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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/24/25 has been entered.
Claims 1,2, are amended and claims 3,5,7 and 9-10 are cancelled. Claims 1-2,8 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima ( 6180148) in view of Kurogawa ( CN 1089086).
For claim 1, Yajima discloses Chinese noodle comprising main raw material powder,kansui sodium tartrate and sodium citrate. Yajima discloses that the kansui is a solution wherein kanfun is dissolved and kanfun is an alkali mixture which comprises 30% potassium carbonate, 59% sodium carbonate. Thus, Yajima discloses kansui comprising at least one carbonate. Yajima discloses citric acid and tartaric acid and their salts with sodium and they can be used in combination of two or more of them. ( see col. 7 line 65 through col. 8line 10, col. 9 lines 45-65, col. 10 lines 1-43, col. 11 1-15 and col. 12 lines 7-10)
Yajima does not disclose the individual amounts of sodium tartrate and sodium citrate, the pH and the ratio as in claim 1, the amount as in claim 2 and the moisture content as in claim 8.
Kurogawa discloses a method of producing noodle for long shelf life comprising adding alkali water into the flour. Kansui is added to the flour. Kurogawa teaches the pH of the noodle is in the range of about 9.5-10.5 to prevent bacterial growth and increase the sterilizing effect. ( see page 2)
Yajima discloses on col. 10 lines 1-2 the antibacterial ingredients is included in amount of .01-2% based on powder starting material. The acids and their salts are disclosed as antibacterial acids ( col. 9 lines 57-62). The range fall within the claimed range in claims 1, 2 because 2-30 g/kg is .2-3% and 1 to 15g/kg is .1-1.5%. When combination of the acid salt is used, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use individual amount in which the total falls with the disclosed range. For instance, it would have been obvious to use .1, .2, .5, 1% etc.. of each of sodium citrate and sodium tartrate which would give a 1:1 ratio of each. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. Generally, difference in concentration does not support patentability in absence of showing of criticality or unexpected result. It would have been obvious to form noodles having any varying moisture depending on the type of noodle desired. The claimed range includes any value higher than 14%. Yajima discloses adding kansui which is an alkali solution. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the guideline of Kurogawa for the pH in noodle containing alkali agent such as Kansui and to maintain the pH in the alkaline region to obtain the advantage disclosed in Kurogawa to prevent bacterial growth.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doud ( 2005/0271787) in view of Fujita ( HU T73619) , Yajima ( 6180148) and Kurogawa.
For claim 1, Doud discloses noodle comprising a buffering agent which in a combination of sodium citrate, another buffering salt and main raw material powder in the form of flour. The amount of sodium citrate is .5% which falls within the claimed ranges because 1-15g/kg is .1-1.5%. For claim 2, the total of sodium citrate and another buffering agent such as disodium phosphate is 1% which falls within the claimed range of .2-3%. The amount is based on raw powder material. ( see paragraphs 0018, 0026,0029)
Doud does not disclose sodium tartrate, the inclusion of kansui , the pH and ratio as in claim 1, the amount as in claim 2, and the moisture content as in claim 8.
Fujita discloses a freshness retaining agent for food. Fujita teaches sodium tartrate , sodium citrate and phosphate salt are all known suitable buffering agents and they can be used in combination. ( see page 4, the 4 paragraph)
Yajima disclose noodle in which kansui is added as additive. Yajima discloses that the kansui is a solution wherein kanfun is dissolved and kanfun is an alkali mixture which comprises 30% potassium carbonate, 59% sodium carbonate. Thus, Yajima discloses kansui comprising at least one carbonate. ( see col. 10 lines 37-43)
Kurogawa discloses a method of producing noodle for long shelf life comprising adding alkali water into the flour. Kansui is added to the flour. Kurogawa teaches the pH of the noodle is in the range of about 9.5-10.5 to prevent bacterial growth and increase the sterilizing effect. ( see page 2)
Doud discloses to use sodium citrate and another salt as buffering agent. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use sodium tartrate as taught in Fujita in the Doud noodle as an obvious matter of using a known alternative ingredient to carry out the same function of providing a buffering agent. It would have been obvious to use in amount that is disclosed in Doud for the second buffering agent. The amount of .5 and .5 give a 1:1 ratio which falls within the claimed ratio range. Doud discloses noodle which readable upon the claimed Chinese noodle because there is no parameter defining Chinese noodle. Kansui is a known additive for noodle as shown in Yajima. It would have been obvious to add kansui to obtain desirable flavor and texture for noodle. Adding an art-recognized additive would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Yajima discloses adding kansui which is an alkali solution. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the guideline of Kurogawa for the pH in noodle containing alkali agent such as Kansui and to maintain the pH in the alkaline region to obtain the advantage disclosed in Kurogawa to prevent bacterial growth. It would have been obvious to form noodles having any varying moisture depending on the type of noodle desired. The claimed range includes any value higher than 14%.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues nothing in Yajima teaches or suggests the fresh noodles being raw Chinese noodle, kansui including at least one carbonate and the pH. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s attention is directed to col. 10 lines 39-43 where Yajima discloses “the kansui is a solution wherein kanfun is dissolved and kanfun is an alkali mixture which comprises 30% potassium carbonate, 59% sodium carbonate. Thus, Yajima discloses kansui comprising at least one carbonate. Applicant’s attention is further directed to col. 12 lines 7-11 where Yajima discloses “ noodles in the present invention include … Chinese noodles etc… They are suitable as fresh noodles to be cooked”. Yajima does disclose raw Chinese noodles because noodles are Chinese noodles which is to cooked. Furthermore, there is no parameter in the claims defining what constitutes Chinese noodles. Thus, any noodle is readable on the claims. As to the pH, a new reference is added in the rejection to address the limitation.
Applicant further argues nothing in Yajima teaches or suggests selecting of the specific combination of sodium tartrate and sodium citrate. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Yajima discloses on column 9 lines 45-63 that the noodles are compounded with one or more members of ingredients that include sodium citrate and sodium tartrate. The disclosure of one or more clearly suggests using a combination of sodium citrate and sodium tartrate. The rejection is not based on impermissible hindsight as argued by applicant. Yajima discloses a range of the antibacterial ingredients of .01-2%. The claimed range of each component is .1-1.5%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use individual amount falling within the disclosed range. For instance, it would have been obvious to use .1, .2, .5, 1% etc.. of each of sodium citrate and sodium tartrate which would give a 1:1 ratio of each. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. Generally, difference in concentration does not support patentability in absence of showing of criticality or unexpected result. Applicant points to the results in the specification as evidence of unexpected result.
The showing in the specification is inconclusive to show criticality or unexpected result. The specification discloses the examples and comparative examples are assigned score of 5-1 as ranking. However, there is no parameter defining how the numbers are assigned. How is number 5 assigned versus number 4. What are the objective measurements for the assigning of the number. What is the statistically difference between 5 and 4. How is the odor measured. What would be considered as offensive odor. The specification states “ one that slight storage odor and offensive odor and was good was scored as 4”. This statement is contradicting. If the odor is offensive, how is it considered slight and good. The ranking has no meaning when there is no quantifying parameters attached to it. The showing in table 1 does not demonstrate unexpected result because it is not known the difference between 3 and 2 for sodium malate versus sodium citrate and sodium tartrate. There is no number assigned for examples 5,6 at 3 weeks. It’s unclear what the absence of number means. The data in table 2 is also inconclusive. Examples 8, ,12 have lower numbers than other examples but the amounts sodium tartrate and sodium citrate are within the claimed ranges. The assignment of numbers for texture and flavor has the same problem as for the odor. There is no objective measurement. The numbers do not have defined meaning. It is not clear what would be considered as “ equivalent one, rather inferior but good, inferior but substantially acceptable, inferior and greatly inferior”. It not understood what the data in table 3 aims to show because all the examples show similar results. It’s not clear what the significance is between 5, 4. Without objective measurement, they can be just the same.
Furthermore, the showing in the specification is not against the prior art because Yajima clearly discloses the addition of sodium citrate and sodium tartrate.
With respect to the rejection over Doud. Applicant argues nothing in Doud teaches or suggest its pasta would include kansui or relate to a kind of noodle that would contain kansui and nothing in Doud teaches or suggests its pasta relating to raw Chinese noodles. This argument is not persuasive. A reference is added to address the limitation on Kansui. Doud discloses noodle which readable upon the claimed Chinese noodle because there is no parameter defining Chinese noodle. A new reference is added to address the limitation on the pH. Applicant argues unexpected result which is not persuasive as explained above.
Applicant submits an affidavit in support of the rejection. The affidavit is not persuasive. The affidavit does not have any objective data to compare the claimed product against the prior art product. Page 2 explains how the numbers are assigned but the description assigned to the numbers is still subjective evaluation. There is no showing of objective measurement of no irritant, only a slight storage odor, storage odor but still acceptable, storage odor inferior, and greatly inferior. There is no showing of how such assigning is evaluated. What criteria is used. Some odor that is considered offensive to one is not necessarily the same to other. The same problem is noted for the number evaluation on page 3. Page 3 states that the evaluation is carried out by trained panelists. Even if the evaluation is carried out by trained panelists, the evaluation is still subjective and is not a reliable indicator on properties. The affidavit states the evaluation is highly accurate; however, this statement is a conclusion that is not supported by factual evidence. Furthermore, there is no test data comparing against the prior art which discloses the combination of ingredients claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
January 20, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793