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 .
This office action is in regard to the application filed on March 3, 2022 and in response to a Request for Continued Examination filed on February 6, 2026.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 6, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
The amendment filed February 6, 2026 has been entered. Claims 3 and 13-15 are currently pending in the application; claims 1, 2, and 4-12 are canceled. Claims 3 and 15 have been amended. Claims 3 and 13-15 are hereby examined on the merits.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is two paragraphs and contains the implied phrases of “the present inventors have found” and “the present invention relates to.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 3, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teh et al. (US Patent 6,482,461) in view of Hsu et al. (EP 0940089; cited on IDS filed Jan. 15, 2025), herein after referred to as Teh and Hsu, respectively.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Teh teaches a method for producing instant flavored noodles (col. 1 lines 10-17, comprising:
mixing flour (i.e., raw material powder) and water as dough components to form a dough for the production of noodles (i.e., obtain a noodle dough),
shaping the dough to form sheets of dough (col. 2 lines 33-37; col. 3 lines 7-9),
applying a flavor ingredient in the form of a solution (i.e., flavoring solution) to a bare surface of the noodle sheets so as to obtain flavored noodle sheets (col. 3 lines 17-24),
further shaping the sheets of dough to form strips (i.e., to produce noodle strings) (col. 2 lines 33-37; col. 3 lines 38-39),
gelatinizing the noodle strips (i.e., strings) by steaming so as to produce gelatinized noodle strings (col. 3 lines 40-46), and
frying the flavored and steamed noodle strings in a fryer at a temperature of 135-160°C (i.e., drying the flavored noodle strings by an instantaneous hot oil drying method, wherein the drying is performed by contacting the flavored noodle strings with heated oil at a temperature from 100-200°C) (col. 3 lines 49-53),
wherein the flavoring solution comprises dextrose (i.e., glucose; i.e., a reducing sugar), as a flavoring ingredient (col. 3 lines 10-15),
wherein a content of the flavor ingredient (i.e., reducing sugar that is dextrose) is in a range from 0.4 to 2.5 wt.% based on the total weight of the dough sheets (col. 3 lines 17-21).
The order of steps taught by Teh differs from the claimed order of steps in that Teh teaches applying the flavoring solution prior to forming strips/strings and gelatinizing the noodle strings, while the instant claim applies the flavoring solution after forming dough strings and gelatinizing the dough. However, per MPEP 2144.04.IV.C., the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
The amount of the dextrose (i.e., reducing sugar) taught by Teh, 0.4-2.5 wt.%, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.05-1.50 wt.%. Where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Teh is silent as to that the flavoring solution also comprises magnesium chloride and sodium chloride, wherein the reducing sugar is present in an amount sufficient to promote browning by the Maillard reaction in the presence of magnesium chloride, and wherein a content of the magnesium chloride is in a range from 0.05 to 1.50 wt.% relative to a total amount of the noodle strings.
Hsu, in the same field of invention, teaches coating pasta noodle dough with an aqueous salt solution comprising magnesium chloride and sodium chloride. This solution may be sprayed or dipped onto the pasta prior to, during, or after the steaming step [0015]. Hsu offers the motivation that the addition of this salt solution on the outside of the pasta dough increases the moisture content without increasing the water activity of the pasta dough, which enables a higher yield, shorter cooking time, shorter drying time, less breakage, and better appearance ([0007]-[0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the flavoring solution of Teh by incorporating the salts of Hsu into the solution, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the properties of a pasta/noodle dough.
Furthermore, both Hsu [0015] and Teh (col. 3 lines 26-28) teach spraying or dipping a solution onto the dough; where Hsu teaches that the salt mixture is in a solution containing 5-28 wt.% of the salts (Hsu: [0015]), and where Teh teaches that the flavoring solution contains 65-75 wt.% moisture (alternatively, contains 25-35 wt.% of the ingredients) wherein the amount of the ingredient(s) applied to the dough is 0.4-2.5 wt.% (Teh: col. 3 lines 17-26), it would have been obvious to have added an amount of the salt mixture, and thereby the magnesium chloride, as claimed to the solution of Teh in order to provide a suitable solution and ingredient concentration on the dough.
The amount of reducing sugar as taught is considered to be “an amount sufficient to promote browning by the Maillard reaction in the presence of magnesium chloride” since the instant claim requires a suitable amount of both the reducing sugar and the magnesium chloride. It is presumed that any amounts within the claimed ranges would be a sufficient amount to promote browning as claimed.
Regarding claim 14, where the raw material powder of Teh is wheat flour (col. 2 line 47), wheat flour comprises gluten, a protein, as evidenced by the instant specification at [0094].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teh et al. (US Patent 6,482,461) in view of Ogino et al. (US PG Pub. 2016/0213034; listed on PTO-892 dated Oct. 7, 2025) and Hsu et al. (EP 0940089; cited on IDS filed Jan. 15, 2025), herein after referred to as Teh, Ogino, and Hsu, respectively.
Teh teaches a method for producing instant flavored noodles (col. 1 lines 10-17, comprising:
mixing flour (i.e., raw material powder) and water as dough components to form a dough for the production of noodles (i.e., obtain a noodle dough),
shaping the dough to form sheets of dough (col. 2 lines 33-37; col. 3 lines 7-9),
applying a flavor ingredient in the form of a solution (i.e., flavoring solution) to a bare surface of the noodle sheets so as to obtain flavored noodle sheets (col. 3 lines 17-24),
further shaping the sheets of dough to form strips (i.e., to produce noodle strings) (col. 2 lines 33-37; col. 3 lines 38-39),
gelatinizing the noodle strips (i.e., strings) by steaming so as to produce gelatinized noodle strings (col. 3 lines 40-46), and
frying the flavored and steamed noodle strings in a fryer at a temperature of 135-160°C (i.e., drying the flavored noodle strings by an instantaneous hot oil drying method, wherein the drying is performed by contacting the flavored noodle strings with heated oil at a temperature from 100-200°C) (col. 3 lines 49-53),
wherein the flavoring solution comprises dextrose (i.e., glucose; i.e., a reducing sugar), as a flavoring ingredient (col. 3 lines 10-15),
wherein a content of the flavor ingredient (i.e., reducing sugar that is dextrose) is in a range from 0.4 to 2.5 wt.% based on the total weight of the dough sheets (col. 3 lines 17-21).
The order of steps taught by Teh differs from the claimed order of steps in that Teh teaches applying the flavoring solution prior to forming strips/strings and gelatinizing the noodle strings, while the instant claim applies the flavoring solution after forming dough strings and gelatinizing the dough. However, per MPEP 2144.04.IV.C., the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results. In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946).
The amount of the dextrose (i.e., reducing sugar) taught by Teh, 0.4-2.5 wt.%, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.05-1.50 wt.%. Where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.I.
Teh is silent as to the raw material powder being precedently gelatinized.
Ogino teaches dried instant noodles where the raw material powder may comprise flours such as wheat flour and starches including gelatinized starch [0029].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to have utilized a raw material powder that is precedently gelatinized when making the noodles of Teh as Ogino teaches that gelatinized starches are known to be utilized as raw material in the production of instant noodles. Further, this would have required no more than routine experimentation, where precedentially gelatinized raw material powders are being utilized to produce noodles, consistent with the use reported in the prior art, and would have been expected to continue to provide a suitable noodle product.
Teh is silent as to that the flavoring solution also comprises magnesium chloride and sodium chloride, wherein the reducing sugar is present in an amount sufficient to promote browning by the Maillard reaction in the presence of magnesium chloride, and wherein a content of the magnesium chloride is in a range from 0.05 to 1.50 wt.% relative to a total amount of the noodle strings.
Hsu, in the same field of invention, teaches coating pasta noodle dough with an aqueous salt solution comprising magnesium chloride and sodium chloride. This solution may be sprayed or dipped onto the pasta prior to, during, or after the steaming step [0015]. Hsu offers the motivation that the addition of this salt solution on the outside of the pasta dough increases the moisture content without increasing the water activity of the pasta dough, which enables a higher yield, shorter cooking time, shorter drying time, less breakage, and better appearance ([0007]-[0008]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the flavoring solution of Teh by incorporating the salts of Hsu into the solution, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the properties of a pasta/noodle dough.
Furthermore, both Hsu [0015] and Teh (col. 3 lines 26-28) teach spraying or dipping a solution onto the dough; where Hsu teaches that the salt mixture is in a solution containing 5-28 wt.% of the salts (Hsu: [0015]), and where Teh teaches that the flavoring solution contains 65-75 wt.% moisture (alternatively, contains 25-35 wt.% of the ingredients) wherein the amount of the ingredient(s) applied to the dough is 0.4-2.5 wt.% (Teh: col. 3 lines 17-26), it would have been obvious to have added an amount of the salt mixture, and thereby the magnesium chloride, as claimed to the solution of Teh in order to provide a suitable solution and ingredient concentration on the dough.
The amount of reducing sugar as taught is considered to be “an amount sufficient to promote browning by the Maillard reaction in the presence of magnesium chloride” since the instant claim requires a suitable amount of both the reducing sugar and the magnesium chloride. It is presumed that any amounts within the claimed ranges would be a sufficient amount to promote browning as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 3 and 13-15, filed on February 6, 2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments are directed to the failure of Takizawa to teach the claims, particularly the newly amended claim limitations, as well as the failure of the secondary references to remedy the deficiencies of Takizawa. A new primary reference, Teh, is used to reject the claims instead of Takizawa. Thus, the arguments are rendered moot since Teh teaches the amended claims and the secondary references do not need to remedy any deficiencies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURA E SWEENEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00 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, 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.
/M.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791