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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 18 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 10, 18 and 19 should have a period at the end of the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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 10-24 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.
Amended Claim 10 recites the limitation "the moistened fava bean flour" in line 5 of the claim, step b. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because step a. of the claim recites “a moistened fava bean protein concentrate” and makes no mention of “a moistened fava bean flour”. This may be a typographical error and the Examiner will treat it as such in light of the recitation in step a. of the claim.
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 10-20 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezzani (USPA 2018/0020705) in view of Roa et al. (USPA 2020/0045994), the latter made of record by Applicant.
Regarding amended Claim 10, Vezzani teaches a method for making a de-flavored fava bean protein component comprising: a. in a reactor applying an aqueous fluid to a base fava bean component to obtain a moistened fava bean protein component, as Vezzani teaches in a reactor feeding legume meal along with a continuous flow of water or aqueous solution which is dispersed in minute droplets (Paragraphs 18-21) and discharging a continuous flow of wet meal, therefore teaching obtaining a moistened legume meal product. Vezzani teaches that the term “legume meal” is understood as meaning a finely divided product obtained from grinding of legumes, but it is also understood as meaning isolated proteins of legumes (Paragraph 39), and also teaches legume meal products treated with the process according to the present invention have organoleptic properties in particular smell and taste which are markedly improved compared to the starting meal products (Paragraph 41), and teaches exemplary legumes include fava beans (Paragraph 40). Vezzani also teaches an exemplary method using isolated fava bean proteins (Paragraph 79, Example 5). The starting material of Vezzani therefore reads on a base fava bean isolated protein product. Therefore, Vezzani is seen to teach or render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, the step of obtaining a moistened isolated fava bean proteins. Regarding step b. of heating the moistened fava bean isolate at a temperature from about 160 to about 200̊C, Vezzani teaches the temperature of the inner wall of the wet heat treatment reactor is preferably kept at a temperature of 100-250̊C, conveniently at 150-190̊C (Paragraph 31). Therefore, since the inner wall of the wet heat treatment reactor is kept at a temperature within the disclosed range, the moistened legume meal, when traveling in the wet heat treatment reactor would be heated at the same temperature range from the temperature of the inner wall of the reactor, where the taught temperature range overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range. Applicant’s claim does not require that moistened fava bean concentrate achieves a certain temperature. Since step c. of Claim 10 is optional, the milling step is not required. Since Vezzani teaches the product obtained has improved taste and flavor from the disclosed method, Vezzani is seen to teach the claimed method of making a de-flavored fava bean protein product.
Vezzani may not specifically teach the method for making a de-flavored fava bean protein concentrate, although Vezzani teaches isolated fava bean proteins, and it can be argued that isolated proteins are proteins that have been concentrated from their original source of legumes.
Roa teaches a method of making a heat moisture treated fava bean protein concentrate made by a process using a controlled amount of heat and teaches heating a fava bean concentrate to a temperature between 100 and 180̊C with the heating comprises using steam or by steeping in water (Paragraph 17). Therefore, in light of the teachings of the prior art, it would have been obvious to have used either isolated fava bean proteins or fava bean protein concentrates specifically in a method of making de-flavored fava bean concentrates. In addition, the step b. of heating the moistened fava bean protein concentrate at a temperature from about 160 to about 200̊C would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention in light of the teachings of Roa above.
Regarding the limitation of where the aqueous fluid is at least an aqueous steam, as set forth above Vezzani teaches the water or aqueous solution mixed with the legume/isolated protein is dispersed in minute droplets (Vezzani, Paragraph 21) and also teaches a continuous flow of water vapor is fed into the wet heat treatment reactor (Vezzani, Paragraph 28), and also teaches that the final product is a dried meal output from the thermal dehydration and treatment reactor is conveyed to a receiving container which separates said meal from the steam and air also exiting from this reactor (Vezzani, Paragraph 57). Vezzani also teach the inner wall of the reactor is being kept at a temperature of at least 100̊C (Vezzani, Paragraph 25), and teaches in Example 5 that steam is introduced along with the isolated fava bean proteins and water (Vezzani, Example 5), therefore teaching at least steam is one of the components used in the wet heat treatment reactor. In addition, as set forth above, Roa teaches the moistened fava bean concentrate made by introduction of steam. Therefore, it would have been obvious to have used a combination of aqueous fluid and steam in order to produce the moistened heat-treated fava bean protein concentrate.
