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 response to amendment filed on 4/22/26. Claim 1 is amended. 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. Applicant contends that even if the antibacterial materials were limited to just the natural antibacterial acids and the salts thereof, the listed antibacterial materials include 12 acids and four salts. This argument is not persuasive. 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. Even if there are 12 acids disclosed, the use of citric acid and tartaric acids and their salts are explicitly disclosed. Thus, one skilled in the art would have readily selected sodium tartrate and sodium citrate because they are disclosed as choices. Applicant argues one would have to conduct undue experimentation of each every combination to reach the claimed combination. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The experimentation is not undue if the choices are clearly disclosed. 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 argues Kurogawa is silent with respect to both sodium tartrate and sodium citrate. The Kurogawa is not relied upon for teaching of sodium tartrate and sodium citrate. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Applicant states sensory evaluation by an expert panel is a common and accepted method in the field of food science for objectively evaluating food. Even if sensory evaluation is known, it does not mean the showing is persuasive. Furthermore, the showing in the specification is not against the prior art because Yajima clearly discloses the addition of sodium citrate and sodium tartrate.
Applicant refers to the declaration filed Nov. 17, 2025. The declaration was already considered and not found persuasive. Applicant further attaches an affidavit from application 15/026501. The purpose for the affidavit is not understood. The prosecution of 15/026501 is separate from the instant application. The affidavit will not be evaluated because it’s not related to the current application.
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 having a pH of 8 to 11 and sodium tartrate. This argument is not persuasive. References are used to address each of the limitation pointed out by applicant. Doud discloses noodle which readable upon the claimed Chinese noodle because there is no parameter defining Chinese noodle. While applicant argues that Yajima, Fujita and Kurogawa do not remedy the deficiencies of Doud, applicant does not present any specific argument directed to the combination. The use of the Yajima reference as secondary teaching of kansui in the rejection over Doud is different from the rejection over Yajima as the primary reference. Applicant argues unexpected result which is not persuasive as explained above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
July 1, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights