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 3/13/26. Claims 1,5,25-26 are amended. Claims 1-2,4-18, 25-30 are pending.
The previous 112 second paragraph rejection is withdrawn due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-2,4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 2007-215401 in view of Yamauchi ( jp 2012055324) and Frohberg ( WO 2007/009823).
For claims 1, 2,5, Jp401 discloses a composition comprising a pregelatinized rice flour in amount of 8-20%, ungelatinized rice flour, and a thickener polysaccharide. The ungelatinized rice flour is considered to be the same as the claimed beta rice flour in claim 4 because the starch is not gelatinized. The powder does not contain gluten which meet the limitation of claim 6. The thickener polysaccharide includes gums such as xanthan gum, pectin, guar gum and the like ( see paragraphs 0008,0016)
Jp401 does not disclose the positive peak and the type of polysaccharide as in claim 1 and the negative peak as in claim 2.
Yamauchi discloses an artificial rice. Yamauchi teaches to measure the hardness and stickness of the rice grain using a texture analyzer. The positive value measures the hardness of the rice and the negative value measures the stickiness of the rice. ( see page 11 first paragraph)
Frohberg teaches to measure the quality of rice grains. Frohberg discloses the quality of grain can be determined by measuring the grain hardness and the stickiness of the grains after cooking. The measurement is done on a texture analyzer. A high negative value means a higher stickiness than a lower negative value. Preferably, the rice grains have a stickiness of -10 to -200g. ( see page 11)
It’s known in the art to measure the characteristics of cooked rice grains to determine its quality as shown in Yamauchi and Frohberg. Since pregelatinized rice flour is obtained from rice grains, it would have been equally applicable to measure the quality of the rice flour to determine its properties before use. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to measure the stickiness and hardness to the pregelatinzed rice flour in the Jp401 to ensure that the flour has sufficient hardness and stickiness to be used in the production of the intended products such as noodle, breads etc.. The negative and positive values can vary depending on the stickiness and hardness wanted in the flour. One of ordinary skill in the art can determine the optimum value depending on the intended use of the flour through routine experimentation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use other equivalent gum as the thickening polysaccharide. All the claimed polysaccharide is well known thickening agent. As to how the positive and negative values are measured, they are processing parameters which do not determine the patentability of the product and are not given patentable weight in the determination of the product.
Claim(s) 7-18, 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 2007-215401 in view of Yamauchi ( jp2012055324) and Frohberg ( WO 2007;009823) as applied to claims 1-6 above, and further in view of Jp 2006-166724).
Jp 401 discloses the composition comprising the same ingredients and with the pregelatinized rice flour in amount falling within the range claimed. Jp401 does not disclose an outer skin as in claims 7-12, filling-wrapping food comprising inside ingredient and outer skin as in claims 13-18, and method for producing outer skin as in claims 25-30.
Jp 724 discloses noodles or noodle dough sheets comprising thickener polysaccharide and rice powder. Jp 724 discloses mixing the ingredients to form mixture, kneading the mixture and rolling the kneaded material to form strips. The noodle strip can be used through a die cutting machine to obtain noodle skin for gaoza. The wrapping sheet for meat and vegetable dumplings. ( see paragraphs “ solution”,0017-0018,0020,0026)
As shown in Jp724, dough used to form noodle strip can also be used to form noodle skin or wrapping sheet for dumpling. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form wrapping sheet to make fill-wrapping food, outer skin and rolled product as an obvious matter of preference of forming different types of product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the roll-forming step to form strip and to use the strip to form outer skin as taught in Jp 724.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant submits an affidavit as argument to define over the prior art. The argument based on the affidavit is not persuasive because the affidavit is not convincing. The affidavit states that examples 3,4, 2,5 described in Yamauchi show significant differences in hardness and stickiness using a texture analyzer, while their quality test result show no difference. The affidavit concludes that Yamauchi’s disclosure indicates that it’s clear that the characteristics measured using a texture analyzer do not necessarily determine the quality of rice flour. It’s unclear how the affidavit reaches this conclusion. The affidavit submits a translation of the Yamauchi references and points to examples 3,4,2,5. The testing shown in table 3 of the translation is a subjective evaluation; thus, it cannot be concluded with absolute certainty of quality. Furthermore, such conclusion is not relevant to the position taken. The Yamauchi reference is not used to show a correlation between the texture and quality such as good, fair or fail. Taste is a subjective evaluation. The reference is used to show that quality such as stickiness and hardness can be measured in a cereal product. It would have been within the determination of one skilled in the art to measure such texture and to determine its optimum value for the use of the ingredient in certain product based on the measurements. For example, if stickiness is a quality desired in the making of noodles, it would have been within routine experimentation to measure the stickiness of different flours and use the one with the desirable value. Applicant is not inventing a flour with certain value of stickiness and hardness, applicant is using known testing parameters to test flours having certain values and using that flour. Such testing is well within the skill of one in the art in view of the teaching of Yamauchi. The affidavit makes the same argument with respect to the Froberg reference. The argument is not persuasive for the same reason as with Yamauchi. Furthermore, there is no limitation in the claim correlating the value of the positive peak and negative peak to any properties. The claims only recite a testing parameter that is known in the art. Even if one is not aware of any correlation, it would still have been obvious to measure the stickiness and hardness if one wants a certain hardness and stickiness in the flour that is used in the preparation of the food. The affidavit points to examples 1-7 and table 4. The results in table 4 shown properties that are not claimed. Thus, they are not limitations requiring consideration. Furthermore, the results are not beyond the realm of experimental testing. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to test the hardness and stickiness of the flour to be used to determine the most optimum values for the product made, especially if such textural testing is known in the art.
In the response, applicant questions the reasonable expectation of success and motivation of the modification. There is no question on reasonable expectation of success because testing of the textural characteristics of cereal product is known as shown in Yamauchi and Froberg. As to motivation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to measure the stickiness and hardness to the pregelatinzed rice flour in the Jp401 to ensure that the flour has sufficient hardness and stickiness to be used in the production of the intended products such as noodle, breads etc.. The negative and positive values can vary depending on the stickiness and hardness wanted in the flour. One of ordinary skill in the art can determine the optimum value depending on the intended use of the flour through routine experimentation.
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.
April 23, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights