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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-13 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.
In claim 1, the use of “ a process” for each of the step is vague and indefinite because “ process” is defined as series of step to obtain a result. Thus, the use of the word “ process” for each of the step is confusing because each step is not a series of step. The step “ pre-soaking” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear if the legumes being soaked are the washed legumes or not washed legumes. The step of “ separating the cooled legumes “ is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what “ the soaking liquid generated after the cooling” referred to because the soaking liquid is already being separated in the separating step and the cooking step does not recite any liquid being added. Thus, it’s unclear what liquid is generated. It’s not clear how cooling can generate liquid. The step of obtaining legumes powder by freezing the separated soaking liquid is unclear because it’s not clear what this liquid refers to because there is no recitation of adding liquid during cooking or cooling the legumes. ( for prior art application, it’s interpreted that liquid is added during cooking as disclosed on page 11 of the specification.)
In claim 2, the limitation of “ large black soybeans and small black soybeans” is vague and indefinite because the terms large and small are relative without definite sizes defining the beans.
In claim 3, the limitation “ the process of pre-soaking” has the same problem as claim 1 with the use of the term “ process”. The limitation “ large black soybeans and small black soybeans” has the same problem as claim 2.
Claim 4 has the same problem as claim 2.
In claim 6, the limitation “ the process of cooking” has the same problem as claim 1 with the use of the term “ process”. The limitation “ large black soybeans and small black soybeans” has the same problem as claim 2.
Claims 7-8 have the same problem as claim 1. Additionally, in claim 8 the step of “ obtain legume powder after dry the separated soaking liquid at -20 degrees C” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what is intended. How can -20 degrees C be the temperature for drying. ( for prior art application, it’s interpreted at freezing and then drying as disclosed in the specification)
Claim 9 has the same problem as claim 2.
Claim 10 has the same problem as claim 3. Additionally, claim 10 is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear how the legumes are washed when they are placed in the jar and sealed. It’s not clear what is intended. If the legumes are sealed in the jar, how are they washed.
Claim 11 is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended. The washing step does not recite separating the legume. Thus, it’s not clear what the connection is between the step and the recitation of “ the distilled water is added at a 1:1.5 ratio to the first, second, third and fourth glass jars containing the separated legume. It’s not clear what “ separated legumes “ the claim is referring to. There is not antecedent basis for “ the separated legumes”. Furthermore, the legumes are recited as chickpeas, yellow soybeans, large black soybeans and small black soybeans
In claim 12, the limitation of “ large black soybeans and small black soybeans” is vague and indefinite because the terms large and small are relative without definite sizes defining the beans.
Claim 13 has the same problem as claim 1. Additionally, claim 13 is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what exactly the product being produced. It’s not clear what “ the soaking liquid” referred to because the claim does not recite any soaking step or soaking in water. It’s not clear how the legumes powder is obtained because there is no recitation of cooking the legumes in liquid; it’s not clear how the liquid is generated and what exactly is the liquid being dried. It’s not clear what “ the separated soaking liquid” is because there is no soaking step or soaking liquid. It’s not clear what exactly is being dried.
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) 1,7,8,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reaney ( 2021/0059284) in view of and KR102276746 .
For claims 1,7,8,11,13 Reaney discloses a process of making legume powder. The process comprises the steps selecting legumes, washing the legumes, soaking the washed legumes in water at 4 degrees C for 16 hours, separating the soaked legumes from the water using a screen, placing the soaked and separated legumes in sealed glass jars with water at a 1:1 ratio, cooking the legumes in the glass jars for 20 minutes in a pressure cooker at pressure of 70-80 Kpa and temperature from 115-118 degrees C, cooling the cooked legumes at room temperature for 24 hours, separating the liquid resulting from cooking from the legumes using a strainer and obtaining dried legume powder from the liquid resulting( aquafaba) from cooking that is separated from legumes and drying the aquafaba to form fine white flavorless powder. Figure 1 illustrates a process for forming aquafaba including the step of freezing the separating liquid( aquafaba) and drying ( see also paragraphs 0005,0006,0025, 0060-0061)
Reaney does not disclose using distilled water, the temperature of 22 degrees C and freezing temperature of -20 degrees C as in claims 1,8 and the use of distilled water as in claims 7,13.
KR 746 discloses a method for producing soy sauce. KR746 teaches to soak the soybean in distilled water. ( see page 4)
Distilled water is water that is treated to remove impurities. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use distilled water when desiring to use a pure form of water. Treating legumes with distilled water is known in the art as shown in KR746. Reaney discloses to cool the cooked legume at room temperature and freeze the aquafaba before drying. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the appropriate room temperature and freezing temperature through routine experimentation.
Claim(s) 2-6,9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reaney in view of KR 102276746 as applied to claims 1,7,8,13 above, and further in view of Lengel ( WO 2021/176454).
Reaney does not disclose the legumes as in claims 2,9 the legumes and sealing in different jar during soaking as in claims 3,9,10, the ratio and the legumes as in claim 4, the different glass jars as in claim 5, the cooking of chickpea and soybeans as in claims 6, 12 and the ratio as in claim 11.
Lengel discloses aquafaba based product. Lengel discloses the legumes for the aquafaba includes chickpeas and soybeans and combination thereof. ( see paragraph 008)
Reaney discloses different species of legumes can be used. As shown in Lengel, both chickpea and soybeans are used to prepare aquafaba. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use different legumes including chickpea and soybean to obtain different bases for the aquafaba. The selection would have been an obvious matter of preference. It would have been an obvious matter of choice to select black soy bean and yellow soy bean as a matter of taste preference. The claims do not define the size; thus, there is no parameter defining large and small. In any event, it would have been an obvious matter of preference to select large or small bean. Reaney discloses cooking the legumes in glass jars. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to soak the legumes in glass jars so that transfer of the legumes is not needed after soaking. Such parameter would have been readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been readily obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place different species of legumes in different jars if mixing of the different legumes is not wanted. Since different legumes would require different volume of water of soaking and different cooking conditions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the volume of water and cooking condition that is optimum for the particular legume. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. Reaney discloses in paragraph 0048 that aquafaba functional properties can vary considerably depending on the pulse composition, steeping time, temperature, cooking time and genotype. Thus, it would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the optimum ratio of water, steeping condition and cooking parameter to obtain the desirable functional properties through routine experimentation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 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.
December 31, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793