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 Application
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment and response filed 7/24/2026. Claims 1,2,6, and 12-24 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/1/2026 was filed before the first Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1,2,6 and 12-24 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Rockland et al (US3869556A) in view of Shmulewitz et al. (US 20210051975 A1), cited in an IDS.
Regarding claim 1,2 and 20, Rockland (abstract, column 3 lines 1-25) discloses a method of processing chickpea, the method comprising soaking raw garbanzo beans (meeting the limitation of produce) for about 24 hours at ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure in an aqueous hydrating medium in making quick cooking garbanzo beans. Rockland discloses sodium bicarbonate in a concentration range of Claim 1,2,6 and 12-24 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Rockland et al (US3869556A) in view of Shmulewitz et al. (US 20210051975 A1), cited in an IDS.
Regarding claim 1,2 and 20, Rockland (abstract, column 3 lines 1-25) discloses a method of processing chickpea, the method comprising soaking raw garbanzo beans (meeting the limitation of produce) for about 24 hours at ambient temperature and atmospheric pressure in an aqueous hydrating medium in making quick cooking garbanzo beans. Rockland discloses sodium bicarbonate in a concentration range of 0.25 to 0.75 percent, and sodium carbonate in a concentration range of 0.083 to 0.25 percent. These agents provide an initial pH of about 9 in the hydration medium. It is preferred that the hydrating medium be slightly alkaline for best results. The carbonate and bicarbonate, however, not only act as alkaline agents but also act as protein dissociating, solubilizing or tenderizing agents. After the beans have been hydrated, they are separated from the hydrating medium and rinsed with water to remove excess medium from the surface of the beans, and further washed.
Shmulewitz discloses ([0075] –[0080]) soaking whole chickpeas in water for up to 24 hours, wet milling the whole chickpeas to produce a chickpea flour, mixing the chickpea flour with water at 40 to 60° C. to produce a heated chickpea mixture, for up to 6 hours, adding an alkaline agent having a pH of above 7.5 separating a portion of insoluble starch from the basic chickpea mixture to result in a processed chickpea protein enriched mixture.
As the claim includes both “produce” and “produce tissues” limitations, both references are considered relevant.
It is well known that starch in pulses typically has a gelatinization temperature of 70 deg to 80 deg C. If a protein fraction needs to be separated easily from starch, a temperature below gelatinization temperature to maintain intact starch bodies is required. One of ordinary skill in the art looking to separate starch and protein fractions in processed chickpea would have modified the soaking method in Rockland with mixing/stirring method of hydration under conditions as disclosed in Shmulewitz, with a reasonable expectation of success. Retention of semi-crystalline structure and Maltese cross pattern in the starch bodies when viewed under cross-polarized light, is expected under these conditions. Regarding removal of off-flavors, Rockland discloses soaking of the beans in a bicarbonate containing solution with bicarbonate functioning as a protein-dissociating, solubilizing and tenderizing agent. The reference also discloses that the hydration treatment prevents formation, liberation and activation of lipoxidase and other enzymes thereby minimizing the tendency of the beans to sour or become rancid, and reports that the resulting beans have excellent natural flavor (column 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that such a treatment would promote solubilization and leaching of soluble compounds into the soaking medium, including components contributing to undesirable off-flavors, thereby reducing such off-flavors upon removal of the soaking medium and washing.
Rockland and Shmulewitz in combination, disclose a method of processing produce (chickpea (Cicer arietinum)), or tissues thereof, the method comprising: a) continuously stirring the produce or produce tissues for a period between 1 to 6 hours at a temperature between 50°C and 70°C in an aqueous bicarbonate solution or bicarbonate/carbonate solution containing 0.5% to 10 weight/weight percent bicarbonate salt; b) removing the solution containing off-flavor compounds from the processed produce or produce tissues; and c) washing the processed produce or produce tissues; wherein the method substantially diminishes off-flavor while preserving the semi-crystalline structure of starch bodies within the produce or produce tissues.
Regarding claim 6, Shmulewitz discloses a grinding step as claimed which releases starch bodies, protein bodies, and fibers into a dry flour mixture [0156].
Regarding claim 12, as discussed with reference to claim 1, Rockland discloses an aqueous bicarbonate solution or bicarbonate/carbonate solution comprising bicarbonate salt (MHCO3), or bicarbonate salt (MHCO3) and carbonate salt (M2CO3), or bicarbonate salt (MHCO3), at pH 9 which is within the claimed range of 7-10, and Shmulewitz discloses and hydroxide salt (MOH), wherein M is an alkali metal cation, and with a pH of 7.5 [0075].
Regarding claims 13, 14, 16 and 23, in view of the disclosures in Rockland and Shmulewitz, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an alternative food grade alkali for pH adjustment with a reasonable expectation of success. Shmulewitz discloses interchangeably using potassium hydroxide, sodium hydroxide, Calcium hydroxide, or sodium bicarbonate [0071]. A calcium salt for example would provide the required Ca++ in claim 16.
Regarding claim 15, Rockland in view of Shmulewitz, as discussed above, discloses that produce tissue is stirred for at least 30 minutes (up to 6 hours) in the bicarbonate solution or bicarbonate/carbonate solution at a temperature in a range of 40 deg to 60 deg C, which overlaps the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17, Rockland and Shmulewitz in combination cover
whole pulses, as split pulses and chopped solids thereof which typically have a Feret diameter (Dmax) of 1 to 4 mm, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 18 and 19, 21 and 22 as the pulse material in Rockland in view of Shmulewitz having been treated by the claimed method has off odors removed and is expected to have a hexanal level and properties as claimed, with retention of Maltese cross pattern in the starch bodies when viewed under cross-polarized light, thereby enabling subsequent separation of intact starch bodies.
Regarding claim 24, calcium salts are routinely added to soaking water in preparing plant materials for processing to preserve firmness (reduce material loss). A patentable distinction is therefore not discerned. No unexpected effects are disclosed.
Claims 1,2, 6 and 12-24 are therefore prima facie obvious in view of the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
As the claim includes both “produce” and “produce tissues” limitations, both references are considered relevant.
It is well known that starch in pulses typically has a gelatinization temperature of 70 deg to 80 deg C. If a protein fraction needs to be separated easily from starch, a temperature below gelatinization temperature to maintain intact starch bodies is required. One of ordinary skill in the art looking to separate starch and protein fractions in processed chickpea would have modified the soaking method in Rockland with mixing/stirring method of hydration under conditions as disclosed in Shmulewitz, with a reasonable expectation of success. Retention of semi-crystalline structure and Maltese cross pattern in the starch bodies when viewed under cross-polarized light, is expected under these conditions. Regarding removal of off-flavors, Rockland discloses soaking of the beans in a bicarbonate containing solution with bicarbonate functioning as a protein-dissociating, solubilizing and tenderizing agent. The reference also discloses that the hydration treatment prevents formation, liberation and activation of lipoxidase and other enzymes thereby minimizing the tendency of the beans to sour or become rancid, and reports that the resulting beans have excellent natural flavor (column 2). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that such a treatment would promote solubilization and leaching of soluble compounds into the soaking medium, including components contributing to undesirable off-flavors, thereby reducing such off-flavors upon removal of the soaking medium and washing. Evidentiary support for the removal of off flavors by hydration is available from Sharma et al. (US20230320392A1 cited in an IDS filed on 9/1/2026) wherein wet milling of beans under conditions encompassing the claimed conditions, results in a product with reduced amount of volatile organic compounds such as hexanal ([0006] claims 46, 51,53, 56, 67) which are often associated with beany/green off-flavor notes in legumes.
It has been previously held that “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, 218 USPQ 385, 389 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 179 USPQ 224, 226 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has made clear that an obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). That is because “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. It is also well established that a reference is good for all it fairly teaches a person having ordinary skill in the art, even when the teaching is a cursory mention. E.g., In re Mills, 470 F.2d 649, 651 (CCPA 1972).
For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Subbalakshmi Prakash whose telephone number is (571)270-3685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/SUBBALAKSHMI PRAKASH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