Regarding the claimed ratio of concentrate to steam being greater than 7:1 to about 12:1, Vezzani in view of Roa teach the ratio between flow rate of water or aqueous solution fed into the wet heat treatment reactor and the flow rate of legume meal fed into the wet heat treatment reactor is preferably between 1:10 and 1:2 (Vezzani, Paragraph 37). Although Vezzani in view of Roa discuss flow rate, this still relates to an amount of aqueous solution and an amount of legume meal over time being fed into the reactor, where the ratio is 10:1 for flow rate of legume to flow rate of aqueous solution, which is within the claimed ratio range. Vezzani in view of Roa teach in Example 3 using fava bean flour as the starting material and teach a flow of fava bean flour was 90kg/h, water flow at 32kg/h and steam flow at 15kg/h in order to provide a particular moisture content after exiting the wet heat treatment reactor (Vezzani, Example 3), and teaches in Example 5 using isolated fava bean proteins as the starting material and teach a flow of the isolated proteins of 80kg/h, water flow at 20kg/h and a steam flow of 15kg/h in order to provide a particular moisture content after exiting the wet heat treatment reactor (Vezzani, Example 5). For the two Examples, the ratio of fava bean:steam was 5:1, and 6:1, respectively, which is slightly less than the claimed lower range of greater than 7:1. However, since Vezzani in view of Roa teach a combination of aqueous solution and steam used in the wet heat treatment reactor to achieve a particular moisture content of the resulting product, it is submitted that it would have been well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of the prior art, to optimize the ratio of fava beans:steam in order to provide a particular moisture content in the heat treated fava bean concentrate following exit from the wet heat treatment reactor. Based on the teachings of the prior art, it is submitted that it would have been the result of routine optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal ratio of fava beans:steam in the method of providing heat treated fava bean concentrate having a particular desired moisture content.
Regarding amended Claims 11-15, since Claim 10 does not positively require the milling step, and these claims merely further specify the milling and also do not positively require the milling step, Vezzani in view of Roa are seen to meet the claimed limitations as well.
Regarding amended Claim 16, Vezzani in view of Roa in combination render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the method to provide a heat-treated fava bean protein concentrate and teach an example using isolated fava bean proteins where the average residence time inside the wet heat treatment reactor is about 30 seconds in various examples disclosed (Vezzani, Example 5, for example), where “about 30 seconds” of residence time to obtain the heat-treated fava bean protein concentrate renders obvious the claimed time frame of “about 1 minute” as the term “about” provides for values recited and disclosed that are above and below the claimed time frame. Therefore, the claimed time frame would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, in light of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding amended Claim 17, Vezzani in view of Roa in combination render obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the method to provide a heat-treated fava bean protein concentrate teach a further step of drying in a reactor with air temperature of 180̊C (Vezzani, Example 5, Paragraph 82), and teach the moisture content of the isolated fava beans exiting the thermal dehydration and treatment reactor was 11.4% (Vezzani, Paragraph 83), where the air temperature during drying is slightly higher than the claimed range, although the claimed value of “about 160̊C” provides for values above and below the claimed value. Additionally, it is submitted that drying at an air temperature of 180̊C or “about 160̊C” would not have resulted in a significantly different final dried fava bean protein product. Therefore, the claimed moisture content and air temperature for the drying step would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the teachings of the prior art.
Regarding amended Claim 18, Vezzani in view of Roa teach the wet heat treatment reactor comprises a cylindrical tubular body with horizontal axis, and a shaft provided with elements projecting radially (Vezzani, Paragraphs 18-21, Figure 1), therefore teaching a hollow tube of a hollow tube reactor, where the reactor has a rotor rotated at a speed greater than or equal to 150rpm (Vezzani, Paragraph 20), and teaches in Example 5, the wet heat treatment reactor had rotational speed of the bladed rotor was equal to 700 rpm (Vezzani, Paragraph 80). The taught rpm is within the claimed range.
Regarding amended Claim 19, Vezzani in view of Roa also teaches a drying step in a hollow tube of a hollow tube reactor (Vezzani, Paragraph 82 and Figure 1), where the rotational speed of the bladed rotor was 1000 rpm (Vezzani, Paragraph 82), but teaches generally that the rotor speed during the drying step can range from 300-1200 rpm (Vezzani, Claim 22). Therefore, Vezzani in view of Roa provides for lower rotor speeds such as in the claimed range of about 300 to about 500 rpm.
Regarding amended Claim 20, as set forth above, Vezzani in view of Roa teach applying and heating step occurs in a first hollow tube reactor and the drying occurs in a second hollow tube reactor (Vezzani, Figure 1 and as set forth above in the rejection of Claims 18 and 19).
Regarding amended Claim 24, Vezzani in view of Roa teach aqueous solution, water, steam, as set forth above, and teach the aqueous solution may contain one or more water-soluble ingredients selected from salts, flavorings, vitamins, antioxidants (Vezzani, Paragraph 30), which meets the claimed limitation of where the aqueous fluid does not comprise an enzyme or chemical that enzymatically or chemically modifies the base fava bean concentrate.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vezzani (USPA 2018/0020705) in view of Roa et al. (USPA 2020/0045994), made of record by Applicant, and further in view of Bansal-Mutalik et al. (USPA 2017/0238590) and Allaire et al. “Classification and Botanical Description of Legumes” (2019).
Regarding amended Claims 21-23, Vezzani in view of Roa are taken as cited above and render obvious the limitation of a base fava bean protein concentrate as the starting material.
Regarding amended Claims 21-23, Vezzani in view of Roa do not teach prior to step a) separating at least part of a protein from a base fava bean flour to obtain the base fava bean protein concentrate, or teach where the separating of part of the protein from the flour uses a process that does not denature the protein in the flour, or uses an air classifying process.
Bansal-Mutalik teaches methods of preparing mung bean protein isolates and concentrates (Paragraph 423), wherein a raw source material is dehulled, followed by other method steps and then drying to remove the seed coat and pericarp, the de-hulled beans are then milled to produce flour with a well-defined particle distribution size, where air classifying mills can be used on the resultant flour to expedite the protein extraction process and enhance efficiency of the totality of the process, where the act of passing the flour through the air classifier is intended to concentrate the majority of the available protein in the flour into a smaller portion of the total mass of the flour, after which other extraction steps are carried out to produce the protein isolates an concentrates (Paragraphs 157-170). Bansal-Mutalik teaches the proteins in the compositions comprise non-denatured proteins (Paragraph 118). Bansal-Mutalik also teaches that in addition to the preparation of mung bean protein isolates, this approach can be applied to other pulse relatives of the legume family which show similar functionality (Paragraph 199). Therefore, Bansal-Mutalik teaches the limitations of Claims 21-23 in terms of the separation of proteins from a base starting flour of a legume or pulse.
Allaire teaches that both mung beans and fava beans are members of the pulse or legume family (Pages 1-2, under “Beans”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the fava bean protein concentrates of Vezzani in view of Roa to have been made by separation processes from flour using an air classifying process and which does not denature the proteins in light of the teachings of Bansal-Mutalik and the teaching of art recognized methodology of separating proteins from base raw material pulse or legume sources, and specifically where air classifying is known in the art as a way of efficiently separating protein from the flour and to expedite the process. In light of the teachings of Allaire, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to take the separation method of Bansal-Mutalik and apply it to flour of other pulse/legumes such as fava bean flours, in order to expeditiously separate protein from fava bean flours in order to prepare fava bean concentrates for further applications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNA A WATTS whose telephone number is (571)270-7368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday. 9am-4:30pm.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at 571-270-3435. 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.
JENNA A. WATTS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1791
/JENNA A WATTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1791 3/27/2026