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 Claims The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows: Pending claims: 1 , 11-16, 20, 22, 31, 33-35, 40-44, 46, 51, 53, 56, 58-60, 63-67, and 69 Withdrawn claims: None Previously canceled claims: None Newly canceled claims: 20, 22, 31, 33-35, 40-44, 46, 51, 53, 56, 58-60, and 63-67 Amended claims: None New claims: None Claims currently under consideration: 1, 11-16, and 69 Currently rejected claims: 1, 11-16, and 69 Allowed claims: None Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1, 11-16, and 69 in the reply filed on 1 3 November 202 5 is acknowledged . Claims 20, 22, 31, 33-35, 40-44, 46, 51, 53, 56, 58-60, and 63-67 , being drawn to a nonelected invention, were cancelled by Applicant without prejudice in the reply filed on 1 3 November 202 5 FILLIN "Enter mail date of the reply." \* MERGEFORMAT . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraphs [0044] – [0045], to accurately describe the provided figures, “Fig. 1A” should read “Fig. 1”, and the descriptions of Fig. 1 and Figs. 2A-2B should be reversed such that Fig. 1 shows a trimodal particle size distribution and Figs. 2A-2B show decreases in amounts of VOCs. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 12, “of any of claim 1” should read, “of claim 1”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim s 1 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Buchbjerg et al. (US 4,677,065 A) . Regarding claim 1, Buchbjerg teaches a process for forming an improved protein isolate comprising ; (a) wet-milling seeds of a grain legume (i.e., pulses) of relatively low lipid content in an aqueous medium to produce a finely milled slurry, (b) adjusting the pH of said slurry to approximately 6.6 to 9.5 in order to promote the solubility of protein derived from said seeds in water and to form an extract of protein in water which inherently includes low molecular weight coagulation inhibitors derived from said seeds, (c) substantially removing solid material present in said slurry from said extract of protein in water which inherently includes low molecular weight coagulation inhibitors derived from said seeds ( see claim 1) , wherein the seeds of said grain legume which are wet-milled in step (a) are obtained from plants selected from the group consisting of Cajanus cajan , Cicer arietinum, Lens culinari , Phaseolus vulgaris, Pisum sativum, Vica faba, Vigna mungo, Vigna radiata (i.e., mung bean) , Vigna unguiculata , and mixtures of two or more of the foregoing ( see claim 3) . As such, Buchbjerg implicitly discloses an isolated wet-milled pulse plant protein composition. Buchbjerg does not discuss the isolated plant protein composition comprising volatile small molecule compounds, wherein the amount of volatile small molecule compounds present in the isolated plant protein composition is decreased as compared to the amount of volatile small molecule compounds present in an isolated dry-milled plant protein composition. However, these features , unappreciated by Buchbjerg , are nonetheless necessarily part of the isolated wet-milled pulse plant protein composition disclosed by Buchbjerg . As evidenced by the instant specification in Table 1 and Figures 2A-2B, wet-milled mung bean protein compositions JA579, JA569, and JA585 comprise volatile small molecule compounds, wherein the amount of volatile small molecule compounds present in the isolated wet-milled plant protein composition is decreased as compared to the amount of volatile small molecule compounds present in an isolated dry-milled plant protein composition JA565 . MPEP § 2112(I) states, “‘ [T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer. ’ Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc. , 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). ”. According to MPEP § 2112.01(I), “ Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). ‘ When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not. ’ In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). ” In the present case, Examples 2-3 of the instant specification (pp. 51-52) prepare wet-milled mung bean protein isolates by substantially the same method as steps (a) - (c) disclosed by Buchbjerg – wet milling, pH adjustment to 7.0, and starch solid separation from the protein solution. Therefore, one can reasonably expect the resulting compositions to be the same, including the types and amounts of volatile small molecule compounds. Claim 1 is therefore anticipated by Buchbjerg . Regarding claim 1 1 , Buchbjerg teaches t he isolated plant protein composition of claim 1, wherein the pulse selected from the group consisting of dry beans, lentils, mung beans, faba beans, dry peas, chickpeas, cowpeas, and common beans – the seeds of said grain legume which are wet-milled in step (a) are obtained from plants selected from the group consisting of Cajanus cajan , Cicer arietinum (i.e., chickpea) , Lens culinary (i.e., lentils) , Phaseolus vulgaris (i.e., common beans) , Pisum sativum (i.e., peas) , Vica faba (i.e., faba beans) , Vigna mungo, Vigna radiata (i.e., mung beans) , Vigna unguiculata (i.e., cowpeas) , and mixtures of two or more of the foregoing ( see claim 3; see also col. 3, lines 7-16) . Claim 11 is therefore anticipated by Buchbjerg . Regarding claim 1 2 , Buchbjerg teaches the isolated plant protein composition of claim 1, wherein the pulse is dehulled – “ said wet-milling of step (a) is carried out while said seeds are in a dehulled state ” ( see claim 6) . Claim 12 is therefore anticipated by Buchbjerg . Regarding claim s 13 -15 , Buchbjerg teaches t he isolated plant protein composition of claim 1, wherein the pulse is of the genus Vigna ( re: claim 13 ), wherein the pulse is Vigna angularis or Vigna radiata ( re: claim 14 ), wherein the pulse is Vigna radiata ( re: claim 1 5 ) – “wherein the seeds of said grain legume which are wet-milled in step (a) are obtained from plants selected from the group consisting of … Vigna radiata …” ( see claim 3) . Claims 13-15 are therefore anticipated by Buchbjerg . Regarding claim 16, Buchbjerg teaches t he isolated plant protein composition of claim 1 . Buchbjerg does not discuss the small molecule is selected from the group consisting of hexanal; 2-hexenal; 1-hexanol; 2-heptanone; 2-heptanal; 2-pentyl furan; nonanal; pentanal; octanal; dimethyl disulfide, and combinations thereof. However, these features, unappreciated by Buchbjerg , are nonetheless necessarily part of the isolated wet-milled pulse plant protein composition disclosed by Buchbjerg . As evidenced by the instant specification in Table 1 and Figures 2A-2B, wet-milled mung bean protein compositions JA579, JA569, and JA585 comprise volatile small molecule compounds of the group consisting of hexanal; 2-hexenal; 1-hexanol; 2-heptanone; 2-heptanal; 2-pentyl furan; nonanal; pentanal; octanal; and dimethyl disulfide . MPEP § 2112(I) states, “‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’ Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”. According to MPEP § 2112.01(I), “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). ‘When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.’ In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” In the present case, Examples 2-3 of the instant specification (pp. 51-52) prepare wet-milled mung bean protein isolates by substantially the same method as steps (a) - (c) disclosed by Buchbjerg – wet milling, pH adjustment to 7.0, and starch solid separation from the protein solution. Therefore, one can reasonably expect the resulting compositions to be the same, including the types and amounts of volatile small molecule compounds as claimed. Claim 16 is therefore anticipated by Buchbjerg . 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 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buchbjerg et al. (US 4,677,065 A) in view of David ( WO 2019 / 220431 A1 ) . Regarding claim 69 , Buchbjerg teaches the isolated plant protein composition of claim 1 as described above. Buchbjerg also teaches that the protein compositions are “well compatible with meat products, such as sausages, etc.” (Abstract). Buchbjerg does not discuss an egg substitute comprising the isolated plant protein composition. However, David teaches an egg substitute comprising 1% to 20% (w/w) mung bean protein ( see claim 8). MPEP § 2144.07 states, “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use support[s] a prima facie obviousness determination”. Since Buchbjerg teaches a mung bean protein composition according to claim 1, and David discloses that mung bean protein is suitable for use in a n egg substitute composition , it would have been prima facie obvious to use the mung bean protein isolate as taught by Buchbjerg as an ingredient in an egg substitute composition as claimed. Claim 69 is therefore rendered obvious. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT James Shellhammer whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703) 756-5525 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Emily Le can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1793 /EMILY M LE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793