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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Note: The amendment of January 23rd 20226 has been considered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claim 3 was cancelled.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-21 are pending in the current application.
Claims 8-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 20 and 21 are examined in the current application.
Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 23rd 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1, 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Cato et al., “AACCI Approved Methods Technical Committee Report on the Guidelines for Laboratory Preparation of Japanese Ramen Noodles” (from Cereal Foods World, May-June 2018, Vol. 63, No. 3).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 4: Cato discloses in the right on page 120, that ramen noodles are prepared with grain flour and with sodium carbonate, which renders a noodles (i.e., a food product) with a pH ranging from 9 to 11, which encompasses the pH levels recited in claims 1 and 2.
As to the claimed agent for forming a wing on a gyoza dumpling: While Cato fails to disclose the intended use of the composition to form a wing on a gyoza, the recitation in the claims that the agent is “for forming a wing on a gyoza dumpling” is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Cato discloses a composition with a pH between 9 and 11 which also comprises a cereal flour, as presently claimed, it is clear that the ramen noodle dough of Cato would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. form a wing on a gyoza dumpling, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Gyoza with Wings” (‘Justonecook’) (from https://www.justonecookbook.com/gyoza-with-wings-hanetsuki-gyoza/) in view of NPL “Deep Fried Banana Fritters” (‘Pisang’) (from https://hungerhunger.blogspot.com/2009/11/deep-fried-banana-fritters.html). Evidenced by “Air Kapur” (Wikipedia entry from 2025).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4-7, 20 and 21: Justonecook discloses a recipe for preparing gyoza with wings comprising frozen gyoza dumplings that are fried with an agent (i.e., a batter) comprising all-purpose flour, potato starch (i.e., an emulsifier), neutral oil, toasted sesame oil and water (see Justonecook pages 1 and 2), but fails to disclose the batter has an alkaline pH as recited in claims 1-3, 7, 20 and 21; However, Pisang discloses that using “air kapur” to prepare batter, provides a final product that is golden with crispy texture (see Pisang page 4, blog entrance by Zurin on November 27th 2009). Given the fact air kapur is a limewater paste (see Pisang page 4, blog entrance by Zurin on November 27th 2009) that is known to have a pH of 12.3 (see “Air Kapur” pages 1 and 2 of Wikipedia entry), mixing the neutral ingredients of the “wings” with the limewater paste will clearly provide a batter with pH lower than 12.3, which encompasses the pH levels recited in claims 1, 2, 4-7, 20 and 21. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skill artisan at the time the application was filed to have modified Justonecook and to have used alkaline batter at the pH recited in claims 1, 2, 4-7, 20 and 21, in order to attain a gyoza dumplings with wings that are golden with a crispy texture, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 23rd 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because the limewater paste Pisasng has a higher pH outside the claimed range. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Mixing the neutral ingredient of the “wings” with the limewater paste (i.e., pH 12.3) will provide an alkaline batter with a pH lower than 12.3, which encompasses the pH of the agent for forming a wing on a gyoza dumpling recited in claims 1, 2, 4-7, 20 and 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00.
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 on (571) 270-3475. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792