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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1 and 4-10 are pending in the application. Claims 7-10 are withdrawn. Claims 2-3 are cancelled.
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 filed 29 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, applicant argues that the technical premise of Nukina (which applicant refers to as “D2” in their remarks) is different from that of claim 1. This argument is not found to be persuasive because Nukina is merely relied upon to teach the claimed amount of alginic acid. Nukina would be considered analogous art because the reference is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor (i.e, a noodle). Therefore Nukina may be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Further, Nukina provides ample motivation to combine with Kanamori because the reference teaches alginic acid, in the claimed amount, exhibits a thickening effect that is excellent in noodle-making properties and yield a dough with a good noodle texture. Therefore, applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Next, applicant argues that Villagran (which applicant refers to as “D3” in their remarks) relates not to a method for manufacturing noodles but to a snack prepared by drying potato in oil and as a result the technical field of D3 is different than that of claim 1. Aa discussed above, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Villagran is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, specifically the use of the potato fiber for the structure of the dough. Regardless, Villagran has ample motivation to combine by teaching the claimed amount of potato fiber as well as the inclusion of this potato fiber advantageously makes the dough easy to deform or alter to the desired shape. Thus, applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Next, applicant argues that that starch be includes in an amount of 10 to 10% by weight based on the total weight. Applicant argues this specific range provided a noodle that exhibited appropriate viscoelasticity and excellent mouthfeel and points to paragraph [0048] of the specification. This paragraph does not provide data that clearly shows that this range provides this superior or unexpected results. See MPEP 716.02(b) he 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) (Mere conclusions in appellants’ brief that the claimed polymer had an unexpectedly increased impact strength "are not entitled to the weight of conclusions accompanying the evidence, either in the specification or in a declaration."); Thus applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
Continuing, applicant argues that Kannamori (referred to as “D1” in applicant’s remarks) discloses a starch content of the noodle of 30% or less. This argument is not found to be persuasive because the range taught by Kannamori encompasses the entire range taught in the claim. 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). Thus, applicant’s argument is not found to be persuasive.
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 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
Prosecution Insights