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 Election/Restrictions and Status of Claims Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I I (Claims 1 0 - 18 ) , drawn to a method of producing a food composition comprising a solid composition containing a starch derived from pulse and/or cereal in a seasoning solution, comprising the steps of: (i) preparing a precursor seasoning solution with 0.1-2.5 mass% sodium chloride , in the reply filed 02/27/2026 , is acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1-9 and 19-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-31 are new. The claims corresponding to the elected subject matter are Claims 1 0 - 18 and 21-31 , and are herein acted on the merits. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2022 and 04/15/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement s were considered by the Examiner. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: A substitute specification is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because some of the Tables in the Specification are not legible, specifically Table 1-1 through Table 5-2 . A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown. Claim Objections Claim s 1 0 -11 and 30 -31 are objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 10, step ii) and Claim 30 step ii) , recite “0.1 mass % or more and 2.5 mass % or less in terms of wet mass basis; “having a 2-pentylfuran content of 1 mass ppb or more and[[but]] 50 mass ppm or less in terms of dry mass basis” ; and “greater than 5.0 cP and 550 cP or less” . Applicant appears to mean between 0.1%-2.5% by mass, between 1 ppb to 50 ppm , and between 5-550 cP . The Examiner recommends changing to this language or something similar for clarity. The Examiner recommends clarifying for similar recitation in Claims 11 and 31 . For Claims 10-11 and 30-31 , removing the brackets in [Procedure a] as they are unnecessary and causes confusion. Double Patenting Claim 22 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 17 ; Claim 23 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 18 . When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Claim 22 is drawn to a production method according to C laim 10, wherein, in step (iii), the precursor composition is heated in the aqueous medium other than the precursor seasoning solution, and the heating is carried out such that an increase in a 2-pentylfuran content in the aqueous medium before and after the heating is 1 mass ppb or more in terms of wet mass basis. This is essentially the same or significantly overlaps with Claim 17 that their difference is negligible. Similarly, Claims 18 and 23 are nearly identical with both being drawn to production method s according to claim 10, wherein the extract increases from a RVA final viscosity at a time a temperature is lowered to 50°C before the adding of the extract by 10% or more at step (iv). 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 10 -31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 10 and 30-31 are further indefinite because the step (v) for this claim requires placing the solid composition from step (iii) in the seasoning solution from step (iv). However, step (iii) already recites alternative options between heating the precursor composition in an A) aqueous medium comprising the precursor seasoning solution or B) an aqueous medium other than the precursor seasoning solution. As such, it is unclear if step (v) is optional if the precursor composition is already in the aqueous medium comprising the precursor seasoning solution. Claims 12, 24, 27, and 30 relates that the precursor composition is “made into a…crushed dry slurry”. This phrase is vague because a slurry cannot be dry, and a skilled artisan would not be able to appraise what form is being claimed. Thus, the claim is indefinite. Claim s 25 and 31 recite “ further comprises an edible-plant processed product including insoluble dietary fiber-localizing portions including components selected from the group consisting of vegetable peels, vegetable seeds, squeezed residues of pulse.” The use of the word “including” produces a lack of clarity in the resulting claim limitations because it can be interpreted to mean “such as”, which is indefinite as it does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In order to move prosecution forward, the recitation of “including” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation to mean “comprising”. Claim 25 recites “squeezed residues of pulse”, which is not defined in the Specification or in the claims. This is not a term of the art, and an artisan will not know what this phrase refers to. As such, one cannot ascertain the metes and bounds of the claim. For compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret “squeezed residues of pulse” to mean byproducts of wet processing of pulses, or the f ibrous pulp remaining after pulses are extracted. Claim s 30 and 3 1 re fer to a “starch essentially derived from pulse”. In this case, the term “essentially” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term is not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, i.e. how much of the starch is from pulse and how much is not, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. All dependent claims are also rejected. 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. 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 s 10 , 12, 16- 18, 21-23, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plateful Nutrition ( Obtained from URL: < https://platefulnutrition.co/mung-bean-noodles-with-pesto/ > . Jan 2016) in view of Liu et al. ( J Food Sci Technol (December 2018) 55(12):5142-5152 ) , hereinafter Liu, and as evidenced by Action on Salt. (Pesto - Action on Salt. Obtained from URL: < https://www.actiononsalt.org.uk/news/surveys/2017/pesto/ > on 03/27/2026 . Oct. 2017. ) and Quail et al. (AU 2020200406 A1 ) , hereinafter Quail , and Harusame ( Eden Foods Mung Bean Pasta. Obtained on 03/24/2026 from Wayback Machine, URL: < Amazon.com: EDEN FOODS Mung Bean Pasta, 2.4 OZ : Grocery & Gourmet Food >. Available March 17, 2016. ) . Plateful Nutrition teaches mung bean noodles with pesto (p p . 1- 2). Regarding Claim 10 step i), Plateful Nutrition teaches preparing a pesto sauce by blending together avocado, olive oil, garlic, nutritional yeast, pine nuts, fresh basil and lime juice in a food processor, and then seasoned with salt and pepper according to taste (p. 3, step 3). As indicated by Plateful Nutrition, one skilled in the art would adjust the amount of salt according to taste . While the exact salt amount is not disclosed by Plateful Nutrition , a typical pesto recipe typically contains about 1-3% salt, as evidenced by Action on Salt . Furthermore, it is generally noted that differences in amounts do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such amount 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). Given that applicant did not point out the criticality of amount of salt of the invention, it is concluded that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known would provide the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum amount of salt . NOTE: MPEP 2144.05. Regarding Claim 10 steps ii) and iii), Plateful Nutrition teaches boiling water and boiling a package of mung bean pasta in the water, wherein the boiling water reads on the heat and aqueous medium; the mung bean pasta reads on the starch derived from pulse (p. 2, step 1). Mung bean flour contains 2-pentylfuran, as evidenced by Quail , which shows amounts up to greater than 1 ppb depending on the heat treatment used (p. 3, lines 33 to p. 4, line 4; Fig. 1). The cooked mung bean pasta reads on the solid composition. Regarding Claim 10 step v), Plateful Nutrition teaches that when the pasta is cooked, it is mix with the pesto sauce (p. 3, step 4). Regarding Claim 10 step iv), the instant Specification describes ‘extract’ as “extract (i.e., the aqueous heating of the precursor composition in the precursor seasoning solution A)” [0169]. Plateful Nutrition is interpreted to naturally add extract when putting the mung bean pasta in the hot/warm sauce. However, Plateful Nutrition is silent on the viscosity. Liu also recognizes mung beans being successfully incorporated into a variety of products including noodles (Abstract; Introduction 2 nd paragraph) . Liu teaches the preparation of mung bean noodles by mixing sprouted mung bean powder (SMBF), prepared by drying sprouted mung beans, milling and sieving, with salt and water, then aging, compressing and, finally, cutting (p. 5143, R. Col. 2nd paragraph ; p. 5144, R. Col. 3rd paragraph ). Regarding Claim 10 step iv), Liu teaches the pasting properties of mung bean flour as measured by a Rapid Visco Analyzer (RVA) (p. 514, L. Col., 2 nd paragraph; p. 5147, L. Col.). The pasting curves of MBF germinated for the varied duration is presented in Fig. 1. The pasting characteristics parameters, i.e. peak, trough, final, and setback viscosity etc. correlated with germination time , and ( Fig. 1; Table 2). Liu teaches that sprouting destroyed and consumed the starch and thus the degraded starch resulted in a low tendency of aggregation of the gelatinized starch molecules during cooling and the final viscosity became lower with prolonged sprouted time, while the content of protein and fat also influenced the pasting characteristics. The final viscosities for SMBF-36, SMBF-48, SMBF-60, and SMBF-72 are within the claimed range as shown in Table 2. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Liu with that of Plateful Nutrition and use the precursor composition comprising sprouted mung bean flour that would give the desired viscosity to the seasoning liquid and/or pesto sauce incorporating one of the SMBF pasta Liu has taught. Both references are in the same field of interest, and as such, there is a reasonable expectation of success that the desired thickness/thinness or rheology of the sauce will be achieved. For example, if the pesto sauce is diluted or even replaced with salted pasta water as the precursor seasoning, the viscosity will be within the claimed range. Regarding Claim 12, Liu teaches making a uniform slurry of the germinated mung bean flour and measuring the viscosity (p. 5144, L. Col., 2 nd paragraph). The Examiner interprets “maximum viscosity” to be the same as Liu’s “peak viscosity”. Regarding t he claimed ratio of value β (BD) to value α (PV/maximum viscosity) being 0.95 or less , Liu teaches this feature for all samples (Table 2). Regarding Claim 16, because Plateful nutrition has taught separate steps iii) and iv) wherein iii) precursor composition is heated separately from the precursor seasoning solution, the claim is obvious. Vide supra. (Method Steps 1-4). Regarding Claim 17 and 22 , because Plateful nutrition has taught boiling the water in which the precursor composition (mung bean noodles) is added, this step necessarily decreases the volume of the aqueous medium, thereby increasing the concentration of 2-pentylfuran in the medium. Vide supra. (Method Step 1). The amount of 2-pentylfuran would depend on how much is extracted in the medium, depending on the amount of water initially used, and time of boiling. Regarding Claim 18, Liu teaches samples with RVA final viscosity greater than 10% when temperature is lowered to 50 ˚C (Fig. 1; Table 2). Regarding Claims 21 and 23, Plateful Nutrition does not require xanthan gum. Regarding Claim 29, Plateful Nutrition teaches mung bean pasta (p. 3, Ingredients) , which comprises 100% mung bean starch, as evidenced by Harusame . Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plateful Nutrition in view of Liu, as applied to Claims 10, 12, 16-18, 21-23, and 29 above, and in further view of Apacks (Viscosity Chart. Obtained on 03/24/2026 from Wayback Machine, URL: < https://web.archive.org/web/20141224021653/https://www.apacks.com/resources/choose-best-fit-filling-needs/viscosity-chart > . 2014 ). Regarding Claim 1 1, Plateful Nutrition does not teach the viscosity of the precursor seasoning solution as claimed. Apacks teaches different viscosity of common liquid including that of water, milk, cream, and tomato juice to be 1, 3, 20, and 180 cP respectively . It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Apacks with Plateful Nutrition, and cook the mung bean pasta in any of these liquids taught by Apacks, which are commonly used in making noodle dishes, which would be less viscous than the pesto of Plateful Nutrition, if, for example, a less viscous sauce or non-pesto sauce is desired. Claim s 13 - 14 , 24 , and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plateful Nutrition in view of Liu, as applied to Claims 10, 12, 16-18, 21-23, and 29 above, and in further view of Awais et al. (Foods 2020, 9, 664 ) , hereinafter Awais . The teachings of Plateful Nutrition and Liu have been set forth supra . Regarding Claim 13, Plateful Nutrition does not teach the degree of gelatinization. Liu teaches the water absorption index (WAl) and water solubility index (WSI) of native and germinated mung bean flour (Table 2); the higher the WAI of the flour is, the better the ability of gelatinization (p. 5148, L. Col., last paragraph). However, Liu also does not teach the degree of gelatinization. Awais is in the same field and teaches the effect of hydrothermal treatment of mung bean starch on its digestibility (Abstract). Awais relates that controlled gelatinization at 70 ˚C, which results in 52.98% degree of gelatinization of the mung bean starch, is useful in producing food with lower starch digestibility (Abstract; Table 1). Awais teaches that the more starch is pre-treated or gelatinized, the lesser will be its thermal viability; pre-gelatinized starch tend to digest more easily due to damage of granular structure and easier initial binding of amylases to the starch (p. 13, last paragraph). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Awais to that of Plateful Nutrition and Liu, and use prepare the precursor composition, i.e. the noodles of Plateful Nutrition, with mung bean flour having a higher degree of gelatinization, for example 52.98% for the sample that was treated hydrothermally at 70 ˚C according to Awais, which Awais has taught to be ideal and useful in employing in foods with lower starch digestibility. Regarding Claim 14, Awais teaches using dried pre-gelatinized starch samples with moisture content around 10% (Paragraph 2.6). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to start with the moisture content that Awais teaches, i.e. 10%, for the precursor composition, and modifying as needed, depending on the desired moisture content. Obviousness is established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. See MPEP § 2143.01 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Regarding Claim s 24 and 27 -28 , all the elements of this claim have been rendered obvious supra . Claim s 15 , 26 , and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plateful Nutrition in view of Liu, as applied to Claims 10, 12, 16-18, 21-23, and 29 above, and in further view of Ledbolz ( Why not cook pasta in the sauce instead of separately in water? Reddit discussion posted on May 27, 2020. r/AskCulinary . Obtained from URL: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskCulinary/comments/grysid/why_not_cook_pasta_in_the_sauce_instead_of/?rdt=45896#:~:text=Seems%20more%20economical%20and%20tasty,and%20better%20melding%20of%20flavors on 03/24/2026 . ). Regarding Claim 15, Ledbolz discussion related how one can cook pasta directly in sauce instead of separately in water for better melding of flavors , and particularly if using very simple sauce (p. 1, O nsreverra comment; p. 4, Ljog42 comment). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to cook the pasta of Plateful Nutrition directly in the seasoned sauce as described by Ledbolz for better melding of flavors. Applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Regarding Claim s 26 and 30 , Ledbolz teaches simmering the pasta in the sauce , which logically would concentrate the seasoning solution (p. 4, BirdLawyerPerson comment). While the exact proportion of solid to the seasoning solution is not disclosed by Plateful Nutrition in view of Ledbolz , it is generally noted that differences in amounts do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such amount 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). Given that applicant did not point out the criticality of amount of salt of the invention, it is concluded that the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known would provide the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of ranges is the optimum amount of salt. NOTE: MPEP 2144.05. Claim s 25 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plateful Nutrition in view of Liu and Ledbolz , as applied to Claims 10, 12, 16-18, 21-23, 26, and 29 above, and in further view of Konishi et al. (CA 3149531C), hereinafter Konishi . Regarding Claim s 25 and 31 , Plateful Nutrition does not teach the teach the vegetable peels, seeds, or squeezed residues of pulse. Konishi teaches that insoluble dietary fibers from plants are disposed due to their hardness, as well as their astringent taste and odor in spite of their health-functional features ([0002]-[0003], [0011]). Konishi disclos es food and drink contain ing a powder food, wherein the food/drink includes seasonings [0053]. Konishi teaches a powdery food comprising an edible plant, wherein the powdery food has a 2-pentylfuran content of 1 ppb or more and 50,000 ppb or less (Abstract). The edible plant may be any plant that is eaten or drunk by human containing insoluble dietary fibers including grains, pulses, nuts, vegetables etc. [0017]. Konishi teaches green pea, which is a seed harvested with a seedpod, to be an edible plant [0017]. The average particle size of a powdery food is not particularly limited with D 50 at 0.3 to 1,800 µm, preferably 0.5 to 1,500 µm, and further preferably 1.0 to 1,000 µm, which overlaps within the claimed range [0016]. Konishi’s invention facilitates to suppress the astringent taste and fiber odor derived from insoluble dietary fibers and more preferably to enhance the sweet flavor derived from an edible plant in a food/drink containing an edible plant [0014] . Plateful Nutrition already teaches adding peas in the sauce (Method, step 4). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Konishi, and add the pea in the pesto of Plateful Nutrition , i.e. micronizing by blending with the rest of the sauce ingredient to provide additional insoluble fibers that have healthful benefits, while suppressing the odor of the insoluble dietary fibers and enhancing the flavor of the pesto . Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT JANICE Y SILVERMAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2038 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 10-6 EST . 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 Erik Kashnikow can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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. /J.Y.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1792 /ERIK KASHNIKOW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792