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 Amendment
In applicant’s reply on 12/16/2025, the claims were amended. Revised rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 can be found below as well as claim objections.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the amended portion reads “comprises the oxidized starch in a range from 20 parts by weight 40 parts by weight”. Examiner believes this is intended to read “comprises the oxidized starch in a range from 20 parts by weight to 40 parts by weight”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuchiya (US 2006/0115518 A1) in view of Nakamura (US 2015/0250216 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Tsuchiya teaches a seasoning (seasoning Par. 0007)
comprising at least magnesium chloride (magnesium chloride as inorganic salt Par. 0049)
and oxidized starch (oxidized starch as starch hydrolysate Par. 0055)
the powdered seasoning comprises the oxidized starch in a range of .002 parts by weight to 20 parts by weight based on 1 part by weight of magnesium chloride (0.1-5% Magnesium Chloride Par. 0049; 0.01-2% starch hydrolysate Par. 0055)
Regarding the powdered seasoning comprises the oxidized starch in a range from 20 parts by weight to 40 parts by weight based on 1 part by weight of the magnesium chloride, Tsuchiya teaches oxidized starch in a range from .002 parts by weight to 20 parts by weight based on 1 part by weight of magnesium chloride (Par. 0049, 0055 as seen above). As Tsuchiya discloses a range which overlaps with the claimed amount, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art to modify Tsuchiya to have oxidized starch in a range from 20 parts by weight to 40 parts by weight based on 1 part by weight of the magnesium chloride. It would have been prima facie case of obviousness to have selected the overlapping portion of the range (i.e. oxidized starch in 20 parts by weight based on 1 part by weight of magnesium chloride) from the taught range of oxidized starch in the amount of .002 parts by weight or more and 20 parts by weight or less based on 1 part by weight of magnesium chloride (as seen above). In re Werthein, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Tsuchiya does not teach the seasoning is powdered.
Nakamura, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a dried, solid powdered seasoning (powdery seasoning Par. 0015). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of Tsuchiya with the powdered consistency of Nakamura. One would have been motivated to make this modification to improve stability (Nakamura Par. 0013).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument of unexpected results, Table 3 expresses data for tests with a ratio of oxidized starch to magnesium chloride of 2:1, 6:1, 10:1, 14:1, and 20:1. The examiner acknowledges there seems to be improved results at a ratio of 20:1 compared to 14:1, however, there is not enough data to establish criticality across the entirety of the claimed range. To establish criticality of the claimed range, applicant is urged to provide data for tests with ratios directly inside and outside of both ends of the claimed ranges (20:1-40:1). Tsuchiya teaches a range of .002:1-20:1 (above). Applicant’s data does not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in regards to criticality as the prior art teaches a range which overlaps the claimed range at 20:1. To establish criticality over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 716.02(d)II.
Applicant argues Tsuchiya does not teach the dried composition because it teaches percentages relative to a total liquid composition. As Tsuchiya is modified by Nakamura to provide a dried product, one would have reasonably tried using the percentages of Tsuchiya’s invention in the dried product to optimize through experimentation to find the preferred percentages.
Applicant argues deliquescence is of no relevance to liquid compositions and is not addressed by Tsuchiya. Tsuchiya in light of Nakamura teaches a dry composition. Deliquescence is not an aspect of the invention as claimed. Further, even if it were, the combination of Tsuchiya and Nakamura teach the product as claimed so one having ordinary skill in the art would expect the products to have similar deliquescence suppressing properties.
Applicant argues Tsuchiya does not provide guidance for converting its liquid product into a dry product. Tsuchiya is not relied on for the dried aspect, Nakamura is. As the claims are directed towards a product, the process of producing the dried composition is not included in the office action because it is not claimed.
Applicant argues Nakamura teaches away from the claimed invention because Nakamura teaches removing salts such as magnesium to reduce the concentration of inorganic materials as well as discouraging the use of additives, including oxidized starch. Nakamura is merely relied on to teach that it is known in the art that a liquid seasoning can be reduced to a powdered seasoning to improve stability. Further, examiner notes that even if Nakamura were relied on to teach the individual components, Nakamura teaches limiting the inorganic components, not completely eliminating them. As the instant claims merely place limitations on the ratios of the components, but do not restrict total concentrations of each component, Nakamura’s limited amounts would not be precluded by the instant claim language.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be 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 found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one would have been motivated to apply the dry consistency of Nakamura to improve stability (Nakamura Par. 0013).
Applicant argues there would be no reasonable expectation of success of combining the references because Nakamura teaches minimizing inorganic materials and no oxidized starch. The aspect from Nakamura that is being combined is a dried, solid powdered seasoning. As Nakamura teaches benefits of this form of seasoning (see above), one having ordinary skill would have been motivated to try applying it to the invention of Tsuchiya. Nakamura does not teach that a dried seasoning containing inorganic materials and oxidized starch would be inoperative, therefore one would have a reasonable expectation of success of producing a dried form of the invention of Tsuchiya.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL M RODGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7857. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 5712703475. 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.
/A.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792