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 10/17/25. Claims 1,3-6,8,10-18 are amended. Claims 1-8,10-18 are pending.
The previous 112 second paragraph and 103 rejections are withdrawn due to the amendment. A new ground of rejection follows.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is vague and indefinite. The claim recites the step of emulsifying an oil and/or fat composition together with a thickening polysaccharide to obtain an emulsion product with a water content of 78.8 to 99.8% by mass. However, the step does not recite any inclusion of liquid or water. It’s unclear what is intended by emulsion having such water content where no water is included in the step. In the preamble, the recitation of “ the emulsion product” does not have proper antecedent basis.
Claim 15 has the same problem as claim 11.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claims 11-14 be found allowable, claims 15-18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1,3-6,8,10-11, 13-15,17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 5767017 in view of Fujii ( TW 201633929).
For claims 1,8 Jp017 disclose a noodles loosening improver. The improver comprises fat and oil, emulsifier and thickening polysaccharide. The fat/oi, emulsifier and thickener are dissolved in 100 parts aqueous medium. The amount of thickener is .5-30 parts, fat/oil as .05-5 parts and .05-7 parts emulsifier. The amounts of aqueous medium can range from 30-100 parts. The aqueous medium is water. ( see pages 2,3,5)
For claims 3,4,13,17, the emulsifier acid fatty acid ester, glycerin lactic acid fatty, sorbitan fatty acid ester etc.. ( see pages 2-3)
For claims 6,14,,18 the thickener is added in .5-30 parts. ( see pages 2-3)
For claim 10, Jp 017 discloses starch-containing foods comprising the loosening improver. The loosening improver is attached to the surface of the starch-containing foods. ( see pages 2,5)
For claims 11,15 Jp 017 discloses a method for improving loosening property of starch-containing food comprising the steps of emulsifying a solution containing water, thickener, fat, oil and emulsifier to obtain an emulsified solution. Attaching the emulsified solution to the surface of the starch-containing food. The amount of water ranges from 30-100 parts. ( see pages 3, 5)
Jp 017 does not disclose the viscosity as in claim 1, the proportion as in claims 4,13,17 and the thickener as in claims 5,14,18
Fujii discloses a solution for separation improvement agent comprising hemicellulose and polysaccharides chosen from locust bean gum, xanthan gum, tara gum etc.. The solution has a viscosity in the range of 100-2000mPa/s when added or sued for surface treatment. The amount of viscosity modifier to be added is in the range of .001-30%. ( see abstract, page 4 second paragraph)
Both Jp 017 and Fujii are directed to separation improvement agent for starch-containing containing thickening polysaccharide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use xanthan gum as an obvious matter of using an alternative ingredient to carry out the same function of thickening. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to follow the guideline of Fuiji for the viscosity and to optimize depending on the degree of fluidity desired in the emulsion. Such parameter can readily be determined by one skilled in the art. Jp017 discloses emulsifier including monoglyceride fatty acid ester, propylene glycol fatty acid ester, sorbitan fatty acid ester etc.. The emulsifier is included in amount .05-7. The amount recited in claim 4 can be at minimum of .05% ( 10% time .5, the emulsifier is 10% of the amount of emulsifier of .5-80% in the fat composition) to maximum of 48% ( 60% time 80%). The other emulsifier in claim 4 include 0 because the range is 0-40. In any event, Jp017 discloses different emulsifiers can be used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mixture of different emulsifiers as an obvious matter of preference.
Claim(s) 2,12,16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 5767017 in view of Fujii (TW 201633929) as applied to claims1,3-6,8,10-11, 13-15,17-18 above, and further in view of Ando ( JP 2019010020)
For claims 2,12,16, Jp 017 discloses the fat/oil component of the loosening composition is .05-5 and the emulsifier is in the range of .05-7. Thus, the content of fat/oil in the oil/emulsifier composition can be 50% ( .05/.05+.05) , 41% ( 5/5+7) or maximum of 99% ( 5/.05+5). The content of emulsifier can be 50 ( .05/.05+.05), 58% ( 7/5+7). The amounts fall within the claimed ranges.
Jp 017 does not disclose the HLB of the emulsifier.
Ando discloses fat composition that can suppress binding of food. Ando discloses emulsifier having HLB from 3-10 to provide optimum emulsifiability in water. ( see page 3)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use emulsifier having HLB as disclosed in Ando to facilitate emulsification of the emulsifier in water.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jp 5767017 in view of Fujii ( TW 201633939) as applied to claims 1,3-6,8,10-11,13-15,17-18 above, and further in view of Okada ( Jp 2019141006).
Jp017 does not disclose the amount of fatty acid having 8-10 carbon and amount of unsaturated fatty acid as in claim 7.
Okada disclose loosening agent for noodle. Okada discloses the oil/fat component comprises 35-100% medium chain fatty acid having 6-10 carbon atom. Okada teaches that the use of the medium chain fatty acid improves the dispersibility in aqueous solution. ( see abstract and section under heading oil and fat)
Jp017 discloses glycerides of fatty acids having 6-24 carbon atoms can be used. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use glycerides with medium chain fatty acids as taught in Okada to obtain the benefit of facilitating dispersibility. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to follow the guideline of Okada for the amount and to optimize depending on the property desired. Jp017 also discloses glycerides with double bonds which are unsaturated fatty acids. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use more unsaturated fatty acid as it’s known such fat is healthier. It would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the amount depending on the nutrition desired. Such parameter can readily be determined through routine experimentation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8,10-18 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 25, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights