim 1, Carter discloses a packaged aquafaba (‘001, [0006]-[0007], [0012]) comprising ratio by weight of polysaccharides to protein 50:50 by weight (‘001, [0011], 50% PS : 50% protein), which is in range with the cited range. With respect to the new limitation of “the polysaccharides comprise at least 40% arabinogalactans by weight”; it is well known arabinogalactan is a polysaccharide that result of hydrogen bonding between two molecules arabinose and galactose. Carter discloses a content of the polysaccharides contains mainly arabinose, galactose (arabinogalactan) (‘001, [0022]), in an amount of at least 50% by weight (‘001, [0019]) which is in range with the cited range. Additionally, with respect to the new limitation of “wherein the polysaccharides comprise starch at no more than 30% by weight”, wherein the claimed range includes a zero amount of starch; Carter discloses the content of the polysaccharides contains mainly arabinose, galactose and glucose (‘001, [0022]). Carter does not teach starch in the content of the polysaccharides; hence Carter meets the limitation of zero amount of starch, and within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Carter discloses the packaged aquafaba comprising a protein content 1.63% (‘001, [0050]) which is in range with the cited range of 12.5 g/L to 30 g/L (1.25% to 3.0%).
Regarding claim 9, Carter discloses the packaged aquafaba obtained from legumes including cannellini beans, chickpeas, black beans (‘001, [0015]-[0017], [0059], claim 5).
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.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 8, 11-17, 19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter (US 2020/0046001).
Regarding claim 6, Carter discloses the packaged aquafaba comprising a polysaccharide content by weight of at least 15% (‘001, claim 2). Carter does not explicitly disclose a concentration of the polysaccharide; however Carter clearly teaches the polysaccharide content is controlled by adjusting parameters of process to obtain the packaged aquafaba (‘001, [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the concentration of the polysaccharide in Carter’s packaged aquafaba as a matter of desired profile.
Regarding claim 7, Carter does not explicitly disclose a concentration of total solids; however Carter clearly teaches content is controlled by adjusting parameters of process to obtain the packaged aquafaba (‘001, [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve a desired total solids in Carter’s packaged aquafaba by adjusting parameters of process as a matter of desired profile.
Regarding claim 8, Carter does not explicitly disclose a pH of the packed aquafaba. pH values are known in packaged food product to maintain shelf life and deter microbes growth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated by maintain shelf life and deter microbes growth, including the cited pH range in Carter’s packaged aquafaba for suitable distribution to consumers.
Regarding claim 11, 12, 15, 17 and 22, Carter discloses a method of producing aquafaba (‘001, [0040]) comprising blanching legumes in water (soaking) and draining (‘001, [0043]) to separate blanching water from the legumes. Carter discloses heating and cooking the legumes and water in a kettle of pressure cooking vessel (‘001, [0042]) at a temperature range of between 100°C and 185°C for 45-140 minutes (‘001, [0044]), which overlaps the cited range of claim 11, 12 and 22. 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). Carter discloses the method comprising separating the water and the legumes in the kettle of pressure cooking vessel to provide the aquafaba (‘001, [0045]) and packaging the aquafaba (‘001, [0049]). Carter discloses a packaged aquafaba (‘001, [0006]-[0007], [0012]) comprising ratio by weight of polysaccharides to protein 50:50 (‘001, [0011], 50% PS : 50% protein), which is in range with the cited range. Carter discloses a content of the polysaccharides is a least 50% (‘001, [0019]) which is in range with the cited range. Additionally, Carter discloses the polysaccharides includes arabinose and galactose (‘001, [0022]). With respect to the new limitation of “the polysaccharides comprise at least 40% arabinogalactans by weight” as recited in claim 11 and 12; it is well known arabinogalactan is a polysaccharide that result of hydrogen bonding between two molecules arabinose and galactose. Carter discloses a content of the polysaccharides contains mainly arabinose, galactose (arabinogalactan) (‘001, [0022]), in an amount of at least 50% by weight (‘001, [0019]) which is in range with the cited range. Additionally, with respect to the new limitation of “wherein the polysaccharides comprise starch at no more than 30% by weight” as recited in claim 11 and 12, wherein the claimed range includes a zero amount of starch; Carter discloses the content of the polysaccharides contains mainly arabinose, galactose and glucose (‘001, [0022]). Carter does not teach starch in the content of the polysaccharides; hence Carter meets the limitation of zero amount of starch, and within the claimed range. With respect to claim 15, the heating of the water to boil (‘001, [0024]) is expected to stir the legumes within the kettle with an integrated stirrer (‘001, [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Carter discloses a ratio of the water to legumes in a range of 75:25 to 90:10 (‘001, [0043]), which overlaps the cited range. 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).
Regarding claim 14, Carter discloses a pressure of 100 to 6000 millibar (‘001, [0028]), which is in range with the cited range.
Regarding claim 16, Carter does not explicitly disclose cited time to soak the legumes in the water (‘001, [0042]), however it would have been it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust soaking time including the cited time period of the legumes in water as matter of preference to provide hydrated legumes.
Regarding claim 19, Carter discloses the method comprising adding acid additives to the aquafaba (‘001, [0053]).
Regarding claim 21, Carter discloses the method comprising the packaging is retort (‘001, [0049]).
Regarding claim 23, Carter discloses the legumes including cannellini beans, chickpeas, black beans (‘001, [0015]-[0017], [0059], claim 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts “…Carter does not disclose the critical requirement that at least 40% of the polysaccharides are arabinogalactans, nor that starch is limited to no more than 30% by weight. By contrast, the present application explicitly teaches that at least 40% of the polysaccharides should correspond to arabinogalactans, and that starch or glucose should preferably be present only in reduced amounts, with a maximum threshold of 30%. These features are not taught by Carter and establish novelty. The amended claimed invention is also not obvious in view of Carter. Carter does not identify arabinogalactans as a particular polysaccharide of importance, nor does it disclose that they contribute to stable foams by interacting with protein. The present inventors discovered this relationship and designed the aquafaba accordingly. Carter also does not recognize starch as detrimental, whereas the present inventors discovered that excessive starch releases glucose that impairs foam stability, and thus deliberately set a strict maximum of 30%. Carter presents an extensive list of protein and polysaccharide combinations, but does not identify any critical ratio. The present inventors selected the narrow range of 40:60 to 60:40 and demonstrated that this ratio produces aquafaba with superior whipping and stability. Finally, the present methods introduce two-stage heating and timely separation steps designed to minimize starch release and glucose content. Carter lacks any such teaching…”
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. First, Carter clearly teaches the ratio by weight of polysaccharides to protein 50:50 by weight (‘001, [0011], 50% PS : 50% protein), which is in range with the cited range. With respect to the new limitation of “the polysaccharides comprise at least 40% arabinogalactans by weight” as recited in claim 1, 11 and 12; it is well known arabinogalactan is a polysaccharide that result of hydrogen bonding between two molecules arabinose and galactose. Carter discloses a content of the polysaccharides contains mainly arabinose, galactose (arabinogalactan) (‘001, [0022]), in an amount of at least 50% by weight (‘001, [0019]) which is in range with the cited range. Additionally, Applicant’s instant specification (published [0012]) discloses arabinogalactans are arabinose and galactose or a combinations, wherein Carter discloses the content of the polysaccharides contains mainly arabinose, galactose (arabinogalactan) (‘001, [0022]), as much as Applicant’s disclosure.
Second, it is noted starch and glucose differ in chemical structures, hence they are not interchangeable term. Applicant’s remarks is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Additionally, with respect to the new limitation of “wherein the polysaccharides comprise starch at no more than 30% by weight” as recited in claim 1, 11 and 12, wherein the claimed range includes a zero amount of starch; Carter discloses the content of the polysaccharides contains mainly arabinose, galactose and glucose (‘001, [0022]). Carter does not teach starch in the content of the polysaccharides; hence Carter meets the limitation of zero amount of starch, and within the claimed range.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 HONG THI YOO whose telephone number is (571)270-7093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7AM to 3PM.
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 (571)270-3475. 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.
/HONG T YOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792