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 8/19/25. Claims 1,3,4,9,11,14,15 are amended and claim 2 is cancelled. Claims 1, 3-19 are pending.
The previous 112 second paragraph and 102 rejections are withdrawn due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,3-17,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang ( 5989620) in view of Mazoyer( WO 2019/183377).
For claim 1, Wang discloses a food product comprising pulse flour and water. The pulse flour includes chickpea, lentil etc.. The food product is gluten free. (see col. 2 lines 15-30, col 3 lines 10-20)
For claim 6, Wang discloses the pulse flour has particle sizes ranging from 60 to 325 mesh. ( see col. 3 lines 14-15. 325 mesh is 44 microns which would encompass the claimed about 40 micron because about 40 can be a little larger than 40 microns.
For claim 8, Wang discloses the food product is made from pulse flour without other flour which means the flour can be 100% pulse flour which encompasses the claimed over 90%. ( see the examples)
For claim 9, Wang discloses optional pasta ingredients can be added. For instance .1 to 1% sodium bicarbonate ( see col. 3 lines 30-35). The claimed range includes 0-5%.
For claim 12, Wang discloses the food product is a pasta. ( see col. 3 lines 30-35)
For claim 14, Wang discloses a method of making the food product by mixing pulse flour, water and optional ingredient including a binder. The product is gluten free. ( see col. 2 lines 15-30, col. 3 lines 30-40
For claim 17, Wang discloses the food product is a pasta. ( see col. 3 lines 30-35)
Wang does not disclose the binder is a seaweed as in claims 1,3-5, 14-15,the seaweed powder characteristic as in claim 7, the amount of seaweed powder as in claims 8, 16, the characteristic as in claim 11, the formula as in claims 13, 19.
Mazoyer discloses a seaweed powder having improved functionality as well as largely possessing nutritional and health benefits. The seaweed can be chosen from the family Laminaria, kelp, brown algae.. The seaweed particles have D50 of at least 20 microns. The seaweed powder increases cohesiveness of products. The powder is gluten free and is not chemically modified. All parts of the seaweed including holdfasts, stem and leaves can be used. The powder can be used in a large variety of food compositions including noodles, pasta etc.. ( see paragraphs 0011,0020,0026,0028,0031,0041,0053,0073,0112)
Wang discloses to add a binder such as hydroxypropylmethylcellulose in amount of .1-3% to reduce disintegration of the pasta. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the hydroxyjpropylmethycellulose of Wang with the seaweed powder of Mazoyer to serve the function of binder with the added benefits of health and nutritional enhancement and the use of natural ingredient instead of a chemical agent. Mazoyer discloses the seaweed enhances the cohesiveness of food products. This indicates the powder has binding capability. Mazoyer also discloses the powder can be used in pasta and is gluten free. Thus, its use in the Wang pasta is totally compatible. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the seaweed powder to obtained the additional health benefits and still retaining the binding function. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the guideline of Wang for the amount of binder when seaweed powder is used for the same function and to adjust as needed. Such parameter would have been within the skill of one in the art through routine experimentation. Mazoyer discloses the seaweed particles can have particle sizes of at least 20 microns. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the seaweed powder to be the same particle size as the pulse flour to obtain uniform mixing of the ingredients. When seaweed powder is used as binder, the food product of Wang is free of chemical ingredient. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amount of water and pulse depending on the product and the taste, texture and flavor desired. Such parameter can readily be determined by one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. Since the pulse flour, binder and water are mixed to form a dough, the food product is in a form of bound mass.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Mazoyer as applied to claims 1, 3-17,19 above, and further in view of Akashi (5989617) .
Wang does not disclose the step as in claim 18.
Akashi discloses a method for producing noodles. Akashi teaches to form sheet, cutting into strands and cooking. ( see col. 14 lines 27-38)
Wang discloses forming by extrusion. However, forming noodles which is a pasta by sheeting, cutting and cooking is known in the art as shown by Akashi. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the steps disclosed in Akashi as using known alternative technique to carry out the same process of producing pasta. Such selection would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant argues that Mazoyer teaches it seaweed-base powder is produced by extrusion of a biomass containing seaweed and water with the exudated biomass containing an exudated seaweed. Applicant argues that the skilled artisan understands the exudated seaweed is seaweed extract in which fluid within the seaweed is release. This argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s characterization of the Mazoyer as being an extrusion is incorrect. There is no disclosure of extrusion in the preparation of the seaweed powder in Mazoyer. Mazoyer discloses in paragraph 0070 to subject the biomass to an exudation process to exude the water. Exudation to exude the water is not the same as an extrusion which require equipment like an extruder. Removing of water does not indicate that the seaweed is an extract. Applicant’s comment about the Kim reference is also incorrect. Kim makes a clear distinction between seaweed powder and seaweed extract. Kim states “ The seaweed powder is obtained by washing seaweeds with purified water, drying at 40-50 deg C for 5-7 hours and grinding. The seaweed extract is obtained by extracting the above dried seaweed with a solvent at 50-90 degrees for 1-7 hours, concentrating under reduced pressure and drying” Kim discloses seaweed powder or seaweed extract can be used. To obtain an extract requires extracting with a solvent. There is no disclosure of extracting the seaweed with solvent in the Mazoyer process. There is no disclosure of using seaweed extract in Mazoyer. It’s applicant’s own conclusion without factual evidence.
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.
October 8, 2025
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793