DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 20 March 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, and 4-10 are pending in the application. Claims 7-10 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanamori et al. (herein referred to as Kanamori, US 20100028520 A1) in view of Nukina et al. (herein referred to as Nukina, JP 2017104021 A) and Villagran et al. (herein referred to as Villagran WO 2003003851 A1)
With regard to Claim 1, Kanamori teaches noodles and noodle skins having high quality of taste, into which a large amount of a soybean protein composition are incorporated ([0008]). Kanamori teaches the composition comprises a vegetable protein of 25% by weight or more in a solid content ([0009]). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Kanamori teaches the composition comprises starch at an amount of 30% or less in a solid content ([0023], [0026]).
However, Kanamori is silent to the composition comprising alginic acid.
Nukina teaches noodle dough and method for manufacturing noodles ([0001]). Nukina teaches the noodles contain thickening polysaccharides such as alginic acid that exhibit a thickening effect that is excellent in noodle-making properties and yields a dough with a good noodle texture ([0014]). Nukina teaches the content of the thickening polysaccharide is 0.1 to 1.0% by mass, based on the total mass of the dough ([0008]). See MPEP 2144.05(I) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kanamori to include alginic acid in the amount as taught by Nukina to exhibit a thickening effect that is excellent in noodle-making properties and yield a dough with a good noodle texture.
Lastly, Kanamori is silent to the composition comprising fiber.
Villagran teaches a dough that comprised potato fiber (abstract). Villgran teaches the dough comprises potato fiber in an amount of 0.1 % to about 4% (page 4, “1. Added Potato Fiber”). Villagran teaches the dough compositions comprising added potato fiber exhibit a lower sheet strength in comparison to doughs of the same composition made without the addition of potato fiber. Doughs comprising added potato fiber show very low levels of elasticity, which indicates that the shape of the dough can be more easily deformed or altered to the desired shape (page 9).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kannamori to include potato fiber as taught by Villagran to make the dough easy to deform or alter to the desired shape.
With regard to Claim 4, Kannamori teaches the vegetable protein is a bean protein ([0010], soybean).
With regard to Claim 5, Kannamori teaches the bean is Glycine Max ([0010], Glycine Max is scientific name for soybeans).
With regard to Claim 6, Kannamori teaches the bean protein is bean powder or bean milk ([0003]soybean powder, soybean milk, soybean milk powder)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 4-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Doud is silent to the adjustment of the vegetable protein content to achieve the excellent texture and mouthfeel. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. In this case, Kannamori is relied upon to teach the claimed protein content. Kannamori teaches a protein content of 25% or more (Kannamori, [0009]) which one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize is equivalent to 25%-100%. This range thus encompasses the claimed range. Applicant argues that experimental example 1 in applicant specification demonstrates the best texture and mouth feel. Applicant argues that the vegetable protein content is 50 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of purified water which is an approximate protein content of 91% by weight. First, the examiner points to MPEP 716.02(d)(II) which states to establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). In this case, experimental example 1 does not compare a sufficient number of tests and merely shows one example and therefore cannot be considered to show criticality. In addition, it is unclear to the examiner based on the parts provided in experimental example 1 how the applicant is calculating is an approximate protein content of 91% by weight. The examiner would like to highlight MPEP 716.02(b)(II) which states "[A]ppellants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness." Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) In this case the data is also not sufficiently explained or shown to make it clear that experimental example 1 contains protein in the amount limited in claim 1. Per MPEP 716.02(b)(I) The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." Ex parte Gelles, 22 USPQ2d 1318, 1319 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). In conclusion the results cannot be considered significant or unexpected because the applicant thoroughly explain and make clear the evidence of non-obviousness and there is not a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show significant or unexpected results.
Applicant argues because the composition taught by Doud contains gluten and does not teach alginic acid than the mechanism of physical property formation of the noodles is fundamentally different. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
In addition, applicants argument with regard to Okamoto and the use of alginic acid is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. Nukina is now relied upon to teach alginic acid in the amount claimed.
Applicants arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARLA I DIVIESTI whose telephone number is (571)270-0787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (MST).
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 at (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 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.
/K.I.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1792
/ERIK KASHNIKOW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792