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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) under 1.114, the Amendment and Response, all filed 6/10/26.
Claims 1-6, and 8-20 are pending. Claims 10-12 were withdrawn. Claim 7 was previously cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, and 13-20 have been examined on the merits.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/10/26 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections
The 103(a) rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17-20 over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Weinstein et al. (US 2010/0285187) have been withdrawn due to the amendments to claim 1.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 6 over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Weinstein et al. (US 2010/0285187) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Juengling et al. (US 5,667,833) has been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
The 103(a) rejections claims 4 and 16 over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Weinstein et al. (US 2010/0285187) and in further view of Hsu et al. (US 4,208,439) and Juengling et al. (US 5,667,833) have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 9 over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Weinstein et al. (US 2010/0285187) and in further view of Nagayama (US 2011/0318466) has been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 17 and 18 over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Weinstein et al. (US 2010/0285187) and in further view of JP 5596873 Sept 2014 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
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 1-3, 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Satou et al. (US 2013/0344189).
Regarding Claims 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 19: Asahina discloses a method of making dried pasta [abstract]. Asahina discloses utilizing wheat flour (cereal flour) or durum flour [abstract 0012]. Asahina discloses mixing the flour with water and kneading [0015]. Asahina discloses a moisture content of about 20 to 40 parts by mass per 100 parts by mass of the raw powder (20% to 40%) and also discloses a water content of about 33% before drying [0015; 0031]. Asahina discloses extruding through a die plate [0016]. Asahina discloses drying noodles to a moisture content of 13% or less [0018; 0022; 0032].
Asahina does not disclose that the die is made of polyoxymethylene copolymer.
Asahina does not disclose having a surface roughness Ra of between 3.5 um and 6 um; 4.5µm to 5.7 µm (claim 13) calculated in accordance with the procedure ISO 16610-21.
Satou discloses die pieces/plates for extrusion of molded noodles. Satou discloses using Duracon® which is a polyacetal copolymer [0021]. Satou discloses synthetic resin as preferable for the ease in controlling the surface roughness of noodles [0020; 0022]. Satou discloses that the die piece is suitable for the production of noodles, including pasta or spaghetti [0025]. Satou discloses extruding the dough in a vacuum of -0.5 to 0.9 kgf/cm2 (about -367 to about -662 mmHg) [0030]. Satou discloses where the Duracon® which is a polyacetal copolymer can be used singularly “at least one OR a blend” [0021; claim 3] and therefore renders obvious the limitation where the die plate consists of “polyoxymethylene copolymer”.
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Asahina to include the die being made of polyoxymethylene as in Weinstein in order to provide a die that is strong, lightweight and self-lubricating.
Although the references do not recite a surface roughness of 3.5 to 6 µm (claim 1); 4.5µm to 5.7 µm (claim 13), it would have been obvious that the resulting dried noodles would have had the claimed property since it is made in the same way wand with the same ingredients. “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Although Asahina does not explicitly disclose a water content of between 35% to 37.5%; 36% to 37.1% (claim 3), 36.7% to 37% (claim 15) one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Asahina overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 19, although Asahina does not explicitly disclose a moisture content between 10 to 11%, one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Asahina overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claim 5: Asahina discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Asahina further discloses extruding under partial vacuum conditions [0020].
Regarding Claims 8, 20: Asahina discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Asahina discloses drying noodles to a moisture content of less than 13% at a temperature of 90°C or 80°C to 130°C [0018; 0022; 0032].
Although Asahina does not explicitly disclose a temperature of between 50 and 90°C (claim 8), between 70 and 85°C (claim 20) one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Asahina overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18: Asahina discloses extruding under vacuum as discussed above in claim 5. Asahina does not disclose wherein said step c) of extruding is carried out at a pressure of between -500 mmHg and -700 mmHg (claim 17); wherein the pressure is between -600 mmHg and -670 mmHg (claim 18).
Satou discloses extruding the dough in a vacuum of -0.5 to 0.9 kgf/cm2 (about -367 to about -662 mmHg) [0030].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify the method of Asahina to include the partial vacuum at -0.5 to 0.9 kgf/cm2 (about -367 to about -662 mmHg) as disclosed in Satou since Asahina allows for the application of a partial vacuum and since both Asahina and Satou aim to produce a desirable stable noodle.
Although Satou does not explicitly disclose a temperature of between -500mmHg and -700 mmHg (claim 17), between -600 mmHg and 700 mmHg (claim 18) one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Satou overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Satou et al. (US 2013/0344189) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Hsu et al. (US 4,208,439) and Juengling et al. (US 5,667,833).
Regarding Claims 4, 16: Asahina discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Asahina does not disclose mixing between 20°C and 50°C, for between 20 minutes and 30 minutes.
Hsu discloses a method of making pasta dough and instant pasta [abstract]. Hsu discloses combining flour including durum wheat and water for a moisture content of 27% to 40% and that the mixture is mixed for 10 to 15 minutes but that the kneading time is dependent upon the time necessary for water penetration into the flour [col. 3, lines 9-27].
Juengling discloses a method of making pasta wherein cereal flour or semolina is mixed with water to obtain a water content of 25% to 40% [abstract; col. 2, lines 50-53]. Juengling discloses that the mixture is maintained at a temperature of less than 55°C or less than 50°C in order to avoid damaging gluten [col. 2, lines 50-53]. Juengling discloses kneading the moistened flour (dough) and extruding through a die plate [abstract; col. 2, lines 50-53; col. 3, lines 43-47]. Juengling discloses drying the extruded dough [col. 3, lines 25-31; 38-41].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Asahina to include mixing at a time disclosed in Hsu in order to endure adequate hydration of the flour.
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Asahina to include mixing at less than 55°C as in Juengling in order to mix the ingredients fully and at the temperature to avoid damaging the gluten [Juengling col. 2, lines 55-60].
Although Hsu does not disclose mixing for 20 to 30 minutes it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adjust the time for mixing to achieve adequate or desirable mixing and hydration of the ingredients, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272.
Although Juengling does not explicitly disclose a temperature of between 20°C and 50°C, between 30°C and 40°C (claim 16) one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Juengling overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Satou et al. (US 2013/0344189) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Juengling et al. (US 5,667,833).
Regarding Claim 6: Asahina discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Asahina does not disclose wherein said extruding is carries out by means of an extruder comprising an endless screw; wherein the endless screw is rotated at a speed comprised of between 15 rpm and 25 rpm.
Juengling discloses that extruder utilizes single or twin screw extrusions push move the dough toward the die plate at 20 to 120 rpm [col. 3, lines 11-17, 43-47].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Asahina to extrude using an endless screw and at the rpm as in Juengling in order to ensure adequate or desirable mixing of the dough.
Although Juengling does not explicitly disclose a speed of 15 to 25 rpm one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Juengling overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Satou et al. (US 2013/0344189) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Nagayama (US 2011/0318466).
Regarding Claim 9: Asahina discloses as discussed above in claim 1. Asahina does not disclose wherein said step d) of drying is preceded by a step of partial surface drying during which said extruded dough is partially dried on its surface by application of a hot air flow, said hot air flow having a temperature of between 50°C and 90°C.
Nagayama discloses drying noodles to a moisture content of 8 to 10% by applying hot air at 60 to 100°C or 80°C to 90°C and discloses drying efficiency and avoiding foaming [0062; 0063].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Asahina for further include the pre-drying step with hot air of Nagayama because the temperature does not exceed the temperature allowed for in Asahina and in order to increase drying efficiency and avoiding foaming.
Although Nagayama does not explicitly disclose a temperature of between 50 and 90°C one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by Nagayama overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Satou et al. (US 2013/0344189) as applied to claim 5 above and in further view of JP 5596873 Sept 2014.
Regarding Claim 17 and 18: Asahina discloses extruding under vacuum as discussed above in claim 5. Asahina does not disclose wherein said step c) of extruding is carried out at a pressure of between -500 mmHg and -700 mmHg (claim 17); wherein the pressure is between -600 mmHg and -670 mmHg (claim 18).
JP’873 discloses that the vacuum extrusion can be performed at -200 mmHg to vacuum or -600 mmHg to vacuum [pg. 4, lines 1-4]. JP’873 discloses the improvement in the durability of noodles under this disclosed pressure [pg. 4, lines 1-4].
At the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vacuum method of Asahina to be performed at levels as discussed in JP’873 in order to improve the durability of the noodles.
Although JP’873 does not explicitly disclose a pressure of between -500 mmHg and -700 mmHg (claim 17); wherein the pressure is between -600 mmHg and -670 mmHg (claim 18) one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the range taught by JP’873 overlaps the instantly claimed range and therefore is considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549,553
Response to Arguments
The 103(a) rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17-20 over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Weinstein et al. (US 2010/0285187) have been withdrawn due to the amendments to claim 1.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 6 over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Weinstein et al. (US 2010/0285187) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Juengling et al. (US 5,667,833) has been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
The 103(a) rejections claims 4 and 16 over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Weinstein et al. (US 2010/0285187) and in further view of Hsu et al. (US 4,208,439) and Juengling et al. (US 5,667,833) have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
The 103(a) rejection of claim 9 over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Weinstein et al. (US 2010/0285187) and in further view of Nagayama (US 2011/0318466) has been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
The 103(a) rejections of claims 17 and 18 over Asahina et al. (US 2020/0163365) corresponding to (WO 2019/065932 pub 4/4/2019) in view of Weinstein et al. (US 2010/0285187) and in further view of JP 5596873 Sept 2014 have been withdrawn due to the amendment to claim 1.
The Applicants assert that Satou (EP 2687099) although disclosing a POM-C, discloses it is combination with other resins.
Regarding the arguments against Satou (EP 2687099), the Examiner notes that as discussed in the above rejection Satou (US 2013/0344189) discloses using the resins either singularly or in combination. Therefore the disclosure of Satou reads on the new claim limitation.
Conclusion
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FELICIA C TURNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3733. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 8:00-4:00 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, 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.
/Felicia C Turner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights